I am getting really tired of seeing this erroneous satement repeated in every press report pertaining to the cartoon kerfuffle, including this one tonight, from the AP:
"One depicted the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse. Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depictions of the Prophet Muhammad."Islamic law does NOT "forbid any depictions of the Prophet Muhammad." It forbids any depiction of any living creature. Period. This is inclusive of the Prophet, of course, but not exclusive to the Prophet. And the subtle distinction is important in the depiction of the conflict. The furor that has sprung up is being, through this trope, tied directly to a presumptive acceptable reaction to orthodox religious idignation. It should not be. The violent reprisals we are now seeing are a response of reactionary hatred, repressive dogma, and arrogant ignorance and rejection of other cultures.
If two embassies are torched for these cartoons, then why not a few houses for every picture of a woman on a billboard? Or a man on a magazine cover? I know they aren't emotionally comparable, but logically, to follow the dogma of this particular breed of sha'ria, they are the same.
U.S. Decries Embassy Torchings in Syria - Yahoo! News: