I have heard of "the Koran" and how it can lead to bloody jihad.
I've also heard about how a jihad should not be violent at all.
Books need to be interpreted.
The image archive Incognito gave (thank you, btw) has a lot of images of Mohammad. However, a lot of them show a figure but not neccesarily a Person. We see a head on fire, not true face. In one case, sleeves too long so that hands do not appear. This is a way of getting around it, and I do not think these would be offensive (you'd need to ask someone who follows the religion. I can't judge).
Also, probably the reason half these images are allowed: "an expert in Iranian Shi'ite customs writes in to say that this particular painting is not forbidden because it depicts a young Mohammed before he was visited by the Angel Gabriel and started receiving his visions, which means that at this stage in his life he is not yet the Prophet. "
If this is widely accepted, then depicting The Prophet is BAD. Depicting Mohammad noticably before he became The Prophet is okay.
Everything based on "Dante's Inferno" I would ignore. Again, this was done to dramatise something else. The author did not portray The Prophet. He simply wrote about him. And I do not believe any of the images based on this were designed to be offensive. When you draw an iconic figure of a religion as a terrorist for no real reason exept to either see what happens or cause offence, you can hardly be justified.
|