The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

A Gallery of Prophetic Phizs II

Phiz is old British slang for a human face or facial expression,
derived from visage or physiognomy.
.
This is the second part of a two-part column on the forbidden images of
Mohammad. I am doing it because it can and will be done in defiance of Islam and
of the Left.
Many of these images are old and uncredited, dating back centuries.
Many of them are from the 19th and early 20th centuries, a few are from the Draw Mohammad
Day in 2010
, or are otherwise contemporary. And a few, to judge by their
styles, crudity, and character, are of Medieval origin.  But, regardless of the period in which they
were created, they are all fanciful representations of Mohammad, because he is
a person no one living or dead had ever seen, whose historic existence is
doubtful (see Robert Spencer’s Did
Mohammad Exist?)
l, but whose image per Sharia is prohibited on
pain of death
. There are more than you could imagine; this is but a
handful. Some are benign and adulatory, some are tasteless, some are humorous,
and subject specfic. All “objectify” various, individual perceptions of
Mohammad. So-called “Islamists” would have everyone believe that the depiction
of Mohammad is a recent phenomenon, when in fact, according to Robert Spencer,
his image was depicted on Middle
Eastern coins over a thousand years ago.
Practically the only renderings of Allah are glowing pentagrams with
embedded Arabic inscriptions, or they are just the name,  Allah, in Arabic, which suffices for Islam as
a representation
of Allah
. Christianity traditionally has portrayed God as a bearded old man
in a nightgown, sandals or flip-flops. Islam refuses to attempt any human
objectification of Allah, because doing so would be “blasphemous” and worthy of
a death fatwa.
Enjoy the freedom of speech.
As a precedent, I am dedicating this column to a partial roster of the
tireless, courageous, and dogged fighters for freedom and the freedom of
speech:
Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Anne Marie
Waters, Katie Hopkins, Daniel Greenfield, Bosch Fawstin, Diana West , Ibn
Warraq, Bat Ye’or, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushie, Milo Yiannopoulos (whose original surname, Hanrahan, is the
surname of one of my detective heroes). It is also dedicated to the scores of
men and women who have been silenced (permanently) in their opposition to Islam
and its campaign for global supremacy and the annihilation of the West and
Israel, or who are outspoken but still invisible to the Sharia-compliant MSM
and our dhimmi governments, or are suppressed, defamed, or ignored by them.  It is also dedicated to  all the victims and escapees of Islamic
honor-killing in the U.S., Canada, and the world over. Au contraire, Mr. Obama, the future belongs to them, not to you
or to Islam.

In 1997, the fledgling Council
on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) brought their wrath to the Court,
petitioning then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist to remove the sculpture from a
marble frieze in the Supreme Court. CAIR outlined their objections as thus:
1. Islam discourages its followers from
portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol
worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword
“reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant
conquerors.”
3. Building documents and tourist
pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is,
more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham,
Moses and Jesus.”
(Quite the contrary, CAIR. Mohammad
[if he existed] was the founder of
Islam. There was no Islam before him, and no other “prophets” of it. Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus were copped from Judeo-Christian texts by tongue-in-cheek
scribes long after Mohammad was pushing up daisies.)
Rehnquist dismissed CAIR’s
objections, saying that the depiction was “intended only to recognize him
[Mohammad] … as an important figure in the history of law; it was not
intended as a form of idol worship.” He also reminded CAIR that
“words are used throughout the Court’s architecture as a symbol of justice
and nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone.”
Rehnquist did make one concession, though, and promised the description of the
sculpture would be changed to identify Mohammad as a “Prophet of
Islam,” not “Founder of Islam.” The rewording also said that the
figure is a “well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Mohammed,
and it bears no resemblance
to Mohammed
.” Rehnquist more or
less told CAIR to go suck an egg.

FINIS

Previous

A Gallery of Prophetic Phizs I

Next

Pamela Geller: A Warrior of the Mind

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén