John Kifner: Images of Muhammad, Gone for Good
DEEP in the bowels of this newspaper's old morgue — that beloved pre-electronic resource where compulsive clippers and filers stored the records — is a folder with a photograph of a Persian miniature painting depicting the Angel Gabriel appearing to the Prophet Muhammad. It was used to illustrate an article about Islam in 1974.
Taped on the back is a copy of an editor's note published two days later that said, "Since it is an affront to Moslems to depict such likenesses, The Times expresses its regrets to those who were offended by the use of the photograph."
So controversy over depictions of Muhammad, like those that have led to demonstrations, destruction and death over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, are not new. In truth, however, the depictions that caused some of the past protests were rather admiring.
Three years after the Persian miniature incident, a movie called "Mohammad, Messenger of God" opened and was promptly panned by critics. "Achingly clumsy," wrote Richard Eder in The Times. It was so bad, he added, that it was "of itself a convincing justification for the traditional Islamic hostility to pictorial representation."
The three-hour film, which was made by a Syrian-born Muslim director, Moustapha Akkad, and financed with money from Kuwait, Libya and Morocco, tried to get around the problem of depicting Muhammad by not having him played by an actor, but essentially viewing the events through his eyes.
But that did not placate anyone. In Washington, a Muslim group seized several buildings, killing a reporter, wounding 13 others and taking scores of hostages. Among their demands was that the movie's Washington premiere be canceled. It was.
In the New York area, the movie was canceled after theaters showing it received threats. Nationwide distribution was halted. ...
Read entire article at NYT
Taped on the back is a copy of an editor's note published two days later that said, "Since it is an affront to Moslems to depict such likenesses, The Times expresses its regrets to those who were offended by the use of the photograph."
So controversy over depictions of Muhammad, like those that have led to demonstrations, destruction and death over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, are not new. In truth, however, the depictions that caused some of the past protests were rather admiring.
Three years after the Persian miniature incident, a movie called "Mohammad, Messenger of God" opened and was promptly panned by critics. "Achingly clumsy," wrote Richard Eder in The Times. It was so bad, he added, that it was "of itself a convincing justification for the traditional Islamic hostility to pictorial representation."
The three-hour film, which was made by a Syrian-born Muslim director, Moustapha Akkad, and financed with money from Kuwait, Libya and Morocco, tried to get around the problem of depicting Muhammad by not having him played by an actor, but essentially viewing the events through his eyes.
But that did not placate anyone. In Washington, a Muslim group seized several buildings, killing a reporter, wounding 13 others and taking scores of hostages. Among their demands was that the movie's Washington premiere be canceled. It was.
In the New York area, the movie was canceled after theaters showing it received threats. Nationwide distribution was halted. ...