All the kerfuffle about people drawing Mohammed in recent years has been seriously misplaced: there is a very entertaining archive of Mohammed images, everything from serious medieval renditions to obscene contemporary scrawls. Cat's out of the bag, Muslims—pictures of Mohammed are everywhere, and they've been around for centuries.
In related news, the UW Madison Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics did their own consciousness raising excercise, chalking stick figure Mohammed's all over campus. Some of the reactions were amusing: I think it's clever that some of the opposition came along with chalk, drew boxing gloves on the figures, and added "Ali" after the name. And of course there were also the expected responses, where people defaced and scuffed out the images.
As it turns out, no, you cannot draw depictions of Muhammad in Madison. At least, not without having them immediately changed to pictures of Muhammad Ali, and not without having them censored the next day. Let's imagine an alternate universe. Let's say the drawings were never tampered with, but instead were met with nothing more than shrugged shoulders and public admonishment for our childish behavior. In this scenario the egg would be on our faces. Instead, suffice it to say that our point has been proven. The right to criticize religion and perform blasphemous acts needs to be defended more than ever.
Exactly right.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Stories like this and the one at Blag Hag about the vandalized atheist display make me regret not coming into atheism early enough to start an atheist student group at my university.
Oh well. I'll just have to cheer for these students and try to raise hell elsewhere.
I should link to that Blag Hag post, shouldn't I?
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/05/purdue-non-theist-display-case.html
What's just as fucked up is that the people who demand to be free from critique for their religious beliefs, often don't apply that same standard to members of other religions. Heaven forbid if you offend a Catholic, but of course it's ok for that Catholic to make fun of Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus and Buddhists. Because they're wrong.
The relationship between public sidewalk chalking and freedom of speech seems tenuous to me. The uncertainty around what punitive actions the university might take against the AHA students, moreso. This point that keeps coming up also strikes me as noteworthy:
"3) Just because you can offend others doesn't mean you should."
If the alternative is the diminution of freedom of speech, then I think it's an entirely appropriate course of action. Especially for something as innocent as a labelled stick figure.
Incidentally, I would love to see a t-shirt with a stick figure labelled "Richard Dawkins (Evolutionary Biologist)" on the front, and a stick figured labelled "Mohammed (prophet of the Muslim religion)" on the back, both smiling and identical. So, hop to it, america!
"We lose our collective shit over stick figures because Islam is a religion of peace".
Cognitive dissonant much?
Ruben Bolling even made this handy art tutorial for us:
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2010/04/30/
It's also only one faction of Muslims that have a problem with the depiction of Mohammad. The Sunni, if I recall. Shi'a and Sufi don't find it a problem.
As far as offense goes: It's not possible to live without offending someone at some point, and a hell of a lot of effort to minimize it. Fortunately, this isn't about offense even though folks are offended by it.
It's about freedom in a plural society. I can say "There is no god", and offend gobs of people. Those people can say "Bible says you're a fool!" and offend me. We could then have some discourse on our differences - that being the strength of free speech. Free speech is a pillar of civilization. I'd much rather be offended and offend others than give up the opportunity to discuss ideas freely.
Not strictly on topic, but Andrew Sullivan posted one that I thought looked dead like him: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/Mohamm…
When I was growing up as a Muslim, I never understood the whole drama over Mo's appearance, and I still don't. One of the arguments - that it would cause people to worship an image, rather than god - used to justify that is daft, as, if anything, you have people who treat Mo as a deity, even if they deny that.
On a side note, anyone remember when some Muslims wanted to boycott Wikipedia (?!) of all things, because of its section on artistic portrayals of Mo? A brilliant photo came out of all that, where a fellow at a protest held up a sign saying 'CRUSH DENMARK AND WIKIPEDIA"
I think both student actions were entirely appropriate, and keeping with the spirit of free speech we in this country try to foster. The initial drawings were silly and provocative. The response was silly and provocative. No one gets stabbed, no one goes into police protection- everybody makes their point in a civil, engaging way.
When the university stepped in and ruined the game, that's when things went awry. While educational institutions have good reason to maintain order in an academic environment (no, you don't have a right to wear your "Viva La Migre" t-shirt in a high school with a large Mexican-American population), in this case it is bowing to the forces of intimidation and terror. The drawings head sparked exactly the kind of dialogue and discourse that colleges pay money to try and foster- for free! The whole point of universities is to create settings where all the avenues of knowledge and learning are open. That's why we have the institution of tenure. I'm thankful I attend a university where free speech, even outrageous and provocative speech, is specifically protected.
@ Jillian Swift #7:
I could be completely talking through my hat, but I don't think the distinction historically has been between Sunni and Shi'a, but between Arab (or Semitic in general) and non-Arab.
The original Arab Muslims were heavily influenced by the whole "Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image" bit, but when they absorbed non-Arab, non-Semitic peoples—most importantly the Persians, decrees against representational art were a harder sell. The picture above looks pretty obviously Pesian, for example.
In Arab-influenced areas (the Peninula itself, Egypt, the Maghrib) the traditional prohibition was against depictions of humans and animals—plant motifs were usually copacetic. However, revivalist movements in all these areas—the Almoravids that invaded Spain in the 11th (?) century, for example (the famous "Moops"), would discourage even that in favor of pure geometric designs (Arabesques.)
Persians and other Islamic peoples were much less willing to give up their representational art, and when the Turks entered the sphere it was through Persian-influenced territories. The stark prohibitions that people are getting harassed and murdered over today are fabrications of the modern Revivalist movements—Wahhabis and so forth. We tend to think of the split as being Sunni-Shi'a because Iran is the big Shi'a power, I think.
I do think people should rub their noses in how modern and made-up this crap is at every opportunity.
"Pesian?" "Peninula?" Time for bed!
Ugh. Did you just use the word "kerfuffle"? Excuse me while I regurgitate into a bag.
Either way, I did my part by drawing a stick figure of Good Ol' Mo and put it on StumbleUpon. I think it said something like "There, I depicted Mohammed. Now what?" :-D
@ Rev Battleaxe (cool name, by the way):
In parts of Pakistan and Turkey, you can find paintings/prints up that are Persian in nature, without people going nuts. My parents, both devout, have prints of Mo that have been hanging up for ages in our household. The "No show Mo!" thing is indeed very modern, and it's disturbing how little understanding a lot of Muslims have of their own (spiritual? social?) history.
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge (#11)
I too have to admit that my information may be wrong. Much of what you said there jibes with what I (think I) know too. At any rate, not all Muslims find depictions of Mohammad offensive. *shwug*
Beware the Pesian Peninula! =^_^=
http://i40.tinypic.com/s64n0g.jpg
What's funny is I drew this weeks before the Madison, Wisconsin thing.
No Muhammed Ali bot has de-meta-musled your image yet.
Apparently, didn't even rate a Lou Alcindor trigger Islamo-bot.
What do we have to do to get blown up around here?
Move to Iraq?
Lies, lies! It's a Jewish Conspiracy! No True Mohammedan would ever draw Mohammed! And there really was a virgin Mary too! And Santa Claus, and Rudolf, and all the Elves, and Missus Claus ...
When I heard that Muslim students had been adding "Ali" to the drawings, I thought, hey, that's kind of a clever riposte. And non-violent.
If they're able to respond that way, I think that's very encouraging. I know I've got the bar set pretty low, but still.
Two points:
1) Surprisingly, Wiki has stood up to pressure to censor (i.e. remove) depictions of Mohammad from its site:
(Depictions of Muhammad article, Wiki, accessed May 7 2010.)
2) Also from the same article:
The Haddith are important as they are the oral reports on the life and teaching of Mohammad. As such, they are (outside the Qur'an) the main source of the Sunnah - "The way and teachings of the Prophet".
Mohammad was the "ideal man", whose teaching and example Moslems are to follow. In any case of trying to determine Islamic teaching on a particular matter, one must look to the Quran and the Sunnah.
Unlike the Qur'an, the Haddith and Sunnah are collections which vary depending on who collected them. There is much common ground, however. Currently, the more vocal schools of Islam have picked on the depiction of Mohammad as a cause célèbre.
I must be getting old. Or my sight is failing. I first read your headline as Mohammed is deified, and wasn't helped by the icon.
I suppose it's not as startling concept as I thought.
@#4 Nasika
Interesting idea, but we don't worship Richard Dawkins, he's not our leader and he doesn't speak for us. All your t-shirt idea would do, I think, is make it look like atheism is some sort of organized religion that worships evolutionary biologists (don't get any ideas PZ).
...and arkestrate #9, woohoo, former muslim, you don't see too many of us around.
My rule of thumb is, if it's the content they object to, the ideas being represented, then it's a freedom of speech issue. What form that speech takes is not material.
I notice that once again the popular argument against blasphemy comes up: it hurts the feelings of moderate, ordinary folks who were simply minding their own business. Sure, insult the terrorists, insult the Catholic League of Decency, insult the extremists who are trying to 'force' their religion on you. But why harm the gentle ones who are not?
They're trying to focus the issue directly into the area of interpersonal relations. Criticizing religion is about people. Protesting censorship is about people. There are no ideals, no principles, no standards of truth that trump your neighbor's "right to believe whatever they want as long as they aren't bothering anyone." What matters most, is getting along with others. Harmony.
It's an insidious argument because it has an ordinary, everyday plausibility. When you're with friends, avoid controversial topics. Drop subjects which hurt feelings. Try to get along with those with opposing viewpoints, by skirting differences and focusing on what you have in common. It's what I call "Dinner Table Diplomacy."
Dinner Table Diplomacy is often the right tactic to take in one's personal life. But, as a public policy -- particularly the public policy of a despised and marginalized minority -- I'm coming to the conclusion that it's misguided and dangerous. It entrenches the status quo. You end up throwing out higher values like rationality, truth, and freedom, for short term benefits. It should not be the public policy of a university.
When people have a belief which is full of shit -- religion, pseudoscience, politics, whatever -- they will always whine loudly and long about how everyone just needs to get along, and diversity entails that nobody gets "judgmental." Judging a fact claim, is now the exact same thing as judging a person. It's bullying.
But there's a reason they want to shift the discussion from facts, to relationships. Their beliefs are full of shit. And that way, they can't get called on it. Ever. Because they're just minding their own business.
Iconoclasm is our business.
Looking through those images on that site, I never realized how strange and bizarre even monotheistic religions that are supposedly based on deities that look like humans can be. The buraq with a horse's body, a peacock's tail and a woman's head seems to come straight from some sort of gender bending greek mythology. It's almost as messed up as the four beast that John sees in Revelations. I almost what to be a prophet just for the hallucinations.
Although, the images of hell are interesting. It's nice to know that in the religion of peace, the punishment of a woman showing her hair to a stranger is to have the a demon string her up by her hair and burn her forever and ever. Or if she leaves the house without permission, she get hung by her tongue. I always wondered, if a house is on fire and the man is already dead or is not there, can the woman leave the house without his permission? Or if she leaves does she then get hung by her tongue for eternity?
I say blasphemy all the way.
I thought Molly's idea was a great one, and I was disappointed that she's backed off of it; I'm still not convinced she wasn't coerced or threatened in some way.
As with the Dome of the Rock, the Muslim "dictate" that there be no images of Muhammed has little historical precedent. It is strictly a modern, religious-spoon-up-their-ass notion.
When I read about the Muslim students adding to the drawings and making the semblance be of Cassius Clay, I couldn’t help but wonder what influence my posts in this thread might have had. In any event, I applaud the UW Madison students for acting much less insanely than their UI counterparts.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
I just got an idea for a very nsfw Mohammed photography series
Fundamentalism (Muslim or otherwise) is the reaction against modernism (and successful infidelism generally) and apt to be more extreme than what came before.
My response is generally (providing the circumstances fit, of course) if they are offended, then they deserve to be. In cases like this and the Great Desecration, for example, the statement being made is, "you don't have the right to expect me to treat your icons with the same reverence you do. I am only deliberately disrespecting them because some think they do." If they didn't have this expectation, then they won't be offended. Yes, it's being done deliberately to piss people off. Whether they get pissed off, however, is entirely under their own control. All they have to do is not mind that we don't hold their religious symbols in the same high regard. Which is precisely the point.
The best response to deliberate attempts to offend is, like the quote in the OP says, shrugged shoulders and perhaps an admonishment for childish behavior. That means the offenders were wrong. Censorship, offense, and threats of violence just prove the point being made.
I think this quote from the article is particularly pertinent:
No one has the right to tell me that I can't draw a picture of Mohammed or put a nail though a cracker or say "Jesus slipped in the bathtub and broke his neck". And if they get pissed off when I do, it's entirely their own problem. And this is especially true of the pearl clutchers who are offended by attempts to offend while dismissing out of hand why it's being done.
From the looks of things, Mo has the same deformed skull disease as jesus.
Maybe it's the dreaded cranial prohet margin sin drome.
Re: my #30
Bah. Proofreading is your friend:
I meant to add, "it wouldn't even occur to me to do it if someone wasn't demanding that I don't."
Dammit, Rev... As amused as I am, you'd better not be upstaging my 'Mohammed slash fiction' idea...
(/'Oooh,' said Vishnu. 'I don't care which way you bow, baby... East or West, you just get yourself down on that rug, sugar...')
No, probably not.
Now to find about 30 morally casual and willing ladies and men
@ mxh (22):
Cheers! We are legion, for we are many....muahah
Seriously, though, there are loads and loads of people who've left the faith. Though to be honest, I grew out of it as a kid, in a sauntering fashion ( a la Crowley in Good Omens). Sadly, I'm currently working in Pakistan (for the year, anyway), and being 'out' as an atheist is a sure-fire way to get killed, as you may well know.
Great Picture!! Mohammed handing the masses a Penis Pump!!! I always wondered how they were invented. I had no idea that it was devinity that did it...but it makes sense now.
Aaargh. Blockquote FAIL.
That's why FOX News' motto isn't "Facts in Context" but "Fair and Balanced". (The "balance" of course being shifted ever rightward, as a look at who gets called on to punditize on TV reveals.)
@ Ddaveau # 37
And on the eighth day the clouds parted, and the sun shown down on the people, and a voice came from the heavens decrying, "puff puff give. And pass the bong to the left hand side." And it was so. And god was pleased.
I should have been a bible writer.
And verily the masses spake unto him, "wait, what?" And the LORD sayeth, "Dudes, just chill. This is some killer shit from my private stash." And they sat thusly, on the couch, for the entire weekend listening to Phish and Rusted Root, asking of the LORD the great questions like, "Dude, what if your thumb was, like, on the other side of your hand?" when, on the beginning of the third day, just after calling out sick from the video store, one of the assembled asked of the LORD the answer to the great mystery, "what were we just talking about?" And the LORD answered, "Dude."
I had a thought while reading Jen's blog post about the Purdue non-theists' display getting vandalized. It seems to me that people see atheism as being a personal choice, but they don't see religion that way. One reason that it's unfair to discriminate based on race is that it's a factor that people can't control, and people see religion in the same way. If you're raised in it, then it becomes as much a part of your identity as the things you're born with, like your sex or your race.
This is not to say that the criticism should stop, of course. In fact, this should be something that really needs to be said: that religion is a choice, and therefore is not sacred. Anyway, just a thought, and an explanation as to why our "religion" isn't considered off-limits to criticism and vandalism to theists.
*raises hand*
"Choice" is a red herring. It's unfair to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation because there's nothing inherently inferior about being black, female or gay, whether or not it's a choice.
If science discovered tomorrow that being homosexual was a choice, it was still be wrong to discriminate against them.
@tsg
And another of the assembled held up a rock, round in nature, and asked of the LORD "what is this?"
And the LORD answered "My child, thou art truly not a golfer."
I don't think it's fair to criticize deeply religious people who are delusional paranoid schizophrenics
@ scooterKPFT #46
I think your group characteristics are too broad. There are literally dozens of those people out there. :-)
Rey Fox #42:
I think that's an interesting insight into the way many believers' minds operate. And it is true that many atheists today are former believers, or were born in religious families. But this reasoning obviously fail to factor in the people born into atheist/agnostic/secular humanist families. Depending on the country and the social environment, these families can be an important part of the community.
"It's unfair to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation because there's nothing inherently inferior about being black, female or gay, whether or not it's a choice."
I know. That's why I said it's "one" reason.
And yes, this:
"The relationship between public sidewalk chalking and freedom of speech seems tenuous to me. The uncertainty around what punitive actions the university might take against the AHA students, moreso."
was incorrect, I meant to say less so.
On a completely different issue, one of the full face pictures of Mohammad shows him preaching at "Mt Ararat, near Mecca". Could this be the Mt Ararat of Noah, and the poor bastards hiking in Turkey have got the wrong place? That could explain their lack of success in finding the Ark.
Um, I think that there isn't an Ark is probably a better explanation for them not finding it.
That's actually the explanation I prefer. But the mental image of the believers toiling relentlessly, looking for something that doesn't exist in a place where it is not supposed to be, amuses me.
Yeah good point. It would be highly entertaining to be present at the point where they have the faceplam moment
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH shit. We've been in the wrong place.
And then have to travel to another place to search for an imaginary boat chock full of the petrified fecal remains of numerous "kinds" of animals.
Rey Fox #42 wrote:
Yes they do. And, no they don't. They want it both ways, so that they may get the benefits of either, and the negatives of neither.
When it comes to protection against criticism, religion is an identity class, like race, sex, or nationality. It's who you are, it's your culture. Attacking the doctrine or the actions of those who hold it is a form of bigotry. It denies the basic assumption of equality.
But ask them why they belong to the religion they do, and it all changes. They almost always insist that, for them, it's a matter of reason. The evidence points that way. And you can belong to the same religion, if you only reason your way to it. Religion is a rational set of conclusions similar to politics, science, or social theory. In which case, disagreement ought to be fine, because there is no working assumption that different ideas all have the same worth.
But what if your beliefs can't stand up to criticism? Flip back to the "this is my identity class' stance. The danger of blasphemy is that it treats religion like an idea, and insists that the beliefs duke it out fairly in the public square. Kiss of death for faith beliefs. On the atheist's side, we don't require that our beliefs be given special sacred identity status. We just ask that they be given fair treatment.
Wouldn't the mere act of naming a baby Muhammed, or taking that name upon conversion to Islam (eg, Ali) be, in effect, creating that person "in the image of" the prophet?
No use of the name Muhammed!!! It's a SIN!!!!!!
Or not. I find it very difficult to engage in a meaningful way with someone who has this kind of hair-trigger sensitivity about the silliest of issues.
Oh, and according to what I know, the teachin is that MUSLIMS aren't allowed to depict Muhammed. Other folk - go right ahead.
Nuance-blindness strikes again.
\0
|\
/ \ Mohammed
Naming a stick puppet Mohammed/Muhamad seems to be an act of resistance, according to a current Youtube meme. Calls for it are deleted of course, see a former call to do it all on may 20, 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trfIdu-QMuE
If you're interested and on FB, May 17 - 24 is "Everyone Draw Muhammad Week". It's listed under events. I'll be using my drawing as my profile pic. The more people that do it, the cooler it'd be.
@ arkestrate:
Thanks for the first-hand testimony, and congratulations on escaping from a bind that we, who live in a (supposedly) secular country can't really imagine.
P. S.: If you like my Unitarian Jihad name, you should totally get one too.
"The Very Reverend Smith and Wesson of Understanding."
Meh. I like Visit-The-Infidel-With-Explanatory-Pamphlets better...
#56:
I've known Protestants in this country who are in a complete lather about all the Messikins named "Jesus", so stupidity is universal.
@ tsg:
Yeah, you should try again. Does The Main Gauche of Mild Reason comment on this blog, too? I always liked that one.
oohhh! Can I be the Main Gauche of Mild Reason?
(my kids: Mo-om, you're not going to reason with us again, are you?)
Brother Thompson Submachine of Lovingkindness
*sigh* close italics fail.
Hang on a minute. If anyone is going to be the Thompson Submachine Gun of anything, it's going to be me.
@#35 arkestrate,
Wow, Pakistan. You're pretty brave. I would be afraid to even be on this website in Pakistan.
What happens if someone draws a stick figure and then someone else comes along and tags it "Muhammad"?
Whom of the two should you behead first/most?
All of them, at the same time, including the guy who poured the sidewalk.
#25 Holytape
I don't know what happens in Hell, but this is an example of what happens before you die: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mecca_girls%27_school_fire
#8, that shit is dead uncanny.
The thing about adding the boxing gloves and "Ali" is funny.
I recall that there are fragmentary descriptions of the actual Muhammad--- stocky, beard greying early ---but I can't recall where I read that: Rodinson, Marshall Hodgson, Sir John Glubb...
But I do like the Central Asian art that showed the Prophet as a robed and turbaned figure, but with no face--- just the blank outline of a head. Very "Invisible Man"...and eerie/intriguing.
@Reverend Battleaxe: Cheers. The thing is, I grew up in England, Spain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (went to the US and back to the UK for uni), and interacted with rather relaxed people spiritually et al. Saudi Arabia, though...*brrr*
A lot of people I know are pretty much Muslims just because of their parents, and their parents, and their parents, and so on, and don't really stop to think about any of the logic behind the contradictions in the faith. And don't even get me started on the current interest amongst some Muslims in 'The Arrivals'......
@Mxh: I have to be honest and say that in terms of social status, I belong to what we disparagingly refer to as the 'upper' class here, if only due to inflation. As such, this does afford me some safety when discussing matters in regards to religion. But that being said, so often one has to look over one's shoulder when in public, in case someone decides to defend their faith's honour.
Pakistan is strange in that ever since the 60s and 70s, the Wahabi strain of Islam that's infected this part of the world is trying to erase any Persian (the anthem is in Persian, with only two words in Urdu), Turkish or Indian influence from Pakistani culture, whether by policy or violence. A couple of weeks ago, a couple of explosions occurred near Peeru's Cafe, which hosts cultural events that celebrate this region. The family behind Peeru's also host an international puppet and arts festival in Pakistan annually, and this in turn has been hit by bomb blasts as well. PTV, the Pakistani state tv channel, will, after midnight, broadcast the news in Arabic for no reason.
Jinnah, the country's founder, drank, smoked, couldn't speak Urdu properly, didn't send his daughter to a Muslim school (since he didn't approve of the quality of education), and said that everyone was free to pray how they wanted.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah
That the guy looked like Peter Cushing and has been played by Christopher Lee is pretty bad-ass.
Since he died, however, people pretty much deify him, calling him Quaid-e-Azam (which I dislike, since in English it means 'Great Leader' which sounds rather Kim Jong-il-ish), and claim that he wanted an 'Islamic' nation. Gah.
Rather than having what was meant to be a fairly liberal nation - my parents tell me that in the 1960s and 70s, before they left for England, Lahore et al were like Tel Aviv, San Francisco and London - what you get is a nation that's shared between the army, the feudal landlords, and the religious nuts, and things are starting to give...
Oh and a side note: that burqa ban that's been considered in Europe? Amongst middle-class, upper-class and some working-class Pakistanis here, there is so much support for the ban, just so y'all know.
@Reverend Battleaxe: I forgot to add - I'm apparently 'Father Chainsaw of Compassion.'
Oooh - I've been remiss in learning about Jinnah (I knew of him at least). He looks a lot more fun than Gandhi.
- The Very Reverend Bowie Knife of Lovingkindness, Blessed Crimson Fire of Compassion
"The right to criticize religion and perform blasphemous acts needs to be defended more than ever"
Yes, you can criticise religion. You are doing it. Jeepers. This is like the dealing with moonbat climate deniers.
Hey - we've blown away another Afghan wedding party or blown away some random Afghan guy that was behaving 'oddly'. Go USA! USA FTW!!
arkestrate: One of the arguments - that it would cause people to worship an image, rather than god - used to justify that is daft, as, if anything, you have people who treat Mo as a deity, even if they deny that.
Yup, idol worship can occur of an anti-idol. The very effacement is an act of worship, like Jews not saying YHWH.
It's how the veil, an ostensible act of modesty, is incredibly ostentatious in American society -- nothing could be more immodest than the full veil.
Or the Amish "plain clothing", which may have been plain three centuries ago, but are today incredibly un-plain, extra expensive and a clear show-off of status and identity.
The worst kind of worship is the worship of what you're pretending not to worship.
If the Muslims (Christians, etc) were really against idolatry, they'd kill the Buddha.
arkestrate: Pakistan is strange in that ever since the 60s and 70s, the Wahabi strain of Islam that's infected this part of the world is trying to erase any Persian (the anthem is in Persian, with only two words in Urdu), Turkish or Indian influence from Pakistani culture, whether by policy or violence.
It's the old story of nationalism. Grab anything that's in the national makeup and pump it up to destroy the diversity that makes ruling the nation just so damn hard. In the early 20th, it was "secular nationalism" as in Turkey on the European model -- but anything will do. For the Iranians, Persian nationalism became tainted by the monarchy, so they set a counter model of religious nationalism.
Same shit, different bottle.
frog,
Insightful +1.