At least get the facts right
A little more on Yelena Shesternina.
Jyllands-Posten, a little-known Danish newspaper, managed to cause an uproar in the whole world with just one publication. Its cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) offended 1.5 billion people. Islamic traditions prohibit the publication of any images of people, not to mention the prophet. As a result, massive protests swept the Muslim world, and in some countries Western diplomats had to go home within 24 hours…About 50 people fell victim to pogroms and demonstrations.
Wrong. She has her facts wrong. She left out several very important points, points which make her ‘argument’ look ridiculous. J-P did not manage to cause an uproar in the whole world with just one publication or to offend 1.5 billion people. It took the protests by the OIC and then, months later, the road show of the imams with the three extra cartoons including the fake one of a guy in a pig snout to do that. It took all that before ‘massive protests swept the Muslim world’ and people were killed. It’s amazing how many people get all this completely wrong. It’s extraordinary how many people get it all wrong and on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened, scold the cartoonists for getting people killed over a mere nose-thumbing joke, while saying not a word about the energetic malice and trickery of the imams. It’s almost as if they think the imams are not such bad guys while the cartoonists are deplorable.
Shesternina of course also doesn’t say a word about the plot to murder Kurt Westergaard. I think that’s a tad deplorable.
“Islamic traditions prohibit the publication of any images of people, not to mention the prophet.”
Ain’t that swell? Don’t they watch tele in Kuwait? Or are moving images by some verse in the Koran not really images?
Not to mention the prophet, indeed. The world, certainly their world, would be a far better place if they would not be strutting the prophet around every time they feel personally attacked. Isn’t it quite blasphemous to call on a holiest prophet whenever you feel wronged (that is if you believe in his holiestness)?
Also, remember that the cartoons were published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Fager the previous year. During Ramadan. No embassies got burned, no one got killed, not a dog barked. The Simon Jenkins types made themselves look ridiculous by trying to argue that the rent-a-mob frenzy at the time was some kind of spontaneous reaction to what they held sacred being profaned.
So yes, it’s the believers that should show restraint in parading the prophet. Non-believers are very sparing in using his name.
Now there still are crucial differences between the cartoons & the movie. While the first were published in a quite by-the-way way – the latter has been hyped by the author & is still far from being published. Geert is making sure he does not need any help from imams to get his point across: muslims are (Daffy Duck’s accent required) despicable!
Ah yes, the cartoons also attempted to be funny whilst nobody can suspect our friend Geert Wilders of ever trying to be funny (at least not consciously).
To be pedantic: SOME Islamic traditions prohibit the portrayal of images of people.
Persian miniatures, for example, portray people and animals in beautiful profusion.
And Mughal art too, if I’m not mistaken. I have stacks of postcards of Persian and Mughal art from the V&A and the Fitzwilliam, because I think they’re gorgeous. So much for prohibitions.
“The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.”
RIA Novosti has also got very good reason to be very wary about Shesterina.
Web site: http://en.rian.ru/
Yeah, the best part about these oh-so-sensitive Western liberals defending us black and brown folks against “imperialist” criticism is that they’re so often wrong about traditional cultural practices. Mughal art does indeed include portraits.
Well there you go. So (belatedly) I googled Mughal portraits. Enjoy.