The treachery of images

[jurph]

The creation of images of Muhammad (pbuh) is against a subset of Islamic teachings from the Hadith, but is not a general prohibition. Sunnis, particularly fundamentalist Sunnis, believe that it is improper to create a physical representation of the prophet. You might compare this to fundamentalist evangelicals in the American South, who believe

Comments

[jurph]

Why bother the Muslims in the first place? The original set of comics were to prove a point about freedom of the press, and Muslims who are offended by images of Muhammad were the butt of the joke.

Instead of burning buildings, Iran -- as batshit as they may be -- are saying, in effect, "we get the joke, now here's one for you." Like a black man in the South who says "that's mighty White of you" when someone is condescending to him, the president of Iran is giving as good as he gets. Turnabout is fair play.

And yeah, I think Art Spiegelman absolutely deserves to win first place in the Holocaust Cartoon contest.

[jurph]

The idea is that while Muhammad is an inflammatory subject in the Middle East, the Holocaust is a similarly inflammatory subject in Europe. Newspapers in Europe have no problem printing images that piss Muslims off as an object lesson in free speech; Iran has basically asked "are you tough enough to offend the readers in your backyard, too?" Yes, they are nutjobs. Yes, they are assholes.

...but they make an interesting point. I think Europeans are far too wishy-washy about their principles, and I just know that they'll weasel out of this by saying "Iran is being ridiculous again," instead of printing the cartoons and showing Iran how a sensible Western democracy reacts to something it finds offensive.

[mantis_tobogan]

also, to this point, contrasting the holocaust against the actions of the israeli government is certainly relevant and topical. the western media seems to have a hands off approach in regard to israel due to some form of holocaust guilt. obviously, the idealogical stance that iran is approaching the issue from is kinda out in outer space... but still, perhaps some cartoonists will respond properly. frankly, i would encourage all of them to see spielberg's new film... which i felt showed that both sides have become monsters to fight monsters.

[mantis_tobogan]

the film does drag in bits... but overall, it's really good. i really felt like it showed how it was destroying something in an attempt to save it (that something being future generations).

[jurph]

You make the point below (it's impossible to follow the timestamps on this thing!) that there is no unified "they". Now that Iranians have destroyed the Norwegian(?) embassy, it's harder to say "Iran" has done anything -- some Iranians have burned an embassy, and others have proposed a counter-contest, and for all we know, some Iranians are cheerfully blogging about how unhip their fundamentalist reactionary parents are.

I, too, wish they had skipped the fire and destruction altogether.

[jurph]

Which is my original point. The violence is a completely unacceptable form of discourse (it ain't discourse, period), but that doesn't mean Europe can play the "get out of self-reflection free" card. Like I said above,
I want to see every newspaper that printed the Muhammad cartoons print the Holocaust Cartoons, or an editorial explaining why they won't just as soon as Denmark has received formal diplomatic apologies for the destruction of their embassies in Syria and Lebanon, the vandalism of their embassy in Indonesia, the armed assaults on the EU offices in Gaza, the bomb threats against the Jyllands-Posten, and any other acts or credible threats of violence.

Sean has a point, and Iran could have really put the screws to Europe by saying they'd like to see "the top twelve cartoons depicting Israel acting like Nazis".