There is a debate on Facebook about a photo showing some Arabic peoples holding up signs both in Arabic and English, only the English is crude and offensive, and the issue is, is the photo real or faked. I said that it was easy to fake such a photo, simply by using one PhotoShop tool to erase the black of the banner and another PhotoShop tool to scribble in the offensive new words. I neither know nor care, but it would seem to me that the offenive video clip on YouTube set off some sort of contest, worldwide, to see who could out-offend Muslim peoples, ironic in that the social media played a huge part in the overthrowing of the thugs who ruled, some with our blessing, others with anti-American sentiments and, in the case of Gaddafi, anti-Western violence. Why should a Muslim be offended by this? It is so absurd on its face as to suggest nothing so much as PhotoShopping. They could not possibly be so ignorant as to believe that the Prophet lived in an age of photography or digital imaging. Does the word "Fuck" in such close proximity to the Prophet's name offend? Then you are offended for an entirely different reason than you are willing to admit.
Could it be the implication that the Prophet was gay or bisexual? No wonder you put your women in garments that keep anyone from seeing them, it gives you an excuse to go pork some boy. Perhaps the photos were not Shopped but express the young man's brute honesty. Perhaps he is saying, if the Prophet is worth a night's camel dung, he would not condemn something that comes naturally. It does not help that the founder of Facebook is obviously Jewish. There will be a fatwa out on him, I should think, and the headquarters might best hire Blackwater to beef up their security.
Now, I have a Modest Proposal: Why don't Arabic people who are Muslim fight fire with fire. Do illustrations showing Jesus being "odd," e.g. calling out to Lazarus: "Lazarus, Rise! Rise, Lazarus!" and show the "dead" man's prick filling with blood, from detumescence to full tumescence. Then show Jesus going into the "tomb" to grouse in the goodie with Lazarus. Get it? Make Jesus look as silly as the West makes Mohammed in their propaganda against Islam. Send up Christianity and especially Judaism -- as you are Muslims, really stick it to the Jews, e.g. have fun with mythical people like Moses.
Just leave the rest of us alone.
James, you're talking to the kind of people who have roughly the sophistication of a rock (I'd say a brick, but making a brick requires intelligent processing these people evidently lack). These people are pure knee-jerk reaction to the point of being Skinnerian. At least that's what seems to be going on at the surface.
However, what is more interesting is that I seriously doubt any of the mob ever saw the contested movie or YouTube trailer. They were TOLD about it by some imam or mullah, who doubtless put that video in the worst light possible and worked his audience into a lather. This was an exercise in mob control by an elite few, a conditioning exercise, possibly, in anticipation of some future incident which, in the eyes of these imams, might warrant a stronger, more enraged degree of response.
Once again, we have a hierarchy using their position and authority to manipulate the masses who defer to them. I think it's time that we spent far less attention on the puppets and far more on the puppet-masters.
Loren, you know Islamic societies very well. Me, as an ex-muslim who lived three decades in Middle East, completely agree with you.
Muslims never compromise and it is absurd to expect them to behave like civilised humans.
What concerns me is, in large part, what Loren stated here, and what I have been hearing from interviews with Salman Rushdie on both Bill Maher and Fareed Zakaria. The great, unwashed, and gullible masses of Muslims stage protests in Cairo, Islamabad, Sana'a, and even in London over a pathetic movie trailer and now, French cartoons. Do we really think the protesters saw the film, or bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo magazine? Of course not.
However, you have individuals who exploit the gullibility of semi-literate and superstitious masses for the own power and profit. One example is Pakistani Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmed Bilour putting a $100,000.00 bounty on the head of the film maker who made Innocence of Muslims. Bilour's government declared that last Friday was a "national holiday" so the protesters and mobs could organize and channel their hatred of the western blasphemers. All to the benefit of Bilour and his ilk across the Islamic world, to gain power, and further keep the population in ignorance and fear of "boogeyman" movie and cartoons.
The imams, mullahs, and Muslim politicians remind me, in many ways, of the theocratic hucksters and extremist Christian politicians here in the US. No, the Sarah Palins, Rick Santorums, Rick Warrens, Cardinal Dolans and Pat Robertsons have not openly called for the death of anyone - yet; well, OK, Robertson has. But these western mullahs and politicians do things such as placing rifle scope targets over political enemies, their followers bring guns to political rallies, and make overt threats of violent uprisings should elections not go their way. And who are their followers? The US version of the Islamic protesters - semi-literate, anti-science, anti-intellectual, birthers and 9/11 truthers, whom, as the President once stated in a moment of unguarded candor and honesty, are those who cling to their guns and bibles. In a word, Teapartiers. I'm wondering when the American mullahs will cross the line their Islamic counterparts have already done.
Precisely, Pat! The Rick Santorum-Perry types are just as dangerous as Jihadists, with the difference that violation of the commandment against worship of idols is strictly observed by devout Muslims, while in the West Jesus pictures are everywhere; oddly enough, as a blue eyed blond man, when we know that if there had been a Jesus Christi (and there may have been one Reb Yeshua), he most certainly would have been Semitic and swarthy. Of course, it is possible, as the Theosophists actually argued, Jesus Christ is nothing more than Krishna (note the similarity between Christi and Krishna), whose earlier avatars may have included our old friend, Dionysus. Was Mary Magdelene a Bacchante?
Flavius Josephus gave this description of Jesus, written circa 93 C.E.
...a man of simple appearance, mature age, small stature, three cubits high [4 ft 6 in; 137 cm], hunchbacked, with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair (but) with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazirites, and with an undeveloped beard.
Quite unlike the picture posted of ole JC the nuns posted at St. Theresa's school that I attended.
Josephus has been discounted hasn't he?
That description is in dispute, though I don't think entirely discounted as of yet. In another passage in The Antiquities of the Jews, he makes reference to Jesus' brother James, which most scholars believe is accurate in the sense that it is attributable to Josephus, and not added by a later editor.
I agree James - those people are dangerous as well.