Pictures, and the 1,000 words

Okay, so, not to be flip. I do understand that this is art, and those notorious cartoons were, well, not, even if they were valid examples of freedom of speech. But. How is it that this is valid, but they are not -- if your argument is that no one is allowed to reproduce the image of Mohammed?

Remember, that seems to be the main argument. Not so much that they were offensive cartoons -- but that no one may reproduce the image of Mohammed, even if it's a purty one.

There are many other folios like this. They're from the 1500's. They're not British, they're quite clearly Persian. This one is marked: "The Prophet on Buraq." I do note that some of the other folios feature Mohammed on Buraq and his face is either whited out or covered, burqua-style. Which does seem to put things into definition a bit more clearly. But this one has a full frontal illustration thing going on. So, what's the deal?

Notion and link from VeryBigBlog.

UPDATE: Have found more on this discussion at MetaFilter.

Wikipedia, though subject to sabotage, has some illuminating information here. In part:

The Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, condemns idolatry, but has no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Direct prohibitions of pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found in certain hadiths, or recorded oral traditions.

Views regarding pictorial representation within several religious communities have varied from group to group, and from time to time. Among Muslims, the Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures including Muhammad to the point that a fatwa exists given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, stating that it is permissible to make pictures of Muhammad, if done with the highest respect. [46] Sunni Muslims are considered less tolerant. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of miniaturist art, some of which depicted Muhammad. These depictions usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Muhammad can be found on the internet.[47][48][49]

...

According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[50] However, six of the more controversial caricatures were published in Egypt in October 2005, months before the protests began, suggesting that there is more to the controversy than just the original cartoons and their publication.

And, more Mohammed images in this archive.

TANGENTALLY RELATED: Someone else (One Good Move) has caught on to the Mohammed Rose renaming, and said basically what I did a few days back: We're all so alike.