Now I got a huuuge "?": Does the Koran really forbids the portraying of Mohammed?

[Fenris]

Recently, two doctors in theology were interviewed. The first was muslim, and then second was actually a pretty important Imam, both specialised in Islamism.

Guess what, both (interviewed separatly) the first one said there was already a lot of existing portraits of Mohammed that dated from the Ottoman empire and further and that it was not actually forbidden by Islam to portray the prophet.

The second said that nowhere in the Koran there was even a reference to a rule that would forbid anyone to portray the prophet.

Are they right? Are they wrong? My guess is that most of the people being violent in middle-east are illiterate or almost, let alone reading the Koran and that a great proportion of the people protesting have never read the Koran in it's entirety.

[{nF}remix]

Source?

First of all, back in the Ottoman empire, Islam wasn't as extremist as it is today. Extremist Islam is the trend these days for Islam, and with that they are very strict about the portrayal of their prophet.

[Ummon]

Source?

First of all, back in the Ottoman empire, Islam wasn't as extremist as it is today. Extremist Islam is the trend these days for Islam, and with that they are very strict about the portrayal of their prophet.

It wasn't extremist compared to the rest of the world. Meanwhile the world has evolved, and Islam, not.

Says who? You? According to some substantial branches of Islam, it definitely is. So members of those traditions are protesting.

Very true. And they are protesting in accordance to the interpretations of these traditions.

[Hells Bells]

Source?

First of all, back in the Ottoman empire, Islam wasn't as extremist as it is today. Extremist Islam is the trend these days for Islam, and with that they are very strict about the portrayal of their prophet.

muslims werent extreme way back when?
ever hear of the assasins and how they raped litle boys and commited ritual suicide
tel me thats not extreme
the only thing diferent now is that they have bombs

[Ahiga]

muslims werent extreme way back when?
ever hear of the assasins and how they raped litle boys and commited ritual suicide
tel me thats not extreme
the only thing diferent now is that they have bombs

Ahahahahaha. I'm sorry, just what a complete and utter gullible person you have to be. (You are wrong) to think a few bad seeds represent the entire population of Muslims in the past. Why don't I name good old Hernades Cortez and his conquistators whom spread christianity and the cost of the entire Aztec and Incan civilization. Boom. That makes Christians extreme, by your logic.

According to your logic (nor have I ever heard of the assassins raping little boys. Guess who also committed a ritual suicide rather than face the romans? Members of the Jewish rebellion who fled to that 'impentriable' fortress), the greeks were all pedophiles because it was practice for the males to have a sexual relationship (no sodomy or oral though) with a younger boy. Not all of them surely followed this, but the greeks must have been pedophiles because certain city states did!

The sect of Islam that the assassins belonged to (calling themselves Nizaris) were known for their lacking fear of death, and working as assassins. This is no more barbarous (one might even say less so) than waging war and causing civilians and soldier alike to suffer because of the conflict you have with a political leader.

You can't accurately compare the rough and lawless times of the past with those of today. Christianity and Islam had barbary and honor. Christians came to the holy land to murder and butcher, the Muslims went and enslaved pilgrims and executed Crusaders, just as Christians did the Muslim soldiers. We are inclined to point out the violent acts of faiths in the past, but it's no more accurate than stating 'LOOK! The romans butchered and destroyed many cultures. That means Italians from henceforth will inherit that.' or for a future generation to think because of WWII, the Germans have it in their blood to be warmongerers.


By the way, didja forget that Catholic priests have been doing that too? I guess those catholic priests and abortion-center bombers make catholicism and christianity extreme nowadays too.

Removed trolling-Valus

[Attalus]

If it was a God that spoke, it was an imperfect man that listened.

Some would do well to remember that.

Love your God...by all means.

Leave me out of it though, thanks very much.

[Hells Bells]

Ahahahahaha. I'm sorry, just what a complete and utter gullible person you have to be. (You are wrong) to think a few bad seeds represent the entire population of Muslims in the past. Why don't I name good old Hernades Cortez and his conquistators whom spread christianity and the cost of the entire Aztec and Incan civilization. Boom. That makes Christians extreme, by your logic.

According to your logic (nor have I ever heard of the assassins raping little boys. Guess who also committed a ritual suicide rather than face the romans? Members of the Jewish rebellion who fled to that 'impentriable' fortress), the greeks were all pedophiles because it was practice for the males to have a sexual relationship (no sodomy or oral though) with a younger boy. Not all of them surely followed this, but the greeks must have been pedophiles because certain city states did!

The sect of Islam that the assassins belonged to (calling themselves Nizaris) were known for their lacking fear of death, and working as assassins. This is no more barbarous (one might even say less so) than waging war and causing civilians and soldier alike to suffer because of the conflict you have with a political leader.

You can't accurately compare the rough and lawless times of the past with those of today. Christianity and Islam had barbary and honor. Christians came to the holy land to murder and butcher, the Muslims went and enslaved pilgrims and executed Crusaders, just as Christians did the Muslim soldiers. We are inclined to point out the violent acts of faiths in the past, but it's no more accurate than stating 'LOOK! The romans butchered and destroyed many cultures. That means Italians from henceforth will inherit that.' or for a future generation to think because of WWII, the Germans have it in their blood to be warmongerers.


By the way, didja forget that Catholic priests have been doing that too? I guess those catholic priests and abortion-center bombers make catholicism and christianity extreme nowadays too.

Removed trolling-Valus

I didnt mean that about all moslems nor was i trying to be biased all i wanted to say was that they were extreme back then like everybody else.


and yes all those things DO make christians extreme but everyone already Knows about that

Anyway i was talking about the assasins whom were a early terrorist organization and didnt have bombs , and making comparisons with the Modern terrorist organizations, like alquaida who hapen to have bombs and by blowing themselves up commit a sort of ritual suicide (guranteed heaven is the link here).

Also though the wording is far form rreadable there are a few clues

"they werent extreme way back when?"

whom did i mean was extreme?

y the extremists of course


also i thought they were the hashishum? either ur thinking of a different sect or i am wrong which may be

[Turbo]

muslims werent extreme way back when?
ever hear of the assasins and how they raped litle boys and commited ritual suicide
tel me thats not extreme
the only thing diferent now is that they have bombs

So you condemn an entire religion and culture because of the acts of "assassins". That makes a lot of sense.

This has no basis in any moral system which isn't one of the middle ages. The Press is free to respect religious belief or not.

Freedom of the press comes with responsibility not irresponsibility. In Nazi Germany similar cartoons in the press protrayed the Jews in bigotted manner. The result was severe persecution and eventual genocide. Does the press have the right to incite this type of bigotry and hatred? Absolutely not. Yet, we see a repeat of this occuring with the Islamic faith in the Western Press. Standing by and doing nothing is exactly what many Christians did during Nazi Germany and what many are continuing to do now when this type of hate and bigotry is being spread through the guise of "freedom of the press".

[Ummon]

So you condemn an entire religion and culture because of the acts of "assassins". That makes a lot of sense.



Freedom of the press comes with responsibility not irresponsibility. In Nazi Germany similar cartoons in the press protrayed the Jews in bigotted manner. The result was severe persecution and eventual genocide. Does the press have the right to incite this type of bigotry and hatred? Absolutely not. Yet, we see a repeat of this occuring with the Islamic faith in the Western Press. Standing by and doing nothing is exactly what many Christians did during Nazi Germany and what many are continuing to do now when this type of hate and bigotry is being spread through the guise of "freedom of the press".

Responsibility is subjective. You won't be allowed to decide for another human being which is not your minor offspring or a criminal, in a demcoratic country. I don't like fundamentalism, not even in Christians. If you want responsible behaviour, convince people not to publish cartoons, and do not publish them yourself. Syndacating on the civil rights of people is not a valid solution, sorry.

[RexNecros]

I created a thread long ago about the time this was really hot (still hot) and I think only five people replied, so here goes the same link again….

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44504

[Turbo]

Responsibility is subjective. You won't be allowed to decide for another human being which is not your minor offspring or a criminal, in a demcoratic country. I don't like fundamentalism, not even in Christians. If you want responsible behaviour, convince people not to publish cartoons, and do not publish them yourself. Syndacating on the civil rights of people is not a valid solution, sorry.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. This is an abuse of power that should be dealt with on a legal basis. The press can not be allowed to infringe on the religious rights of others in a bigotted and shameful manner.

Sounds more like you're saying negative criticism of religion is not acceptable. lol It most certainly is. Many Germans were Christian, and they certainly didn't sit by, they joined the army, the German army. Negative criticism, not mindless bashing, is constructive.

"Syndacating on the civil rights of people is not a valid solution, sorry."

Exactly.

Negative criticism such as bigotry and blatant racism is absolutely unacceptable. Depicting Muhammed as a Muslim with a bomb on his head is just that.

[Honeohvovohaestse]

So you condemn an entire religion and culture because of the acts of "assassins". That makes a lot of sense.



Freedom of the press comes with responsibility not irresponsibility. In Nazi Germany similar cartoons in the press protrayed the Jews in bigotted manner. The result was severe persecution and eventual genocide. Does the press have the right to incite this type of bigotry and hatred? Absolutely not. Yet, we see a repeat of this occuring with the Islamic faith in the Western Press. Standing by and doing nothing is exactly what many Christians did during Nazi Germany and what many are continuing to do now when this type of hate and bigotry is being spread through the guise of "freedom of the press".

Sounds more like you're saying negative criticism of religion is not acceptable. lol It most certainly is. Many Germans were Christian, and they certainly didn't sit by, they joined the army, the German army. Negative criticism, not mindless bashing, is constructive.

"Syndacating on the civil rights of people is not a valid solution, sorry."

Exactly.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Ulyaoth]

They're not supposed to have images of the prophets to keep people from idolizing them.

[Fenris]

They're not supposed to have images of the prophets to keep people from idolizing them.

But if no one idolize the cartoons, there is no wrong, right? The no portraying is just what some extremists have decided to do, it is in no way the "words of god" and such.

[danzig]

But if no one idolize the cartoons, there is no wrong, right? The no portraying is just what some extremists have decided to do, it is in no way the "words of god" and such.

In theory yeah to me its no different then the worshipping of 'false' idols in christian religion but distorted by nutjobs to include any image what so ever. Of course christianity well atleast Catholic religion is heavily based on images and symbols.

[Richard]

That is a good point (the literacy thing). In the Arab world at least, only 50% of men are literate. Most Islamic extremists are from poor and underpriveliged areas of society, indicating they are from the illiterate class. Just how DO they manage to read the Koran for themselves? More likely they just take whatever some Imam says without question.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

That is a good point (the literacy thing). In the Arab world at least, only 50% of men are literate. Most Islamic extremists are from poor and underpriveliged areas of society, indicating they are from the illiterate class. Just how DO they manage to read the Koran for themselves? More likely they just take whatever some Imam says without question.

Literacy or education has very little to do with it. Islam, just like Christianity, has a range of views on the idea of depicting Mohammed and other prophets. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity have had a long tradition of sacred images of Jesus, God and the saints. Elements of Protestant Christianity, on the other hand, have often been highly hostile to such depictions. In the Eighth and Ninth Centuries there was a savage backlash against all religious icons in the Orthodox faith, though this 'Iconoclasm' was eventually rejected. During the Reformation there was a similar backlash by Protestants, with the 'stripping of the altars' in England resulting in the vandalism and destruction of many great works of medieval art. Most Protestant sects still frown on any religious images which may lead to veneration of the images themselves, rather than their subjects. Some more extreme Protestant groups also disapprove of portraits or photos on the same grounds.

In Islam there always has been and still is a range of views on the subject. Some Islamic traditions have no problem with depictions of the Prophet etc, and you can buy holy images of Mohammed in bazaars in Iran. Shi'ite Islam is generally approving of respectful images of prophets. Other traditions, for example Persian Islam or the Ottomans, regularly depicted Mohammed etc, though sometimes with his face veiled.

But many Sunni traditions have always disapproved of any depictions of Mohammed in particular, prophets in general or even humans and animals of any kind, which is why a lot of Islamic art is geometric or based on calligraphy. The Qu'ran itself condemns idolatry - the worship of images - but contains no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Later hadiths do have such condemnations, but they have been interpreted differently at different times by different branches of Islam.

One thing all branches of Islam (and Christianity, for that matter) have in common is a condemnation of satirical and/or disrespectful depictions of holy figures. On October 22, 1988, for example, French Catholic fundamentalists launched a molotov cocktail attack on moviegoers outside a screening of The Last Temptation of Christ, severely burning four people and injuring thirteen. Death threats were also made against the producers of Dogma and Hail Mary.

Protests, violence and threats of violence over perceived 'blashphemy' is definitely not restricted to Islam.

[Ulyaoth]

God never said anything. It was Muhammed who left the decree.

[Fenris]

God never said anything. It was Muhammed who left the decree.

Where did he leave it?

The law is not in the Quran. The Quran even mentions without disapproval Solomon building statues. The Quran does condemn "Shirks" or Idol worship. They condemn building Idols or Statues or Pictures with the intent to worship it.

Here we go.

The Bukhari is a Hadith. The Hadiths were written hundreds of years after the Quran.

My hypothesis was basically true, it was a rule written by some extremists, no?

In my opinion Muslims true to their Prophet Muhammad should discard the Hadiths and stick to the Quran.

Right on.