Monday, April 26, 2010
The Islamic ban on depictions of Muhammad is NOT because such depictions are offensive
"... depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats," writes Althouse: "In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything ..."
Sorry Ann, but your premise--that Muslims are somehow offended by the mere depiction of Muhammed--is WRONG. The Islamofascists like to pretend offense because they want excuses to threaten and commit murder, but the actual prohibition on depictions of Muhammad has nothing to do with offense. It is to avoid the risk of Muslims committing idolatry. Since infidels are at no risk of idolatrizing Muhammad, this concern does not apply to infidel art, a point that was made by one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists in 2005:
If Muhammad were to be depicted in an insulting manner, then there might be grounds for offense, but the only actually insulting Muhammad cartoons (the ones depicting Muhammad as a pig, a pedophile, and having sex with a dog) were the product of Islamic clerics, who used the images to better inflame the Islamic street to commit mass murder.
The only Jyllands-Posten depictions that were even critical of Muhammad were the turban-bomb Muhammad, the censor-rage Muhammad, and the afraid-to-draw-Muhammad Muhammad. Note that to take offense at these "don't call me 'violent' or I'll kill you" jokes is objectively irrational. To people who believe that Muhammad DID demand for death for insult, having Muhammad depicted as demanding death for insult is NOT INSULTING. It is what they actually believe.
According to the historical accounts that orthodox Islam holds to be accurate, Muhammad did demand death for insult (the basis of the Islamic death penalty for blasphemy). Maybe this is causing some confusion. Maybe Muslims who see Muhammad being depicted as murderous are assuming that the drawings were done by orthodox Muslims, and hence run the risk of idolatry. (That's a joke.)
What about Muslims who are insulted by the idea that Muhammad was violent, despite the orthodox belief that he was in fact violent? There are such Muslims. They are the reformers, and what they are offended by is orthodox Islam, not by cartoons that accurately depict orthodox Islamic beliefs about Muhammad, which is the worst that any infidel cartoonist has done.
For Althouse and Taranto to equate the gratuitous ugliness of Andres Serrano's Piss-Christ "art" to mild criticism of orthodox Islam's actual don't-call-me-violent-or-I'll-kill-you insanity to is, well, not as insane as orthodox Islam, but that isn't saying much.
In particular, the Muhammad drawings by Everybody Draw Muhammad Day founder Molly Norris are completely innocuous. Putting Muhammad's face on a coffee cup, a spool of thread, etcetera, she was intentionally trying to be as whimsical and non-insulting as possible, just as most of the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists were doing. This is what the New York Times and the rest of our Democrat media outlets hid when the censored the Danish cartoons: that the cartoons were not insulting.
It should have been clarified at that time that the actual basis of the Islamic ban on depictions of Muhammad is to avoid Idolatry and that mere depiction of Muhammad by infidels is not considered offensive under Islamic principles. Since the Danish cartoons were not insulting in their content, the whole outrage was a sham. Now Althouse and Taranto are perpetuating this fraud. Even to the Islamofascists, mere depiction of Muhammad is not an insult (much as they pretend otherwise). Piss-Christ IS an insult. The two should not be equated.
Because of the censoring of this debate, American's are now self-censoring all kinds of things that even Sharia law would not censor. The Islamic supremacists love to see this avidity of prostration. Their religion is not called "submission" for nothing. But any liberty-lover must be disgusted by this competition to see who can be the most submissive to totalitarian wishes.
Muslims have voiced no unfavorable feedback in the years that the site has existed.