"Explain this:"
I don’t know what kind of explanation you are expecting. Your source seems to have found a few obscure ancient exceptions to that rule from the art world that have been archived. You seem to be trying to promote (exploit) that to a level that accuses all Muslims of being hypocritical; as if it were a common and accepted tradition that has been going on for centuries. I can tell you that these ancient artifacts are relatively unknown in the mainstream of Islam. I noticed that in many, the face of Mohammad was hidden.
I can tell you that fundamental Muslims do not let their children play with dolls that have faces, make clay statues, or even hang pictures of relatives on the wall. However moderate Muslims are likely to keep photo albums and create art that has people with faces. Obviously there are some contradictions within the culture of Muslims. The King of Saudi Arabia has his face on money and all over the place on signs, posters, news papers etc, while within Saudi the fundamental practices forbidding images are taught. People go on TV all the time and have Drivers licenses and other forms of ID.
You seem to be suggesting that the majority of complaints about the creation of Mohammad’s images are hypocritical, false, or based on ulterior motives.
I would agree that the radicals have ulterior motives and have entangled a genuine issue (the portrayal of an image of Mohammad) with the general fear and loathing that already exists. They have exploited it to fuel their radical agendas. Foreign moderates are not speaking up against them because they are seeing an extremely unfair attack on Islam by Westerners, such as your self, also being attached to this issue.
People don’t really have a clear and sensible picture of the core issue (and I am not sure anyone really wants that), so they are rallying behind flags and spokes persons who on all sides are exploiting the issues to facilitate their own agendas, fears, and hates.
In any event, the tangential issues are the news of the day and so have become a very real aspect of our circumstance. I was simply trying to shed some light on the foundational issues, practical or not.
"I'd say the objection is to burning embassies (which the host country has a duty under international law to protect), rioting against westerners, calls for economic boycotts, and killing westerners."
An example of tangential events that are being exploited by all sides.
"MY objection is an apparent assumption by Muslims that they have a right to dictate the contents of the Western press. As far as I am concerned, we go to war before that happens. You yourself have extolled freedom, so how can you object to this?"
Would you mind showing me where I have objected to something, other than political exploitation?
"But it is the duty of the moderate Muslims to call them on it."
At the moment no one speaking in a rational tone can be heard above the saber rattling.
"But western religions- -all of them- -are commonly the butt of jokes and far worse...They are filth, were treated as such, and richly deserve their punishment.
"
Right, bigoted and cruel jokes are harmful and encourage far worse conduct that is abhorant. Was that your point? |
