Who says the French aren’t courageous? I question the soundness of Charlie Hebdo’s judgment, though. Painting a bullseye and poking a stick into the hornet’s nest, for predictable results:
PARIS — A French magazine published vulgar caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad on Wednesday, brandishing its right to free speech amid global tensions over a movie insulting to Islam.
In response, the French government ordered embassies and schools to close Friday in about 20 countries and tens of thousands marched in Lebanon in protest.
The move by the provocative weekly Charlie Hebdo followed days of violent protests from Asia to Africa against the film “Innocence of Muslims” and turned France into a potential target of Muslim rage. Up to now, American government sites have drawn the most ire since the film was produced privately there.
Violence linked to the amateurish movie, which portrays the prophet as a fraud, a womanizer and a child molester, has killed at least 30 people in seven countries, including the American ambassador to Libya.
The French government ordered its embassies and French schools abroad to close on Friday, the Muslim holy day, as a precautionary measure in about 20 countries. It immediately shut down the French Embassy and the French school in Tunisia, which saw deadly film-related protests at the U.S. Embassy there last week.
In the southern Lebanese port city of Tyre, tens of thousands of people marched through the streets Wednesday, chanting “Oh America, you are God’s enemy!”
Nasser Dheini, a 40-year-old farmer, said he was angry over the anti-Islam movie and the French caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.
“Freedom of opinion should not be by insulting religions,” Dheini said, carrying his son Sajed, 4, who was dressed in camouflage military uniform.
Because we here at FA are rather shameless and irreverent, here ya go, folks:
This isn’t the first time that the French magazine has provoked and awed:
Charlie Hebdo is no stranger to controversy over its handling of the issues relating to Islam.
Last year it published an edition “guest-edited” by the Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo. The magazine’s offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed in what was widely seen as a reaction by Islamists.
Charlie Hebdo‘s latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault issued a statement expressing his “disapproval of all excesses.”
The magazine’s editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time.
“The freedom of the press, is that a provocation?” he said.
“I’m not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn’t go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe.”
Dalil Boubakeur, the senior cleric at Paris’s biggest mosque, appealed for France’s Muslims to remain calm.
“It is with astonishment, sadness and concern that I have learned that this publication is risking increasing the current outrage across the Muslim world,” he said.
“I would appeal to them not to pour oil on the fire.”
Depicting Muhammad in art, even if rarely done, still has a long history in Islam. The belief that you can’t draw or depict Muhammad’s likeness because if you do, you are insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is somewhat of a recent, modern convention than a traditional one.
Washington Times, Feb 2006:
Muhammad has been portrayed in the work of revered Muslim artists and of such Western figures as William Blake, Auguste Rodin and Salvador Dali—as well as the creators of the cable-TV cartoon series “South Park.”
~~~ Many of the best-known Islamic portrayals of Muhammad are miniatures done in the 14th and 15th centuries by mystical Persian artists who argued that their small, imperfect efforts could never be taken for the actual prophet, and thus were not blasphemous.
The famous “Book of the Assumption of Muhammad,” thought to have been painted around 1436 in Herat, Afghanistan, shows Muhammad mounted on a human-headed horse being led by the Archangel Gabriel on a tour of Paradise and Hell. The original is in the collection of the French Bibliotheque Nationale.
Even more plentiful are miniatures showing scenes from the life of the prophet with his face and hands covered or his features purposely obscured.
Examples of respectful depictions by Muslims, where Muhammad’s face is blurred and obscurred; sometimes hidden in flames:
ZombieTime has an entire collection of Muhammad art, archived.
Not all Muslims in all Islamic cultures throughout the ages have felt the need to avoid drawing his face in full.
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
Check the Zombietime category, Islamic depictions of Muhammad in full.
.
More recently, the Great Satan itself, the United States of America, has an image of Muhammad that is not Muhammad appear on a bastion and symbol of the American justice system: On the Supreme Court North Wall Frieze:
Cass Gilbert (1867-1934), architect of the Supreme Court Building, selected Adolph A. Weinman (1870-1952), a respected and accomplished Beaux-Arts sculptor, to design the marble friezes for the Courtroom. Weinman’s training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building. Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court Building. Faithful to classical sources and drawing from many civilizations, Weinman designed a procession of “great lawgivers of history” for the south and north walls to portray the development of law. Each frieze in the Courtroom measures 40 feet long by 7 feet, 2 inches high and is made of ivory vein Spanish marble.
~~~Muhammad (c. 570 – 632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
Should Muslims draw offense at this when done by a non-Islamic society, not to disparage but to honor?
Wikipedia entry elaborates why Muhammad on the frieze is now Muhammad who is no longer Muhammad, but still Muhammad:
In 1997, a controversy erupted surrounding the frieze, and tourist materials have since been edited so they call the depiction “a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad” that “bears no resemblance to Muhammad.”[54] In 1955, a statue of Muhammad was removed from a courthouse in New York City after the ambassadors of Indonesia, Pakistan, and Egypt requested its removal.
The reason why Muhammad’s likeness is not to be depicted in art has to do with the fear of Muslims falling into the trap of idolatry; not in regards to his depiction by infidels as a result of harmless ignorance or due to intentional ridicule and caricature.
In my opinion, the irony is that all this outrage and obsessing over Muhammad drawings by even one person on the planet (especially by a non-Muslim) smacks of worship and idolatry on the part of the follower of Islam. If Muhammad is supposedly regarded by Muslims as a non-divinity, they have a funny way of expressing it when they are as outraged by insults to the Prophet Muhammad as they are with any mishandling or defilement of the Quran (regarded as the literal word of God in the original Arabic). Such defense elevates the status of Muhammad from human to divine being. He’s too holy to have his likeness captured in imitation that is called art.
Muhammad himself warned Muslims against exaggerating his importance:
Narrated ‘Umar: “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.'” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654.)
The issue of idolatry isn’t exclusive, of course, to just the Islamic faith. Its sister religions also warn against idolatry.
And it isn’t just Muhammad, but representations of any of the Prophets in Islam (such as Abraham and Jesus), as well as other holy figures (such as Mary, who is mentioned far more often in the Quran than in the New Testament) that is discouraged.
“Nothing in the Koran is as categorical as the condemnation of imagery in the Hebrew Bible” found in Exodus and Deuteronomy, said French art scholar Alexandre Papadopoulo in his massive 1979 survey, “Islam and Muslim Art.”
But Islamic art scholars say the prohibition against portraying Muhammad has hardened over the centuries, based on sayings attributed to the prophet, on the absence of figurative religious art in the earliest mosques and on interpretations by Muslim theologians.
“One should not represent any religious image because it would ridicule the figure of God, and it would be idolatrous to depict the faces of the prophets and saints of Islam, particularly in mosques, where they ran the risk of becoming objects of veneration or prayer,” Mr. Papadopoulo wrote.
Jesus is mentioned by name in the Quran more times than is Muhammad; Mary is mentioned more often in the Quran than she is in the New Testament. And it is Jesus- not Muhammad- who is foretold to return on Judgment Day, do battle with the anti-Christ, punish the enemies of Islam, and bring justice to the world.
What do Muslims around the world think of Christians and non-Christians alike depicting Jesus in ways holy and in ways profane? If it offends (as it should, if Muslims were consistent and not selective), then why not the rioting rage?
Muslims protesting holy images and disrespectful portrayals of Jesus aren’t completely unheard of, though. This was reported by the AP, pre-9/11:
Visual representation is made forbidden not in the Quran but found in a few hadiths and Islamic traditions; and moreso amongst Sunni than Shia Islam
“For the most part, Shi’ite Islam has no problem portraying the prophet Muhammad in a respectful manner,” he said. “Much Shi’ite art depicts the revered Imams Hussein, Ali and others.”
But, he said, “More conservative strains of Sunni Islam prohibit idolatry in any form, including, in some cases, prohibitions of showing the human form at all.”
In Sunni-majority Egypt, television serials recounting the founding days of Islam will not show Muhammad or any of his closest companions.
Wow. I feel like I’ve learned something here. I no longer feel backlash anger. I no longer feel like drawing disrespectful Muhammad cartoons just to give an “F-You!” shout out at those in Perpetual Outrage who riot and murder for daring to call Islam a violent religion; for daring to treat their faith with the same level of respect and contempt that Christianity and Judaism enjoy in the 21st century amongst a free, peaceful citizenry.
Is the feeling of offense really about religion?
I once was insolent and disrespectful toward Islam and the Prophet Muhammad- Peace be Upon Him. But now I understand.
See? Chip Bok was distorting CNN’s distortion to poke fun at CNN; not…er….at angry Muslims.
I can draw Muhammad respectfully by simply torching his face so as to not be tempted into idolatry of his earthly beauty, mistaking it for divinity. So I’ve taken my original depiction and obscured the questionable body part:
Kinda adds some class and dignity to my art now, doesn’t it? So much less offensive.
Check Wikipedia for more detailed historical accounts on this topic.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Good post
There was once a time when it was considered blasphemous the depict the god of the Old Testament—or even speak his name. In fact I’ve seen ultra-conservative blogs where writers still follow this convention by printing the name G#d, which I assume is intended to keep from committing a sin.
One cannot help but draw parallels between the modern push by the various Imams and clergy of Islam, and their subsequent actions and decrees, and the Inquisition, which went beyond conventional Church teachings to punish “faux” Christians.
In both cases, various people are/were elevated beyond reproach, by the religion itself, and the various rulers, in order to condemn certain peoples for blasphemous views and practices, that were subjective in practice, and in some/many cases, contradictory to the actual teachings contained within the religious, Holy texts.
Dare we call this the ‘Muslim Inquisition’?
Exactly correct.
And excellent that you used an ancient Christian malpractice of their religion for comparison.
The Bible states, ”Do not go beyond the things that are written.”
The context is about making being a follower of Christ more difficult for the newly baptized.
Most people forget that Islam supposedly accepts both the Hebrew AND the Greek scriptures (the bible).
So, technically, Muslims should follow the same admonition to not pile on their fellow worshipers.
But, as Wordsmith points out, the Sunnis (at least) do go well beyond what is written regarding depicting Mohammad.
And, this idolatry fear is not the only area where we see this.
*Women, for example, are supposed to dress ”modestly.”
But in Islam men debate whether even TWO eyes looking out of total body covers is too much!
Around 1979 Iran published news that ”a scientific study” had proven that all grown women’s hair emitted rays of such power as to excite all men who saw her hair.
Thus the mere headscarf (with hair showing all around the sides and front) was replaced by a cover that conceals every strand of hair.
*Both the Bible and koran touch on the sin of usury.
Defined usury is demanding too much interest on a loan.
Christians and Jews understand this and try to not demand too much interst on loans.
But in Islam, NO INTEREST is allowed.
Muslims go so far as to demand non-islamic banks make parallel arrangements for them that are ”sharia-compliant,”
There are enough excess payments in these arrangements that western banks go along with it.
*The Hebrew and Greek scriptures all teach that it is OK to drink alcohol if you do so in moderation.
The koran says simply not to be drunk when you go to worship.
Certainly the implication is that you may drink.
And historically Muslims are known for their ”loaf of bread, jug of WINE and thou,” poetry.
BUT, modern-day Muslims claim not only that they cannot drink AT ALL, but even go further saying they cannot touch the bottle you are carrying from the airport.
They cannot even use alcohol-based anti-bacterials to wash in before treating patients at hospitals.
How did they go so far beyond what was written?
Most Muslims can parrot the entire koran in ancient Arabic.
That is the main part of their schooling.
But fewer than 5% of Muslims on earth understand ancient Arabic.
So, they take the word of their imam.
Back in the 1970’s Elvis Costello wrote a song, Two Little Hitlers.
One couplet:
Two little Hitlers will fight it out until
One little Hitler does the other one’s will
Islam is full of little Hitlers.
By the time a man fights and claws his way to imam of a mosque he is a confirmed little Hitler.
Of course he wants HIS congregants to do HIS will.
That’s why we see the “Muslim Inquisition” as JohnGalt called it all over the Islamic world.
The reason some Jews, and even some Christians omit a letter writing “G-d” is because if you write out any name used to refer to G-d, there’s a risk you might then disrespect the name. Like if on paper and you then throw the paper into the trash. Or in electronic mediums, it scrolls off screen and gets “destroyed.” It’s about hallowing and sanctifying the name. Aloud we say “hashem” which is simply Hebrew for “the name.”
…Great article btw.
I learned in college when studying architecture that Muslims do not create an image of Mohammed. In fact, they do not adorn ANY of their buildings with images of people. That is their code, however, not ours.
That being said, though, why would anyone go out of their way to issue an insult to someone’s religion? Just to prove freedom of speech? That seems totally unnecessary unless there is some context for it… particularly if the response might be some lunatic murdering people or blowing up the place.
We Christians don’t appreciate seeing a cross dipped in urine or a statue of Christ smeared with fecal matter “for the sake of art” because it is neither art nor necessary. Though Christians have not gone out and murdered people for such stupidity, it should be enough not to insult people to such an extreme simply because one can. The same goes with Islam, unless there is some context to the depiction.
Muslims should not feel obligated to kill someone over a drawing (of course) yet people should at least respect the religious objections and not strive to issue such insults for no reason other than to prove it can be done. What a waste of life.
“…Unless there is some context…”-Bill (12/7/2014 @ 9:27 am)
Go ahead, and continue with your moral “Turn the other cheek” to the inherent insults of Islamic doctrine directed against every non-believer. Take your tolerance of muhammedan demands to conform to shariah standards, until you can no longer recognize your own culture and feel the urge to resist. Should you opt to resist, of course, temper it with your moral code of “not casting the first stone, even if it means laying your life on the line. Your conscience will thank you. Not mine. I’ve taken the time to read and comprehend the doctrine of Islam…and I listen to what each jiadi has said, which is remarkably consistent with their doctrine. Google CSPI, center for the study of political Islam, and look for the section “statistical Islam” to discover the overwhelming percentage of that doctrine addresses how to deal with non-believers. Then consider the dualism of Islam :
*****QUOTE *****”. . .dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith). . . .Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.”******END QUOTE
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6AA49466-2575-491F-B712-CEA90FCCCD0D
If the general public could just comprehend the dualism inherent in Islam, dialogue veiled by clever propagandists, it would reveal all the deception foisted upon them. Consider also this enlightening PSA by retired Maj. Stephen Coughlin Weaponized Terms Of Jihad.
@Wtd:
Did you happen to notice that I wrote a bit more than that line? Exactly where was my message of tolerance and cheek turning?
My point is that there is not reward to the risk taken by poking that stick into the Islamist cage, is there? The context is the message and what was the message behind Charlie Hebdo publishing insulting pictures of what is intended to be Muhammad? Particularly in a country where one is not allowed to own firearms (yet those, like terrorists, who do not respect laws WILL have them), why do it? If a person that has been throwing rocks at a gorilla in a cage at the zoo sudden falls into that cage and gets mauled, what was the point? Sure, the gorilla is wrong to maul the idiot (though, like Islamic terrorists, it is his nature), but why throw rocks at the gorilla in the first place?
Now, perhaps we have context. Perhaps the entire goal of Charlie Hebdo was to become martyrs themselves (I kind of doubt it, but bear with me). Perhaps they hoped that, now, the world would realize that they can proclaim the war over, they can bend over backwards and not call it “radical” or “Islamic” or “terrorism” and try and bow and placate and excuse and equivocate and rationalize until the cows come home, but radical extremist Islamic terrorists are going to keep coming until either they have swamped civilization with their head-up-the-ass ideology or they realize that the consequences of carrying out this campaign is far to painful, costly and expensive to bear.
Meanwhile, what’s wrong with a little respect and acceptance of the things that harm no one whenever possible?
Many Muslims are not tolerant of other opinions about Islam. Instead of trying to prove Islam is good, they start cursing and say, “well, the people with another opinion started it”. I don’t think the Prophet Muhammad did anything wrong. It’s just the muslims of today are horrible. They don’t have any religious tolerance.