Voice of the Reality-based Community in New Zealand
7 February 2006
Get out the chisels.
Michelle Malkin finds an image of Big Mo in an interesting place......the United States Supreme Court.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think it is fair to say that if THIS had been the only image published in Denmark the outcry from any part of the Muslim world would not have made page 10 above the fold.
I'm almost tired of this, but I'll try once more. ALL images of Muhammad are verboten. I'm regularly offended by lots of things I see in the press, but I don't go around calling for beheadings. All of that however is irrelevant, because the point is that you can no more forbid pictures of Big Mo than you can forbid exhibitions of piss soaked crucifixes or Mary images in a condom. Most religions have made some progress in their thinking since the 14th Century, most but not Islam.
Please, please, PLEASE! How is it that only those who want to defend the indefensible insist this is just about the underlying historical iconoclasm of the Muslims? Does anyone REALLY think that if this little image had been plastered all over the Danish press with a simple caption respectfully identifying it as a representation of Muhammad (PBUH) that there would have been more than a peep from under the odd tarboosh somewhere?
If the noble Mr Firmin cannot see the difference between Muhammad portrayed as a noble law giver and Muhammad lampooned as a grotesque assassin or monstrous misogynist, then why should the Muslims do so? Essentializing is the first refuge of the mindless.
3 comments:
I think it is fair to say that if THIS had been the only image published in Denmark the outcry from any part of the Muslim world would not have made page 10 above the fold.
But it wasn't was it?
I'm almost tired of this, but I'll try once more. ALL images of Muhammad are verboten. I'm regularly offended by lots of things I see in the press, but I don't go around calling for beheadings. All of that however is irrelevant, because the point is that you can no more forbid pictures of Big Mo than you can forbid exhibitions of piss soaked crucifixes or Mary images in a condom. Most religions have made some progress in their thinking since the 14th Century, most but not Islam.
Please, please, PLEASE! How is it that only those who want to defend the indefensible insist this is just about the underlying historical iconoclasm of the Muslims? Does anyone REALLY think that if this little image had been plastered all over the Danish press with a simple caption respectfully identifying it as a representation of Muhammad (PBUH) that there would have been more than a peep from under the odd tarboosh somewhere?
If the noble Mr Firmin cannot see the difference between Muhammad portrayed as a noble law giver and Muhammad lampooned as a grotesque assassin or monstrous misogynist, then why should the Muslims do so? Essentializing is the first refuge of the mindless.
Post a Comment