Idolatry

You've probably noticed the 'Support Denmark' banners. Unless, you've been in infosphere cave you probably know all about the Jyllands-Postens cartoon controversy. That is already covered in detail in other places, and pretty much everyone already has an opinion on it. I would give you my take on free speach and its limits or lack there of, but I've observed enough of the controversy to know that everyone already has their mind made up and isn't interested in having their mind changed. So I thought I would approach the debate from a different direction that I haven't heard anyone comment on.

In theory, the cause of this turmoil is that the depiction of Mohammad is prohibited on the grounds that it may lead to idolatry. It certainly isn't because the cartoons are horribly offensive to Islam in some other fashion, as all but a couple of them depict Mohammad in either or positive light or actually make fun of Jyllands-Posten or Kåre Bluitgen. Some are so abstract as to barely qualify as depictions. Some don't even depict Mohammed at all. Of course, if you live in the US, it's highly unlikely that you know any of that because the American newspapers are refusing to give their readers the full story. On the other hand, since you read blogs this is probably not news to you. The point is however, that while insulting depictions of Mohammad are particularly offensive to Moslems - any depiction at all would be offensive to Moslems.

In theory, everyone knows how careful Moslems are to avoid depicting anything that could be considered an idol so as to avoid even the appearance of idolatry. One can recall how the Taliban made a great show of destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

There is a problem with that though. In many Moslem nations, depictions of religious figures in ways that seem obviously idolatrous by thier own standards are routine affairs. Iran threatens to put a trade embargo on Denmark for the depiction of Mohammed, yet they have no problems at all creating visual representations of other religious figures when it suits them. Is that any less iconography than any Catholic Church filled with supposed idol worshipers? If the problem here is the potential for idolatry, why don't they crack down on themselves?

Worse yet, of the remaining nations of the earth which can truly be called cults of personality, almost all of them are nominally Moslem. In Libya, you can hardly go anywhere to escape the glaring visage of big brother Khadafi. For me, the most lasting image of the Iranian revolution is the huge banners of Ayatollah Khomeini flying over the crowds. Today, you can still see similar banners current Iranian leaders. Before the invasion, Saddam Hussein's image overlooked seemingly every public square. One of the most famous images of the war is the marines toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein. I can hardly think of a more striking contrast between what a person says and what a person does, as the US toppling idols to living men while Iran lifts them up. Exactly what moral authority do the Iranians think that they have to question our ability to abstain from idolatry?

Right at the root of this conflict, I'm struck by this basic hypocricy - for all the criticism of the West for treating mere men as gods, Islam has as a practical matter a greater problem with elevating their leaders to the status of defacto living gods than the Danes have. No one seriously thinks the Danes would have been tempted to worship the image of Mohammed.

All of this is as much to say that I don't think that the real issue is in any fashion religious. Religion is just useful philosophical cover for the game of real politik that nations like Iran and Syria are playing.