As far as the mainstream is concerened, Mohammad was a material human being, but one with a divine component lacking in others. Therefore he was more than the ordinary folk. That is why his portrait is prohibited because a believer is not to equate Mohammad with others – which is what portraits do.

This has little to do with the standard excuse of “not wanting to worship Mohammad at the cost of Allah”.

The real reason is the infallable narrative and “thou shalt not question Mohammad – and thus Islam”.

How can you criticize a person when he is simply not a person? Why is Mohammad more than a person? Because we dont even know what he looks like. A person has a face, but Mohammad has no face.

Unlike other religions where the prophet was mythological, Mohammad was very real, and Islam has this extra problem where the prophet was just too real of a human being to be believable.

I believe Sufis talk about “love of Mohammad” and hence the imagery of Mohammad. The Shias never talk about love of Mohammad because that would detract from obedience to the Shia hierarchy. Hussein is venerated equal to Mohammad in Shiism.

Hamid, I’ve previously heard that representations of the young Mohammed before he came a prophet were acceptable in Iran – is that not correct ?

But posession of a Mohammad image is not a cardinal sin – such as is with adultery or blasphemy. Its more akin to not being a proper observant Muslim and is simply frowned upon.

The isim portrait is obviuosly a painting of the photograph. Therefore any claim that it depicts Mohammed is fraudulant as it originates from a recent photograph. Its pretty common to retouch masculine photos and to beautify them. I think this should not be confused with sexual ambiguity – I believe this is simple aesthetics where beauty is found in the feminine form from a man’s eye – and then applied to men, without detracting from the masculinity.

What riled the extremists was not that a forbidden image was depicted or that they found that to be racist towards all Muslims.

What riled them was that their perfect idol, in which their whole sorry ideology rests so flimsily – that he was infallable and that he has to be emulated at the risk of the sword – this primitive logic, by which they extinguish any challenge to their authority as being unholy and evil – can only rest on a perfect Mohammad that is beyond criticism.

The beef of the extremists was that Mohammad was criticized and they see that as a western challenge to their infallable narrative and their authority.

Those cartoons will sow doubt and blasphemy in the minds of millions of Muslims, and that is what they are afraid of – plus the Marxist postcolonial narrative on top of that – i.e. its done by a western nation in order to subjugate the morally “superior” Muslims to steal their raw materials or whatnot.

The top image I do not recall but has striking resemblance to the 2nd image, and I believe is Ali as well. Portraits of Mohammad never appear in Iran, however miniature paintings from central asia do depict Mohammad as a thumbnail, but I have never seen the Shia clergy make use of these miniature paintings.

It can only get meta and meta.

Ken McDonalds article was the most astonishing proof of the unfitness of a man for high office I have ever seen.

A former Director of Public Prosecutions wholly incapable of accepting his own flaws and the inevitable compromise that comes to all those who conscientiously perform the difficult but necessary jobs of high office in the service of the public.

A man so unable to see himself other than through his own reflection in his own daily burnished breastplate of righteousness, that he dared to accuse Tony Blair of narcissism.

When he can show a single thing he has done not in the promotion of his own shallow self interest he may accuse others of narcissism.

His determination in maintaining his self image in the eyes of a like mindedly flinty eyed mutual grooming set of that bizarre coterie of ‘Islamist apologist’ fashion accessorizing cabal of self appointed ‘human rights Lawyers’, is the essence of an extreme self-deluding narcissism not subject to any social or political restraint.

He has set himself up as judge and jury of the politico-legal process, above apparently of the law himself.

He is a puffed up out of control monster that has brought the law into utter disrepute and in particular he has trashed human rights law, portraying it to be nothing other than sordid political partisanship at a time when real rights like freedom of expression, without which all other freedoms are moot, are more threatend than ever.

The vituperative and spiteful destructiveness of a man so recently stepped down from one of the most important legal positions at the heart of our democratic system, is unprecedented in British legal history and wholly malignant in its effects.

Is there something enviable about Muslims countries that we would want more of them here?

http://www.hf.uib.no/religion/popularikonografi/exhib02.html