Sunday Express Skeleton 24Th November...
Crosswords2 mins ago
Cartoons - for grunty
17 Answers
sorry if peeps are getting bored of it, but i would like to pick up on Grunty's post in one of the other Q's - is that true about images of the prophet Mohammed? I had some sympathy with the issue being highly offensive (we don't print cartoons about 'sambo' or '***' anymore, because they are offensive) and i had, possibly wrongly, assumed that the issue about images of Mohammed not being allowed, was not in question, that it was a staple part of Islamic law. Are you saying that's not true and it is simply an interperatation? just for the record, I have no sympathy with the ridiculous reaction this has caused or the pathetic excuses to stir up racial hatred on both sides.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Englishbird. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Some useful stuff on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_ca rtoons_controversy#Islamic_tradition
"Views regarding pictorial representation within the Muslim community have varied from group to group, and from time to time. Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures, Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found on the internet.[30][31][32] Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.
"Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical pictures are a somewhat different case � disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious."
The whole article's worth reading for a non-hysterical account of the whole sorry business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_ca rtoons_controversy#Islamic_tradition
"Views regarding pictorial representation within the Muslim community have varied from group to group, and from time to time. Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures, Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found on the internet.[30][31][32] Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.
"Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical pictures are a somewhat different case � disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious."
The whole article's worth reading for a non-hysterical account of the whole sorry business.
Does it really matter?? It is their religion and they can believe what they want and have whatever rules they want. If depicting Mohammed is against their rules then Muslims should not do it. BUT to tell non Muslims not to is a different matter. The Britsh press should publish them, if they do not the Muslim faith gains more ground in its war of attrition against the West.
All religions are based on interpretation however the followers will, as a part of their faith, choose to treat it as The Truth.
On the point raised by bill barlow
"It is their religion and they can believe what they want and have whatever rules they want. If <insert phrase here> is against their rules then Muslims should not do it."
I bet bill wouldn't say the same if the inserted phrase was Western Democracy...
"BUT to tell non Muslims not to is a different matter."
...although it is OK to tell Muslims not to do the things not liked by Western governments, and by "tell" I mean engage in military action.
On the point raised by bill barlow
"It is their religion and they can believe what they want and have whatever rules they want. If <insert phrase here> is against their rules then Muslims should not do it."
I bet bill wouldn't say the same if the inserted phrase was Western Democracy...
"BUT to tell non Muslims not to is a different matter."
...although it is OK to tell Muslims not to do the things not liked by Western governments, and by "tell" I mean engage in military action.
Bill- he dug a hole for himself pal-pity you are like me and fight fire with fire.I agree with you, as I have posted elsewhere.
Dont rise as my AB pal often reminds me.-thank gawd he is there occasionally to bail me out but more often than not he has his day and then softens the blow .Bless him (that didnt come out sincerely - must practice)
I think I may be missing something here, have you lot had a tiff on another thread? Kempies post on this thread is entirely reasonable. I do not agree with radical, threatening and hateful actions and reactions by Muslims, but by the same breath denounce all radical, threatening and hateful actions and reactions by the west... surely?! The religion of Islam is no worse that Catholicism, just as the 'Islamic fundamentalists' are no better than the IRA, you cannot condemn the masses because of the actions of the few. (And I don't even believe in God, so to me everyone's nuts anyway!)
WaldoMcFroog - thank you, excellent answer, I think the best I've ever had on AB, I will read that in full when I get a chance. I'm no great intellectual, but I do try to understand things before I critisise them. I fail often, but I give it a go!
Bill you shouldn't call other people bigots in a post consisting of offensive posts whilst refusing to accept anyone elses opinions or comments... it just makes you look stupid...
and one other thing, why would you feel the need to question someones sexuality as part of an argument designed to expose them as bigoted, guess what being called gay is not an insult... i'm not sure why i'm posting you won't listen - i think you prob have more in common with the bunch of radicals protesting against "people who think different to us" that you are ever going to realise.
Im sorry but kempie's arguement is a bit suckish. Give us an example of western governments "telling" muslims what to do? The muslim countries that are protesting are the hypocrits in this whole storm in a teacup. They say that we shouldnt offend them with pictures of their prophet but yet regularly print cartoons mocking jews and their religion in their own state sponsered racist newspapers.
The taliban were harbouring muslim terrorists because they supported their aims. They supported their aims because they shared them from their extreme muslim perspective. If they hadn't been a muslim regime (albeit and extreme on) they wouldn't have supported the. Western Govts didn't like this so they told them not to do it. They wouldn't listen so in went the bombers. An example, therefore, of western govts telling a muslim govt what to do. Sorry Ned there is no way round this. (And I supported the action against them).
Englishbird - I am sorry that I have not been on recently and therefore did not answer you sooner. I think however that Waldo has given a better answer than I would have. I am not a believer in a religion, but what I was saying was that the convention of not depicting the Prophet, taking off shoes to enter a mosque, making women be covered etc., are interpretations of what people think their God might want. I do not criticise Islam because my comments apply equally to most religions. Nobody has the right to impose their beliefs on others. The British, as Christians, have centuries of experience of doing that.
nedflanders fyo it was the US government that supported the taliban financially before 9/11. During that time the afghan people were oppressed by taliban while the western govenrments waved a blind eye on the situation in Afganistan. One the taliban served their time it was time for them to go. As scuzzball quite rightly pointed out because they dindn't do what the americans wanted their days were numbered. So much for western hypocrisy! But I guess this has always been the same. Do as we say otherwise we will bomb ya. yeeeeeeeeehaa
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.