Redstate

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Muslims opposed images of Mohammed for fear of idolatry:  the idea that if you put up pictures of him, next thing people will be worshipping him.  One of the clearest things about Islam is its insistence that there is but one God and anything that waters down that message is to be resisted (I know some Christian sects have a similar view of the Catholic treatment of Mary - that it treads too closely to worship).

Maybe there's more to the prohibition than that, but if I'm correct, doesn't that suggest that a non-Muslim drawing a mocking image of Mohammed should be considered disrespectful - but in no way blasphemous/sacriligious?  After all, it's not like those cartoons are gonna seduce any Muslims into worshipping Mohammed.

Well, unless they act like it is blasphemous/sacriligious - in which case, they've already fallen to the temptation.

...gone worldwide.

There have been thousands of illustrations of Mohammed created over the years. The following archive proves it (it is apparently still overwhelmed, so it may slow or difficult to get to).

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

I have also heard that in various Muslim lands, street vendors sell posters and other pictures of Mohammed.

...jdm is correct. Depictions of mohammed are quite common in islamic lands. So the whole "they cannot make pictures of mohammed because its against our religion" canard needs to get laid to rest.

Its apparent that this upheaval over these cartoons has little to do with religious restrictions against depictions of their so-called prophet, and alot more to do with bullying the EU at a time when Iran has just been referred to the UN Security Council for its nuclear ambitions, and the fact that Denmark will have the chairmanship of that Council when this matter comes before it.

...you may want to check out this post via Michelle Malkin:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004505.htm

It seems the plot has thickened even more.

Apparently, the imams were going around the middle east claiming that this Danish newspaper was state-owned (i.e., run by the Danish government), that the government of Denmark censors and burns the koran, that a "blasphemous" movie about mohammed was being made by the Danes, and that there were actually 120 cartoons, not just 12.

Imams lied. Kids died.

...for following up on my own post, but there were some other points I think are pertinent as more information comes out.

Its amazing to me the degree to which many in the west fall for the deceits and tactics of the imams. What so many in the west fail to take into account is that it is common and accepted islamic strategy to lie in order to gain an advantage over the "infidels."

How many stories have we read in western media or seen on the television parroting the islamic line about how "its offensive to make depictions of mohammed?" And yet, we are learning that depictions of mohammed are commonplace in the middle east. How many apologists for islamic violence have we heard saying that newspapers need to "be respectful of islamic beliefs" and use "good judgment" in what they print or broadcast. And yet, we find that this whole affair is being revealed as nothing more than a concoted PR and intimidation stunt by islamic religious and political leaders. Will the apologists for islamic violence now step forward and chastise these imams and politicians for spreading falsehoods in an attempt to inflame violent islamic passions? The motivations for these "protests" by violent muslims are more and more suspect as this story unfolds, and yet the MSM has failed once againt to take a bit of interest in this and does nothing more than spout the talking points of the jihadists.

Remember that the koran itself and other islamic teachings specifically talk about using deception to further islamic goals:

Bukhari:V4B52N268 "Allah's Apostle said, `War is deceit.'"

Qur'an 4:142 "Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them."

Bukhari:V2B24N555 "I heard the Prophet say, `Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.'"

Ishaq:519 "Hajjaj said to the Apostle, `I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.' Having got Muhammad's permission, he said, `I must tell lies.' The Apostle said, `Tell them.'"

Qur'an 5:41 "Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them."

Bukhari:V6B60N662 "Allah's Apostle said, `Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.'"

Qur'an 8:30 "Remember how the unbelievers plotted against you (Muhammad). They plotted, and Allah too had arranged a plot; but Allah is the best schemer."

Ishaq:323 "I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them."

Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 "Muhammad bin Maslamah said, `O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.' `Say what you like,' Muhammad replied. `You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.'"

Bukhari:V5B59N369 "Allah's Apostle said, `Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslamah got up saying, `O Allah's Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet said, `Yes,' Maslamah said, `Then allow me to say false things in order to deceive him.' The Prophet said, `You may say such things.'"

Ishaq:442 "By Muhammad's order we beguiled them."

Tabari VIII:23 "The Messenger and his Companions continued in the fear and distress that Allah has described in the Qur'an. Then Nu'aym came to the Prophet. `I `ve become a Muslim, but my tribe does not know of my Islam; so command me whatever you will.' Muhammad said, `Make them abandon each other if you can so that they will leave us; for war is deception.'"

Its the failure of the multiculturalists and proponents of political correctness to understand the true nature of islam that leaves the door wide open for islamic deception propagted here in the west.

We need to open our eyes, and understand that these people are at war with us. They will stop at nothing, and they prove time and time again that violence, intimidation, terrorism, deceit, and hatred are the accepted modus operandi in carrying out this war.

But I do know how the Bible is used to butress opinion.  There are plenty of incidents of deceit from Biblical characters normally considered "the good guys."  I am sure someone could make your same argument about us by collecting Bible quotes.  

I want to know facts, not be pushed and pulled by emotional manipulation (generally speaking, I am not accusing you of emotional manipulation).

Fact: The imams have spread at least 3 cartoons around, claiming that they were printed by a Danish newspaper, that never were.

Fact: These three cartoons were used to make the Danish publication of cartoons depicting their so-called prophet much worse than those that were actually publication.

Fact: At least one of these (the pig-faced clown) had nothing to do with islam whatsoever, originating from a French pig festival. The imams claimed it was a depiction of their so-called prophet.

Fact: When asked where these imams got these three cartoons, they refused to confirm their source.

Fact: The cartoons that the Danish newspaper actually did publish were printed almost five months ago. Five months later, we have "spontaneous" uprisings and riots happenning all over the muslim world, and large protests in predominantly non-muslim nations.

Fact: Its been reported that these "protests" are well organized. The people are bussed to the locations where the protests are to be held. They have large signs printed in clear english for the western media to flash across front pages and tv screens. The rioters also have plenty of Danish (and other) flags available and ready to burn in front of the news cameras. Police in islamic states by and large stood by and allowed these "protesters" to burn consolates and embassies, intervening only after the rioters had finished their business.

Fact: Key EU nations and the US have been rallying for the past several months to get Iran referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions against Iran regarding their nuclear weapons research and facilities.

Fact: Denmarks will be head this Council as chairman when this matter comes up in March.

Fact: Islamic goverments around the world are lining up against this cartoon "fracas."

Fact: Its being reported in Danish media that imams have lied repeatedly about not only the nature of these cartoons, but their number as well. The imams apparently have been claiming there were as many as 120 cartoons, not just 12.

Fact: Its being reported in Danish media that Danish imams and political leaders are claiming that Jyllands-Posten is a state run newspaper, owned by the Danish government.

Fact: Its being reported in Danish media that Danish imams are claiming that the Danish government burns korans and censors them.

Fact: Danish imams are claiming the Danes are producing a movie about mohammed that is "blasphemous."

Fact: Danish imams are claiming that islam is not a recognized religion in Denmark, which isn't true.

Fact: Danish imams are claiming that they are not allowed to build mosques, and/or that they are forced to convert businesses or warehouses for use as places of worship.

Fact: Danish imams are claiming the Jyllands-Posten not only purposely set out to insult islam with these cartoons, but that it was set up as a "competition" amongst illustrators to see who come up with the most offensive depictions of their so-called prophet. The 12 mild cartoons that Jyllands-Posten published completely belie this notion, and indeed some of them don't even depict their so-called prophet.

Fact: muslims around the world are demanding that these cartoons no longer be published, and that death should come to those who created them and printed them.

Fact: Danish imams are claiming that the Danish government purposely ignored Danish muslim leaders' calls for meeting with the government, neglecting to report that the only reason that the Danish PM refused to meet with them was because they were calling for the "punishment" of the newspaper in question, something of course no free nation that values freedom of the press would do.

Fact: Danish imams claimed that Jyllands-Posten reserved additional space in their paper for further "blasphemous" articles and depictions of their so-called prophet, when in fact the space that was reserved was to get the reaction and views of muslims about the cartoons.

Fact: Danish imams have demanded that the muslim world respond to these cartoons, because it they "cannot allow any slogan or insult" to their so-called prophet.

Fact: Danish imams have travelled extensively in the middle east spreading these lies.

Fact: the imams are passing around pamphlets in the middle east that makes most of these points.

Fact: the koran teaches that muslims should lie to the "infidels" when necessary if it will help them make war against these infidels.

At some point, facts begin to stack up.

1. Can there ever be true freedom of speech in Muslim society, if there can't even be free speech in a post-Christian society in which Muslims live? It seems that by issuing a Fatwa or stirring up the population through preaching, the Imans can deliver violence on demand in the name of Islam on a worldwide basis. What does that mean for those in the Middle East that would criticize the religious establishment, or those politicians favored by the religious establishment?
   
2. How would a secular state that did not use repression cope with this? And if a non-repressive secular state is impossible under such conditions, what does that mean for European host countries with large Muslim populations? Is Islamic rule inevitable, in the absence of secular tyranny, wherever Muslims form a majority? And if so, is Islamic rule necessarily going to mean that Western-style personal liberty and the rule of law are impossible? (No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press, widespread interference in the economy by religious authorities, citizenship based on religion, codified discrimination against women and minorities, etc.)
   
3.  The Muslims of Europe live in the most tolerant, the most advanced democracies outside the U.S. Yet, they are not secular. They are not peaceful. A huge number of them seem extremely radical. Does this mean that attempts to 'bring democracy' to the Middle East are doomed from the start? If democratic participation can't improve the behavior of people in Denmark, then is there a better chance it will do so in Baghdad?
   
4.  If Islam is really peaceful, and the extremists have 'hijacked it,' then why is it so easy to 'hijack?' We have now had multiple incidents of worldwide Muslim violence in less than six months. If this isn't the 'real Islam,' then we need to at least get a handle on what elements of the faith make it so conducive to hatemongers, and see if we can't do something about them to mitigate the circumstances.
   
5. We need to really, really address these issues before going off to spread empowerment to the 'Arab street' through more democratic reforms in the region, particularly where our allies are concerned. Failure to get to the bottom of these concerns could lead to disasters it would be better to avoid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Muslims opposed images of Mohammed for fear of idolatry:

This is what I'd understood, but it doesn't make sense.  Mohammed is alledgely 'just a prophet'.  He never makes any claims for any kind of divinity.  Likewise, Muslims claim to recognize other prophets.  Whay is Mohammed singled out?  I would think they should be upset at any pictorial representations of any prophets.  I think what this means is that they are already idolizing and worshipping Mohammed and elevating him to something much more than just the supposedly last prophet (until the next last prophet comes along I suppose).

I would think they should be upset at any pictorial representations of any prophets.

The extremists get upset about any pictures or artistic representation of anything at all, prophets or not. Some of them have some pretty expansive definitions on this stuff.

I think what this means is that they are already idolizing and worshipping Mohammed and elevating him to something much more ...

That's my take on it as well.

But I do know how the Bible is used to butress opinion.

I think you are speaking of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Scriptures.  I don't believe there are any instances of deceit being commanded in the New Testament.  Even with the OT, there is usually a big difference.  In the OT, the stories you are thinking of are generally narrative.  You'll have a story showing some degree of deceit was used in that specific instance.  In the Koran, it is often, though not always, a general ongoing directive.  Perhaps this was not intended, but this is the result.  I can't speak from any expertise, so I'm sure there are exceptions.

Jaszkowski,

Excellent questions, before I wade in and add my penny's worth, Amir Taheri covered this well in today's Wall Street Journal. I first saw it referenced at Mr. Reynold's abode, so I give you his link.

Link: http://instapundit.com/archives/028489.php

Read that and then go back and and check out Mr. Stark's "Factsheet", earlier in this thread, and some things will fall into place. Or should, I hope.

Now, in my opinion, the questions you raise point to what I also held as a belief and am slowly learning to filter to a finer grist. Let me try to explain myself, I once held the belief that the Islamic faith was just that, Islam. Since learning about the different sects, some more insidious than others, I have also learned of the political aspirations of some sects. Wahabbist, Salafi,and the "H" one to which the Pres. of Iran belongs. (If I try to spell it it'll look like "Holyoke" and not what I'm getting at) These specific sects are much more politicized than the more predominant ones that we have heard of, Sunni and Shi'ite. From these politicized sects was born "The Muslim Brotherhood", Dr. Zawaheri, the Egyptian Pediatrician, is a member. And I think we all can agree on his goals for the world.

I'm getting sidetracked. The point is this. You have to separate Islam, as a whole, into politicized Islam (Sadrists, Salafi, and the Muslim Brotherhood) and the Islam of the faithful. Once you clear that hurdle, the players start to emerge and their goals become much clearer. And scarier. I hope this helps.

Porter  

The Danish imams are now saying that the pictures that they spread through the Muslim world that did not come from the Danish newspaper were sent repeatedly to Danish Muslims who had complained about the first 12 cartons that were printed in the Danish newspaper.  They further claim that it was those they showed the cartoons to who became confused about where the extra 3 cartoons came from.

I am not saying that this is true, but just including their claim in the discussion.

On the broader issue, I see no reason for the West to give up any of the freedoms we have developed over centuries in order to help Muslims pretend that they don't feel humiliated by how poorly their culture has been faring - in their own eyes.  

And I am disappointed that Europeans have printed the cartoons but in America, we have chosen to allow Islamicists to decide what we can and can not print about Islam.

And I hope the nation can reach broad agreement that depending on Middle East oil is a dangerous national security vulnerability.

"The point is this. You have to separate Islam, as a whole, into politicized Islam (Sadrists, Salafi, and the Muslim Brotherhood) and the Islam of the faithful."

I don't know that one can make such a distinction. We're used to a secularly-organized society. We (or some) have religion, which gives a set of moral guidelines, and then we have the socio-legal framework, which provides for us the rules under which we all function, and which is controlled, or at least led, by the political movements. Islam combines these two - there is no distinction between religion and government - as religion properly (in Islam) is the governing code.

Virtually all of the groups you list see Sharia as the proper source of law. To that extent, I don't see how one can characterize any form of Islam as "non-political." "Politics" is merely the way we determine who gets to pick the codes, and, in Islam, it's pre-chosen. Allah already picked the codes.

This one is take from here. I've no idea how that image morphed into a caricature of Muhammed.

(See also this)

Kevin2, I hope you enjoy Economics because this is going to make a difficult subject even murkier.

This professor at Hopkins lays down the skinny on this that makes the democracy project in the mid east imperative, for them.

Link: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0503705102v1

It's .pdf but an excellent piece and well worth the time to chew through it.

My point is this, there are those of the Islamic faith that have chosen (or have been trained) to live with the Shara'ia as their personal code, much like Christians attempting to live under the 10 commandments. The Political Islamists have chosen to impose their personal interpretation of Shara'ia on the rest of the world, or at least on their own country. Sort of the "I know what's best for you" form of government, or statism.

That's how I divide 'em up. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but I sure could have explained myself more explicitly.

"I know what's good for me" vs. "I know what's good for you."

But more than that, there is something about the Islamic situation that carries it to an extreme.  Even here in the US, the majority elects a government that can enact laws affecting all of us.  Our 'controlling authority' is the Constitution; secular, not religious.  But our Constitution doesn't instruct us to go farther than to defend ourselves, and we even have a commission, the Supreme Court, to help interpret the Constitution.  

Furthermore, the Constitution is fairly short and written in fairly clear English, and it mostly gives us our head when it comes to daily living.  It even has restrictions as to what the government can't do.  Those restrictions may be the key difference.  They guarantee that the rights of the minority are respected and that their opinions can be presented to be considered.

It seems that Islam would say, if it became the majority here, that the Constitution is subordinate to the Koran.  At that point, the interpreters of the Koran would be superior to the Supreme Court, and our Constitutional Democracy would be no more.  

What's to keep this from happening in Iraq?  What has kept it from happening in Turkey?