Depicting the Prophet Muhammad is an injustice because … “It is an injustice because depictors of the Prophet Muhammad believe their approach to religious figures, to anyone or anything, to be the default approach to the world, to trump all other forms of religious or cultural practice, and to believe that the absence of depiction, of the visual, is the concession to be conquered and altered, silence as evidence of compliance.”
I will never defend, accept, or fail to denounce a depiction of the Prophet by a Westerner, regardless of their excuse, progressive or offensive.
Depicting the Prophet is an injustice, and it is an injustice because the West has a habit of ignoring the copyright-by-virtue-of-existing laws, those which it conveniently affords itself, when regarding the works of ‘foreigners’:
It is an injustice because Picasso is credited and celebrated for inventing ‘cubism’ while his people destroyed the African art from which cubism was inspired. Meanwhile they named it something new–‘cubism’–repackaged it as a white invention and sold it for millions among themselves, while they called the originals “primitive art.”
It is an injustice because Africans were not thought of as Christians until the presence of missionaries in the African continent, when in reality the religion had been practiced in the continent long before Jesus had light hair and blue eyes.
View original post 427 more words
Freedom from the Forbidden 
I don’t agree on this. If the picture of the prophet pbuh is respectfull and not meant to mock or provoke, or doesn’t mock or provoke, I don’t see the problem.
But ofcourse, Nahidas statements about Picasso and Christianity on the African continent is true. Christianity was on the continent well since the 4th century a.d. (remember Augustine?) And then there is Ethiopia, the oldest christian country in the world.
LikeLike