Thanks to Doug Ireland, I learn that
Although Muslim doctrine forbids paintings showing the human image, this has not always been universally observed in Islamic countries. There was, for example, an important tradition of Shi'ite art dating back many centuries depicting human beings -- examples can be seen today in mosques and public buildings in Isfahan, for instance. And while depicting Mohammed's face is supposed to be "blasphemy," his face has frequently been represented in Islamic countries. with a veil to hide certain of his features. Moreover, a Muslim journalist of my acquaintance says that in his travels he has collected "pious" images and post-cards of Mohammed as a child, an adolescent, and as an adult in various Islamic countries, including Pakistan, Iran, and and the Arab Emirates. That there have been visual depictions of Mohammed throughout Islamic history can be confirmed by a visit to the enlightening Mohammed Image Archive.
continued
The Mohammed Image Archive reproduces many images of Mohammed from Islamic sources.
This being so, the impetus behind the current stormy response well might be objections to the cartoons' political or ideological content rather than to the mere fact of making images of Mohammed. But such objections are even less worthy than ones based on religious belief. (As to those, as I have written previously on this topic, one should not gratuitously or needlessly offend anyone. But neither does being offended justify threats or the use of force.)
Doug Ireland also notes that the public protests and street demonstrations are hardly universal in the Islamic world.
There have been none to speak of in the country with the world's largest Islamic population, Indonesia. Nor have their been in Turkey, inheritor of the Caliphate empire (the Caliphate was abolished by the Turkish dictator Kemal Attaturk in 1924). No, the large and violent protests have largely been confined to Libya and the Arabic countries of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Palestine) -- and these are all countries which have been repeatedly criticized in the West for purveying anti-Semitic charicatures and defamations, like that infamous forgery and hoax, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." There is, therefore, not a little payback and hypocrisy in these protests.
What's really going on here is an attempt to extend to the West the kind of theocratic censorship that Islamic fundamentalists enforce by intimidation or law in countries from Morocco and Algeria to Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. There is a long and rich tradition in Western countries of charicatures of religious figures and leaders, including Jesus himself (example at left). Of course, we are not exempt from attempts to censor cartoon images (for recent examples here in the U.S., see the website of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.) Most recently, as The American Thinker usefully pointed out today, Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles has been the target of a Pentagon attempt at censorship.
We need to continue to defend the right of irreverence if we are to be free people. One should be able to make fun of Mohammed or the Pope or any other religious figure without having one's life threatened or being subject to theocratic censorship. And I, for one, whatever the Islamic fundamentalists say, will continue to eat Havarti cheese or play with my Lego toys (Danish products both) any time I like!
Below are a few of the beautiful images from the Muslim Image Archive:
Persian or central Asian illustration showing Mohammed (on the right) preaching.
The Ascension of the Prophet, also from Jami Al-Tawarikh ("The Universal History").
Apparently, there also is an Islamic art tradition of depicting Mohammed but without showing his face. The archive also contains several examples of this art form: