Western Resistance

« Palestinian Abomination: Hamas Plans to Visit Latin American Countries | | UK: Scottish Feminist Attacks Islamic Tyranny »

February 4, 2006

Images Offensive To Islam: What Is Acceptable To Muslims?

The reproduction of some fairly tame images of Mohammed have been seized upon by extremists across the Muslim and the Western world, even though, as we described earlier, the issue was inflamed by a Danish cleric's disinformation campaign. Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban took additional pictures to the Middle East, which were highly insulting to Muslims but had never been printed in a Danish newspaper, and were of dubious provenance.

The super-charged hysteria has today caused both the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Damascus, Syria to be set alight by Islamist protesters, states CNN.

The New Zealand Herald reports that two papers from New Zealand, the Wellington Dominion Post and Christchurch The Press, have printed the pictures, but have now been under fire from local Muslim "leaders".

The Independent, a paper with a strong Muslim bias, described how today there were protests outside the Danish Embassy in Knightsbridge, London, a rerun of yesterday's shocking displays. They say a protester posing as a suicide bomber joined the throng, and afterwards two men were arrested "after police found leaflets, including cartoons of the prophet Mohamed".

In Denmark, people protested in Copenhagen's City Hall Square, and 150 were arrested across the nation, and in Turkey Islamist leader Recep Tayep Erdogan has condemned the cartoons, and protesters in Istanbul burned a Danish flag.

In Nablus in the West Bank, anti-Danish slogans were chanted by protesters, and in Nazareth there were similar demonstrations.

In Indonesia, a Danish flag was burned by Islamofascists from the Front Pembela Islam, or the Islamic Defenders Front (picture here), who regularly use violence to attack and intimidate Christians. The same group protested outside the Danish Embassy in Jakarta yesterday, according to Voice of America, where about 70 members threw eggs at the building.

In Iran, Islamist leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that he would be withdrawing from trade with nations which have published the newspapers, states KUNA.

So we are not allowed to portray the prophet? The punishment for insulting the prophet was death, as practiced during his lifetime, states the extremist group Al-Ghurabaa, which has printed on its website an article entitled charmingly Kill those who insult the prophet.

At the time of the Messenger Muhammad there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah.

Ka'ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad saw) by his words, Abu Raafi' was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the( prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi' al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad.

The image at right is a 14th century Persian miniature, depicting the angel Gabriel (winged) speaking with Mohammed, who is depicted in a relaxed pose. This and other examples of traditional Muslim imagery showing the Prophet Mohammed, can be found at Zombietime. These images make me wary of the mad hysterics being displayed at the present time.

So it is an offence to depict Mohammed if one is a Westerner, but not an offence if one is a devotional Muslim? It seems that the reaction to the Jyllands-Posten has now taken on a new dimension, and is becoming an excuse to vilify the west. Though some extremists in the Muslim world are encouraging others to be burning flags, effigies and embassies, it seems that the majority of decent peaceful Muslims are confused at what is being said. If one is a Muslim in America, the mainstream national press and TV have been reluctant to display the images.

So US non-Muslims and Muslims alike are not being shown what the fuss was about, to decide for themselves. Cigar-sucking and dress-staining Bill Clinton has condemned the Jyllands Posten paper for commissioning the images. The Jyllands-Posten cartoons are gentle compared to the additional three crude and hateful examples which Danish cleric Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban displayed to Middle Eastern clerics.

So if death is invoked for "insulting the prophet", then perhaps artists who wish to stay alive should be focusing their talents on other examples of Islamist danger, such as clerical figures. And who else better to send up than the insidious and evil kidnapper and mass-murderer, the late Ayatollah Khomeini?

The picture below was done by a London artist associate, in 1985. The original was sold anonymously at a London auction in 1989, after the old bastard declared his fatwa against Salman Rushdie for producing "The Satanic Verses". The artist kindly gave me a print of a print of a print, a few years back. So in honour of an anonymous artist who was previously unable to publicly display this work for more than twenty years, for fear of being killed, here is his picture.

Because it is only truly offensive to depict the prophet, this picture should be totally acceptable to the rioters in Jakarta, Turkey, London and Denmark, should it not?

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at February 4, 2006 9:21 PM

Comments

Post a comment