I don't remember exactly how long ago it's been now, maybe at year, myabe two years ago, but I was up one Saturday Night, with nothing to do and nowhere to do either and, with no one around that really cared, I decided to watch Saturday Night Live. It was pretty unmemorable, as I recall, except for one thing, which I now recall all too well-a Robert Smidgel cartoon. These days, these are more often than not one of the highlights of the show, sometimes they are the only thing about the show, in fact, that make it worth watching. This must have been one of those nights, in fact.
This cartoon in particular I remember well, as it was about a group of superheroes. But oh, not just any group of superheroes, for these were a group of heroes comprised of the leading figures of the worlds major religions. Led by Jesus Christ, they included Bhuudha, Khrishna, and-Muhammed.
There was yet another hero, caled Seaman, at whose embarrassed outrage the others delighted when they playfully referred to him as "Semen".
I never really thought that much about the cartoon, I don't in fact remember the name of it, nor even the storyline other than that I have described. It wasn't one of the better Robert Smidgel cartoons. I do recall Bhuddha had power over air, Muhammed had power over fire, and Khrishna could transform himself into any animal he chose. Christ seemed to be more the leader of the group.
I have, however, been thinking about over the last week, in connction with the recent controversies involving the publication of a Danish cartoon which pictured the prophet Muhammed with his turban seemingly wrapped around a bomb, the lit fuse protruding from it.
There have been others, for example, Muhammed standing at the gates to paradise shouting for his followers to stop, as they have run out of virgins.
Th first one, however, the one that seems to have evoked the greatest outrage, was published in September, and has caused a great deal of consternation, directed particularly at the nation of Denmark, which, while apologizing for the insult to the prophet, has yet refused to outlaw any such publications on the grounds of freedom of speech and of the press.
This has resulted in widespread protests throughout the Middle East, and among Muslim populations in Europe, and though wiser heads among the Muslim immams have advised agaisnt violence, this has alllead to a boycott of Danish products in many Islamic countries, the burning and attempted destruction of Danish embassies, and a warning by Danish governemnt officials against travel to Islamic countries.
All this, now, mainly due not tothe insulting depictions per se, but duetothe fact that-get this-the prophet Muhammed should not be depicted in any artistic manner, whatsoever. Not in drawings, paintings, statues, not in any such way. It would be considered a grievous sin, for example, among most Islamic scholars, for an actor to portray Muhammed in a film, regardless of the manner inwhich he was portrayed.
The fact that the cartoons were depciting the prophet in a negative light, therefore, was not the chief offense, this only added to it, like rubbing salt in the wound.
A couple of weeks ago, a made a prediction that Al-Queda would strike, due to a prearranged schedule based on an astrological device, based probably on observing the retrograde motions ofthe planet Mars. The latest audiotape of Osama Bin Laden which was recently played on Al-Jazeera, and reported by the American media, may have been a signal for his followers to commence the attack, whatever it was, that had been planned months, or maybe years in advance, based on this astrological/astronomical schedule.
Well, this might well have been it. Why wait for all this time to protest a cartoon that had been published, after all, almost five months previously. Suppose the cartoon had never appearred. Would it have been something else? If so, what? Is Ben Laden pulling the strings behind this recent controversy, using a coterie of supportive immams? If so, what does it mean? Is it a blind for something bigger? If so, what? Sure, it could be a coincidence. One thing to consider though, according to the most fundamentalist tenets of Islam, not only is depicting the prophet Muhammed, or God himself, forbidden, so is the depiction of any living thing, including even plants. A perusal of Islamic art, from classical times till the present, reveals their art to be limited to that utilizing geometric shapes and designs. No living thing is pictured, as this is considered a form of idolatry.
So there you have it. It is not merely one Danish, along with a handful of supportive European newspapers that are being attacked. Nor is it even for that matter those govenments who refuse, on grounds of freedom of speech and of the press to suppress these publications, that are under assault.
What we may well be viewing here is a well coordinated assault on the most basic of freedoms inherent in the majority if not all of Western cultures and societies. And it is not going away quietly. Sure,this one controversy will simmer over time, but the philosophy behind it will be strengthened, and will maintain it's standing among a significant amount of Muslims, maybe even among the majority of them.
The clash of civilizations may have only just begun.
