Something rotten in Islam?

Whatever the reasons for the Jutland Post's publication of 'offensive' imagery in the form of what are really some quite crappy cartoons (proving that whatever else the Danes make they probably don't do the best cartoons in the world) it does add to the discussion of Religion. If I were a muslim I'd be offended at worst or perhaps disappointed. If I had true belief in my religion then I'd probably pity the infidel and his philistine ways. But then if I lived in the land of the infidel and enjoyed the benefits of innovation in all forms then I may question what my religion says and how people interpret it. As such there are as many varying interpretations of Islam as Christianity.

Others have said that religion is meant to be a way of being good, at its most simple interpretation, and one that no-one should really have complaint with. However, in practice, this covers anything within a very wide remit - being squeaky clean and expecting others to be also, praying that nothing bad will befall your family or friends or those in faraway places, the capitalist kerching of religious businessmen (the lord helps those who help themselves), claiming that however badly your voters think of you then at least you'll have a go at twisting the arm of the almighty (although He didn't elect you). Maybe I'm paraphrasing, but then l wouldn't be the only one.

There is no more Unity in Faith than there is a true Muslim Brotherhood or that I see eye-to-eye with my own brothers or colleagues; or for that matter amongst our own communities (of whatever description). All these things imply a muted desire for something to unify us but based on what?

Can 'Our Muslim Brothers' really have that much to complain about? Not really it would seem, not as far as the cartoons go.
In the west we lampoon pretty much everything - everything from the weakest to mightiest, man-made* or not. At its most basic it is a critique, it finds chinks in the armour. It can slap the hypocritical false prophet around the face or punch one square on and undermine the lot. Humour itself is even used to get The Lord's message across or to laugh at those deemed to be against one's faith. Our muslim friends are as guilty here as they make out our Danish cousins to be.

Are we to suppose that images of Allah's name in arabic appearing in everything from fruit and fish to cloud formations are miraculous apparitions yet scorned when they appear in bastard form in trainers or even the inverted wisps of a coffee advert? What god is this that writes his name everywhere yet denies us imagery, enquiry and progress? Likewise it's likely the case that all manner of hidden words, scripture, pictures and messages can be read into any object. Are they signs?
What if the sign said something disagreeable? or appeared on a pig?, is it the mysterious workings of Allah? (1)

The most offensive of the cartoons - those depicting Allah or Mohammed as terrorists and thus having a swipe at the whole notion of Islam can be said to be disagreeable but no more so than claiming that ranting mullahs endorsing jihad represent all muslim opinion or that Allah's name appearing on a fish has any more relevance than Elvis' image appearing on a slice of toast.

l find the idea that any religion can forbid the graven image (from engraved ie. man-made) truly offensive. I'd assumed previously that it was the 'craven image' until reading Anila Baig in The Sun newspaper (2) - " . . (T)he Muslim religion FORBIDS hand-drawn pictures of any person or animal. It might sound old-fashioned and alien but this was laid down by our Prophet to stop idol worship.
Islam is not the only religion that forbids pictures. Christians and Jews also had the same restriction and the second Commandment tells followers not to make any graven images."

Going out on a limb here l'd say some 84.2% of muslims (and any other faith for that matter) that have ever put pen to paper are probably 'guilty' of graven imagery or have benefitted from them. At its most fundamental it denies progress in medical science, human and animal biology, art, fashion and expression - quite a large chunk of what makes us who we are. And likely fundamental to whether faith is put in humanity or the workings of some higher hand inasmuch as only God knows the answers and humans cannot or shouldn't ought to.




(Links to follow)

(1)www.miraclesofislam.com
*Man as per Balderdash and Piffle 'M'. In Old English, the word 'man' meant 'human' and did not become gender-specific until much later. Moreover, it goes back thousands of years to Sanskrit, and (rather wonderfully) is cognate with the same root as the word 'mind'. (Wording lifted from http://carlanayland.blogspot.com/2006/01/balderdash-and-piffle-tv-review.html)
(2)http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050636,,00.html