There has been a lot of news recently about the protests in the Middle East over that controversial comic of Mohammed that was originially published in Denmark and has sparked riots and deaths. I will admit to not having a lot of knowledge in the subject which may mean maybe I should not comment so I would rather leave this comment in the form of a question. I will pose my thoughts on the title question on the third paragraph.

From what I have gathered, Islam prohibits the depiction of prophets as a way to stop idolatry (the worshipping of statues, items, etc.) This is not controversial as Christianity has had that problem throughout the years as well. However, people are preaching that the author and editors of the comic were insensitive to Muslim beliefs. I believe this is all PC BS because what about some religious groups not being sensitive to Christians or Jews, or Hindis by forcing their belief structures on those who are not Islam? At some level we disrespect other religions when we follow our own belief structure so why is there a requirement to be sensitive to some other religions? Those who are Christians commit sacriliege towards those of Jewish faith when they depict God in paintings and eat pork, but I have not seen them protesting and burning embassies. Similarly we do not see backlash from Hindi due to consumption of beef. To even make an even more absurd example, when have Mormons killed others for drinking coffee? So for this reason I wonder why we cannot do some things that may be construed as a sin in some religions, but we get a free pass on others. Who makes these decisions anyways? What I am trying to get across is that we all believe in different things and we all have different beliefs about some details of what is or is not a sin, but we really have no basis for demanding that others follow most of our religious beliefs, since it is mostly faith based to begin with.

Now getting to the main question of this post... Talking with a friend who is Muslim, she was telling me that one of the main reasons of not depicting the prophets and mainly Mohammed is that it takes emphasis from God (Allah). Their rioting over this comic seems to be doing just that, placing a large amount of emphasis on a prophet, with some claiming that they will kill and kidnap Danes, etc., all because a non-Muslim drew a picture of a prophet. While I see why there is some emphasis on Mohammed (as he founded Islam), it seems like they do not care whether we depict Jesus (a prophet in Islam) which is clearly a sin according to Islamic Law (but not according to Christianity or agnostics, atheists, etc.) I gather from my interpretation is that they are committing a sin by focusing their lives towards a prophet due to their rioting over an image of a prophet and I think this constitutes idolatry. Why? Because had no one made a fuss over this comic, it could easily have passed out of sight of the world and no one would have been worse off, however, now it is the center of attention taking away from the works of God and His children, which is effectively placing barriers to God and those who worship Him.

This is where I find the double standard of organized religion. On one hand, the majority of religions (includes both Christianity and Islam) preach tolerance of others, however, religion also does an excellent job of stratifying the human race. These stratifications are the basis for many forms of hatred that hurt everyone and every religion has a populace that is guilty of enhancing mistrust of those outside of their religion. The rioters are performing hate crimes that hurt more than just the people of Denmark, they hurt other Muslims who become targets due to misunderstandings and preconceptions, and they hurt themselves because they close themselves off towards freedom of expression and religion.

So in conclusion, I would like to add that the Muslim leaders who wish to kill Danes should have pursued an alternative path to try to stop what they believed was wrong. If they truly cared about humanity, they would have suggested that there was a democratic method in which to inform the editors of the newspaper which published the article (as the paper is not representative necessarily of the ideals of the populace) that they were unhappy with the depiction of a prophet in a comic and would wish to see a change in what they publish. This can be achieved by informing the public of their belief and letting the public decide what they want. In this way we would all become closer to the image of God by utilizing our knowledge to make positive choices that push humanity forward.

-Trevor