If a girl is writhing in a guy's arms and things are so seeming to be happening and she suddenly whipsers in his ear "You're in trouble.  You're SO in trouble," but she fails to elaborate further and returns to writhing...

What does she mean?  What does she really mean?

I'm undergoing a nervous break-up (opposite of a nervous breakdown) while dedicating myself to nurturing my Artificial Ignorance.

Artificial Ignorance is the process whereby you throw away all the clutter of information you've either acquired or encountered that you determine isn't either useful or interesting. If there's anything left after you've thrown away the stuff you've determined isn't useful or interesting, then the leftovers must be useful or interesting.

An application of this occurs when moving.  If you're moving and trying to decide what to take along and what to throw away, pick up or touch an object in question.  If within 5 seconds you remain uninspired with it (neutral - either way) and undecided about whether to keep or ditch it, ditch it and move on.  Act on your Un-Knowledge and be free!  ha.

Now here's a real problem for Muslims who take offense with images of Mohhamad

We all know that on the Internet that all things graphically rendered are rendered in pixels.  These words, those pictures: all pixels.  Pixels assembling.  Pixels associating.  Pixels being pixels.

Now imagine a web font whose letters are highly stylized, many of which characters pictographically represent various depictions of Mohhamad pretty damn well.  An 'O' face of the Prophet staring.  A 'G' profile of the Prophet smiling.  A 'Q' face of Prophet sticking his tongue out.  It's a clever font.  It's a novel font.  And someone ends up using this font on their blog to simply blog or even just to express love poetry, not with any intent to offend. 

Muslims worldwide take offense. 

Okay.  So now lets fuzzy-up that font a bit.  The stare, the smile, the tongue blur somewhat.  The font begins to appear less character-esque and more ornate.  Good enough?  Can I get back to writing poetry?

Still many Muslims protest that it defiles their restriction that no 'images' of the Prophet ever be displayed. 

Okay.  So in further deference to them,  lets fuzzy-up that font a bit more.   Is that a smile, is that a stare, is that a tongue, is that even Mohhamad anymore? 

Fuzzy on, fuzzy some more. 

At what precise point does that font cease to be a symbolic font that offends Muslims and merely becomes a medium for words once again? 

One Muslim says "That's enough."  Another says: "No, I can still see the Prophet in the letters." 

How far do we need to go?  Must we satisfy everyone?  What if we fuzz the font all the way back to the font you're looking at now and some radical-type Muslims still claim they see Mohhamad characterizations in it -  like some Christians see Mary's image on toast?  That would be ridiculous, of course.  But the question is at 'what point'  does the font cease to be Mohhamad-esque enough?  And whose  call is it? 

If 'out of respect' we self-censor in order not to offend, deferring always to what some Muslims consider offensive, someday we may find ourselves font-less. 

 "Sorry, mister, you can't eat that toast.  That's a rendering of Jesus on it."

a brilliant insight - and I challenge you to defy my logic 
(see post below for additional context)

If Islam doesn't permit any images of Mohhamad, how the hell can they judge who the radically-propelled 'controversial' cartoons represent in the first place?  It could be Alfred E. Neumann in a turban and they'd have to assume it was the Prophet only because we told them so.  

If they are taking offense to 'images of Mohammad' but have no available reference images of the Prophet, then Wesern artists are entirely free to create their own interpretation of the Prophet in the image of whatever they deign.  Thus the Prophet, like God, becomes in the image and likeness. (Or is it supposed to be the other way around?)

Or maybe, just maybe. there are taboo images  of Mohammad that all Muslims are thoroughly familiar with.   Maybe every Muslim really already knows what he looks (looked) like.  And the Western cartoons do, indeed,  look like the images they are unmistakably familiar with.  Hence they take recognitional offense.  Then my question to Muslims is: If images of Mohhamad are so strictly forbidden, does not your own implicit familiarity in recognizing such a likeness bespeak a betrayal beyond even infidel contempt?

The credible End of Islam?  Their religion and the capacity of their believers to believe is cartooned to oblivion with incessant 21st century satirically-generated images of Allah-knows-who.