Iconoclasts
Muslims are frustrated because Westerners do not understand the real issue
over the Danish cartoons. It's not whether or not the cartoons were insulting
to Mohammed, it's merely that it is forbidden to depict Mohammed at all! They
get upset when we raise the issue of the anti-Semitic cartoons that they
publish in their media all the time. They say that they are "political" and
as far as they are concerned are fair comment. They also tend to put in these
cartoons not only Nazi-style images, that have been published previously,
but they also include their own imagery, so that when a Muslim says that he
wants to "drink the blood of Jews", and to kill our children, he is only
reflecting their attitudes, that he assumes must be true of us too.
I think the originator of the cartoon article Flemming Rose was right when he
pointed out that this rule of not depicting Mohammed applies to believing
Muslims, but not to him and not to non-Muslims. What the Muslims are trying to
do is enforce submission on to him and all Western society. Remember that
Islam itself means "submission."
Christianity nearly turned out like Islam, not allowing images of Jesus
Christ. In 726-30 Byzantine Emperor Leo III ruling from Constantinople
promulgated decrees forbidding the veneration of images. This was known as
the "iconoclastic doctrine," from "icon" image and "claen" break. The Emperor
Constantine V had worship of images declared idolatry, and rigorously
enforced the ban, killing those who disagreed. At a vote at the second Council
of Nicaea in 787, the iconoclasts were defeated, but they reappeared in the
early 9th century, only to be finally overcome in 843. The arguments in favor
of allowing images are so abstruse that I won't repeat them. But, this was a
very significant struggle, that split the early Church and led in part to the
separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
So in these circumstances the Muslims are the iconoclasts, and we are the
anti-iconoclasts, believing that the depiction of "holy" men is acceptable
under our secular system. It will be a long and probably fruitless struggle
to try to persuade Muslims that not everyone in the world should submit to
their rules. In any case they see this cartoon dispute as a part of the
struggle between Islam and the West for world domination.
over the Danish cartoons. It's not whether or not the cartoons were insulting
to Mohammed, it's merely that it is forbidden to depict Mohammed at all! They
get upset when we raise the issue of the anti-Semitic cartoons that they
publish in their media all the time. They say that they are "political" and
as far as they are concerned are fair comment. They also tend to put in these
cartoons not only Nazi-style images, that have been published previously,
but they also include their own imagery, so that when a Muslim says that he
wants to "drink the blood of Jews", and to kill our children, he is only
reflecting their attitudes, that he assumes must be true of us too.
I think the originator of the cartoon article Flemming Rose was right when he
pointed out that this rule of not depicting Mohammed applies to believing
Muslims, but not to him and not to non-Muslims. What the Muslims are trying to
do is enforce submission on to him and all Western society. Remember that
Islam itself means "submission."
Christianity nearly turned out like Islam, not allowing images of Jesus
Christ. In 726-30 Byzantine Emperor Leo III ruling from Constantinople
promulgated decrees forbidding the veneration of images. This was known as
the "iconoclastic doctrine," from "icon" image and "claen" break. The Emperor
Constantine V had worship of images declared idolatry, and rigorously
enforced the ban, killing those who disagreed. At a vote at the second Council
of Nicaea in 787, the iconoclasts were defeated, but they reappeared in the
early 9th century, only to be finally overcome in 843. The arguments in favor
of allowing images are so abstruse that I won't repeat them. But, this was a
very significant struggle, that split the early Church and led in part to the
separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
So in these circumstances the Muslims are the iconoclasts, and we are the
anti-iconoclasts, believing that the depiction of "holy" men is acceptable
under our secular system. It will be a long and probably fruitless struggle
to try to persuade Muslims that not everyone in the world should submit to
their rules. In any case they see this cartoon dispute as a part of the
struggle between Islam and the West for world domination.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home