Cartoons and Muslims 2: Electric Boogaloo
So, some muslims are pissed off because another artist drew the prophet Mohammed as a dog.
Swedish artist Lars Vilks says all he's doing is taking a stand in the name of artistic expression. But because of that stand, on this afternoon he's lying low -- on the ground, in fact -- looking for bombs under his car.
Al Qaeda has put a $100,000 price on his head and offered an extra $50,000 for anyone who murders him by slitting his throat after the eccentric artist and sculptor drew a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a dog.
"I don't think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, " says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.
"If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones."
His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.
Comments
I still don't understand why he had to antagonize the ultra conservative side of Islam. I believe in a sense of sensitivity and decency in religion and it's icons and following.
That being said, whatever Lars did and what he gets is basically something he knew would happen. So why the bother?
If they were going to kill Salman Rushdie for a book title (not the content) referring to a myth regarding a wrongful kalimah in the Quran, was Lars actually thinking he'd get away with multiple depictions of Muhammad (pbuh)?
I dunno...it sounds too much like he was simply looking for trouble...
I am a 'libertarian' atheist, I'm offended everyday by things I see but I never act out by physically hurting someone or put a hit out on them. There are ways to show your outrage without acting violently and irrationally. No one has the right to not be offended. Do you not find it wrong that people are being censored out of fear of being killed? Isn't that morally reprehensible?
While I can't speak for Lars, but it appears to be that mohammed as a dog isn't his art. It's a piece of performance art of inciting the rage of crazies to make the much larger point that no one should be free of ridicule.
Now, I know I don't need to say this, but I am not saying that ALL Muslims are crazy (tho, I do believe that anyone with an imaginary friend is a bit crazy... but hell, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, i'm fucking loony) I am saying that this select group fundamentalists are absolutely fucking crazy.
I may not agree with the reaction of burning flags or putting bounties on people's heads, but I'm not entire against a total boycott of a country's export due to such an act.
Since I'm more of a letter writer, I just write out my displeasure with issues such as Lars and his comics.
But at the same time, I chastise Iran and Iraq as well for starting it in a more historical sense.
The thing with Lars' cartoons is that in a way, it depicts how the West views Muslims as a whole. The turban shaped like a bomb, the crescent faced turban wearing fellow with a star for an eye, an angry old man made out of repetitive writing of the phrase "I will not draw cartoons of Muhammed", etc.
It speaks a lot more about how Islam is perceived, and that pisses off the ultra conservatives, especially in Pakistan.
However, I consider those who react in violence simply as morons without proper knowledge of the issue at hand. By doing these violent things, they are merely cementing the view portrayed by Lars himself, and that leaves the minority, more open-minded Muslims to try and explain their actions.