Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court depicts Muhammad
Posted on 02/07/2006 6:07:59 PM PST by wagglebee
Frieze depicts Muhammad among 18 "lawgivers" on wall above Supreme Court justices' bench
The stone sculptures of 18 lawgivers, from Hammurabi to John Marshall, are meant to signify the law's foundation in a stable society. Included is Moses with the Ten Commandments.
The artwork, which is high above the justice's mahogany bench, was designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman for the building, which opened in the 1930s. Muhammad is between Charlemagne and Justinian.
The Muslim cartoon controversy erupted in violence a week ago over satirical drawings of Muhammad published in September by Denmark's Jyllands-Posten. The paper said it wanted to make a point about media self-censoring criticisms of Islamic terrorism.
Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical British Muslim cleric, told BBC Radio 4 yesterday the cartoonists should be tried and executed under Islamic law.
In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, protested the Supreme Court's Muhammad sculpture, saying, according to its annual report for that year, "While appreciating the fact that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations."
CAIR also said it was concerned that Muhammad "was shown with the Quran, Islam's Holy Book, in one hand and a sword in the other, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors."
Responding to the complaint, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist told CAIR the image could not be changed and explained that swords also were used throughout the court's architecture as symbols of justice.
"Altering the depiction of Muhammad would impair the artistic integrity of the whole," Rehnquist wrote. "Additionally, it is unlawful (under the U. S. Code) to remove or in any way injure an architectural feature in the Supreme Court."
But the federal government revised tourist literature at the court to show more respect for Islamic beliefs. Text that called Muhammad the "founder" of Islam was changed to say Muslims believe ''the divine word of God ... was revealed to Muhammad.''
The literature also added, "The figure is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad, and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet."
The Muhammad cartoons at the center of the current controversy have been reprinted in Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Jordan, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.
In response, protesters in Turkey marched outside the Danish consulate, terror groups in the West Bank threatened Danish and European interests, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades an offshoot of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party briefly kidnapped a German and thousands of Muslim demonstrators in Beirut clashed with police Sunday, storming the city's Danish consulate and setting it ablaze. A nearby Maronite Catholic church also was attacked, prompting fears the protests could turn into a sectarian clash.
Saturday in Damascus, the evacuated Danish and Norwegian embassies were burned during protests that also damaged the Swedish embassy. Rioters reportedly tried to storm the city's French mission but were held off by police.
Jihad, Jihad!!! Durka, durka, durka!!!!!
I would think then that it would be unconstitutional to erase Muhammed's image from the Supreme Court. Afterall, that's what the Muslims want them to do, and it would therefore be a violation of the separation of mosque and state to do what the Muslims want.
How about we just draw a pair of horns on him?
How about we paint a bullseye on him?
Leave it up there. At least it will serve to prove that we're not like those Taliban idiots that blew up those ancient Buddhist statues.
I was playing around with anagrams today and came up with this one:
"Islam is the religion of peace" anagrams to "I implore! He is escalating foe!"
A very telling detail. Since when to lawyers need swords?
Now that WND has pointed this out, perhaps the terrorists can get on with the business of attacking Americans and burning our embassies. I'm just surprised Farah brought it up before the New York Times or the Washington Post. Thanks Joseph. Our ambassadors salute you, as do all Americans, for helping to increase their chances of being murdered by insane Muslims.
He was a "law imposer" not a lawyer, that puts him in the same league as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
I'm an attorney. Obviously you've never met some of my clients.
Of course on right beside him is A Christian emperor with a sword also
LOrd Popes had swords led armies to defend the faith. I think its something to celebrate we have him on the Supreme court. It tells what this country is about in alot of ways.
Wait till this gets out. Mother of God--we will never hear the end of it.
The artists thought using the sword rather than a prepubescent girl was in better taste.
They should blast it off with dynamite, just like they did with the swastika atop the Brandenberg Gate in 1945.
I say we replace it with Mr. T.
"I pity the fool who don't obey the law."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.