abu_rashid wrote on Apr 27^th, 2010 at 12:18am:


Then shouldn't it only be of concern to the Muslim community when a Muslim breaks these rules? Sacrilege isn't exactly illegal.

Jaemi,

Quote:


That is a matter of jurisdiction. Since they are doing it in a non-Muslim state, then the Muslims really have no ability to do anything anyway, other than to exert diplomatic pressure (as Sultan Abdul Hamid did for instance when France was going to stage Voltaire's disgusting play slandering Islam). Those who call for vigilante retribution are acting not in accordance with Islam, and the media beat-up claiming they are is just laughable to anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

fd,

Quote:


You are right here. But the difference between you and I is that I admit this, you don't. You persist under your delusion that what you consider acceptable is the universal definition of freedom.

Quote:


As I've made clear to you several times previously, the Qur'an is not the sole source of Islamic legislation. I do not enjoy repeating myself for the sake of your limited attention span.

Very good point Ammad, just what are the boundaries of acceptable depiction of a man who has been dead for 1400 years or so?

Is a stereotypical representation of any man from that era acceptable?

Must there be a perceived reverence for the subject, and who gets to define how that reverence must be conveyed?

Would a depiction of mohammed leading men into battle be OK, or laughing, or eating, or smiling benignly?

Would a contemporary modern artists style be acceptable, or would only renaissance style realism be the only ideal accepted?

When you look at it like this it does show a particularly subjective need from Islam on an issue that is serious enough to them to demand transgressors from their view be put to death, so perhaps they should consider widening their level of acceptance.

You missed this one Abu. I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter and highlights your hypocrisy.

Quote:


Like Muhammed?

Quote:


I support people's freedom to say things I don't like. That's why you are here. I'm not sure why you have such trouble with this concept. Also, if you acknowledge that what you support is not actually freedom, why do you keep saying it is?

Quote:


But it is what Muhammed set out for Muslims.

Quote:


By "challened strongly" you mean stoned to death, right? As an expression of different 'interpretation' of freedom of speech?

mozzaok wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 10:09pm:


Quote:


This is someone else (Grand Mufti of Egypt until 2010), but I thought it would be relevant to throw in.

I love it, they are very, very cool guys at south park, it makes mewant to see World Police again.


So I did not know that NO images of mohammed were allowed, I thought it was just ones they considered disrespectful, and that at least is understandable, from a wacky extremists point of view, but no images at all?
That just seems weird.
Now if a picture is worth a thousand words, does anyone who writes a thousand words about mohammed get a fatwa on them?

Also, if you cannot depict mohammed at all, then I guess there are no movies about his life, like christians have about jesus, which is a shame, cos a lot of them were pretty cool.

It does seem a bit dry that the only way anyone is allowed to learn about mohammed is by having their local authority tell them.
It would be like having the most boring teacher at school describing your favourite movie to you, instead of being allowed to watch it.

I do not get it, why?

This is a serious question Abu.

Do you know why they do not allow any images of mohammed to be portrayed?

mozza,

Quote:


I highly doubt the veracity of this claim. Unless the guy has done something else to upset the Muslims, then I very much doubt he's getting protected for merely saying this. As Jaemi pointed out, even the Grand Mufti of Egypt said this, admittedly he died not long after, but I think from natural causes

There is difference of opinion in Islam whether face covering is prescribed or not. Most people adopt the opinion it is not. However there's no doubting it's part of Islam, even if merely as an optional measure of modesty.

The protection claim is probably just hype.

Quote:


No more interesting than it is that many many highly educated Muslim women consider it compulsory, and all authentic scholars of Islam consider it either commendable or compulsory.

Quote:


It does no such thing.

Quote:


Kids come out with some very warped and strange thinking sometimes, sad that an adult would be docile enough to think it means something though.

What's your thoughts on the tooth fairy mozza?

Quote:


None, nil, zilch, nada.

Quote:


Well there is one. The scenes with Muhammad (pbuh) are shot from his perspective, which cleverly got around the issue. It's called The Message and although it's a little dated now (from 1976), it is still a classic, and has Anthony Quinn in it, who I'm sure is from your era

Quote:


By all means go watch the film, no need to rely on your local authority to tell you.

Quote:


Yes. The primary reasons are:

1) Any depiction of him (or any prophet) would be a falsification of them, and falsifying a prophet is akin to disbelieving in him. We also reject the depictions of Jesus (pbuh) and other prophets.

2) It would open the door to deification, as the Christians before us did. When you start creating images of holy people, you begin to over-sanctify them, and this is the path to idolatry, which Islam seeks to prevent. It's a precautionary measure in this sense.

Quote:


We believe he is beyond reproach in all respects, so no.

Look as I said, this comes down to jurisdiction. Muslims have no jurisdiction to control what happens in non-Muslim countries, so it's moot anyway.

Quote:


When he makes his claim for status as emissary of God, ask me again.

Quote:


Your limits... interesting. Look, you've got a few things you consider can overrule freedom, so do I. Placing mine under the umbrella of religion, and claiming yours stand on their own is just a further iteration of what I mentioned above. You think your limits to freedom are universal. Likewise I personally believe mine are universal however I don't promote that idea in this discussion, since I know you don't recognise them as universal. You on the other hand don't seem to come to this realisation.

Quote:


Close. Muhammad (pbuh) did not write the hadith collections per se (through scribes or otherwise). They are collections of corroborated reports of what he said and did. There is about 100 close companions and family members of his who spent a lot of time with him and who narrated his sayings and actions to others, who then related them to others. After about 3 generations, the Muhadditheen (Hadith Specialists) traveled the Islamic world collecting the narrations that corroborated one another, and compiled them into books.

So for instance they traveled to Baghdad, Damascus, Madinah and Makkah and if they heard the same narration in many places, with the exact same wording, and fitting the historical context, and ensuring all links in the chain were of sound mind and character then they would authenticate it and add it to their compilation. There is a lot more to it than that, and the study of hadith authentication is considered one of the more rigorous Islamic sciences.