If you follow the news even casually you are no doubt at least vaguely aware of the Muslim outcry over some Danish cartoons showing the so-called prophet Mohammed. If not, here are a couple easily found links:
There are many interesting dichotomies here. First off, these were originally published way back in September. Why is this a big deal now? Second, this is nothing new. Highly offensive depictions of religious leaders of various sects have been around for thousands, literally thousands of years. Mocking the gods of your opponents was an early form of psychological warfare. Using the general (and in my opinion highly inaccurate) label Christian, the Christian personages of divinity have long been the targets of highly offensive depictions and representations.
For instance, one piece of "art" with a title so offensive I refuse to even type it caused a controversy over public funding for art. It depicted an image (ironically, an image that under Jewish belief would be blasphemous in and of itself since it would be an idol) of what people falsely accept as a picture of Christ, it featured Him in a glass filled with urine.
****
Extra credit: I find all so-called "pictures of Jesus" highly offensive. First off, they almost universally depict Him with long hair...A direct contradiction of I Corinthians 11. That alone proves conclusively in my mind the pictures are blatantly false. Second, they are largely based on the ridiculous Shroud of Turin, an blatant piece of idolatry that violates a second of His laws. I can hardly perceive a just God depicting Himself as violating His own laws. End of Extra credit. ***
Now, it is no secret I believe there is a God, He is real, and He has rules. As such, I did find, do find, and forever will find that particular effort blasphemous and highly offensive...No less offensive than the train wreck The Last Temptation of Christ in which Jesus fantasizing about committing adultery.
I cannot adequately express how offensive those images are to me. But I never felt compelled to light an embassy on fire, threaten violence and reprisals against those responsible, nor did, do, or would I condone someone taking those tacts.
Wrong is wrong regardless of who does it or what their justification for it.
Now, the representation put forth by the world wide media in this case has been fascinating. First off, I have seen, including in the articles mentioned above, the first name of Islamic believers mentioned: "Extremist Islamics". No. Enough already. Just because someone does something outlandish does not mean they are an extremist.
Take, for instance, "semi-moderate: Sheikh Youseff Qaradawi calling for "a day of Muslim rage". Uhm....They had already burned Swedish, Norwegian and Danish embassies. How much more "rage" needs expressed? We get the point. You can't take the abuse "Christian" believers have been taking for decades.
And, much like the catholic church did as long as they had power, the Islamic religion IS a violent religion. Enough of these lies about it being a religion of peace. Look at these statements and tell me which ones are true:
1) Islam expanded more rapidly than any other empire in history under the "convert or die" banner.
2) The Koran commands Holy War against infidels.
3) Per Islamic law, land once conquered by believers belongs to Islam forever more, but land taken from them by war still belongs to Islam because kafirs cannot take Islamic land. (this, by the way, is one of their objections to Israel taking land in the war of '67...a war initiated, let me remind you, by Islamic people).
4) Under the Shariyah men have the right to beat their wives and, in certain cases, execute them. Offenses include mode of dress and certain aspects of attaining an education.
The answer is pretty simple. They are all true. Historically speaking, Islam was founded in blood, expanded by warfare, and continues to be a brutal religion when the true believers have the power.
Yet how are they presented in the media? As a religion of peace with a few "extremists" making the religion look bad. Applesauce. Islam, when true believers are in power, are exactly what we saw with the Taliban, Khomeini, etc.
That is the real reason to fear offending them with a picture. Unlike the "hateful, intolerant Christians" (a phrase that sadly, in cases where people selectively follow Scripture, conveniently ignoring the bans on things such as hatred, violence, alcohol, etc., bears some weight), an offended Islamist who believes has, per the Koran, the right, nay, the sacred duty to take violent vengeance on the offender.
Grow up. A picture might offend, but responding with violence to a picture, or a movie, or a song do not help people believe your point. They just breed even more people who do not understand religion and continue to turn their back on any god because the misdeeds of some false religions have colored their opinion of all.
And no, I did not hesitate to type false religions. According to Scripture, "the wisdom that comes from above is first pure, then peaceable" and that is all I need to hear to know a religious action based on violence can only be taken by someone who does not believe in the same God I do. It looks like it might be time for me to be a little more narrow minded about all the acceptance of offenses and start speaking out. I refuse to see the true God considered as being the same as people like Peepstone Joe (aka Joseph Smith), Mohammed, or Mary Baker Eddy. It just ain't so.
2 comments:
"Beyond that, they are very upset that the cartoons appeared to link the prophet to terrorism. They believe that the West is labeling all Arabs as terrorists after 9/11."
Ahhhh, and that would just be a terrible mischaracterization wouldn't it? The same way that characterizing politicians as crooked would be. (Sure, you know the honest ones exist. You might even meet some. But it is highly unlikely that they will ever accumulate a great deal of power or outnumber the dishonest ones.)
I read an article from Newsday that was talking about how this was more of a reaction to how Muslims were being treated in Europe than the cartoons themselves - it made some good points.
Post a Comment