Good article about the recent protests over Danish newspapers depiction of islamic prophet.

Your taboo, not mine


The full article is in the link above but I want to post the last two paragraphs.

And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.

Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...399263,00.html

'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam'

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch politician forced to go into hiding after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, responds to the Danish cartoon scandal, arguing that if Europe doesn't stand up to extremists, a culture of self-censorship of criticism of Islam that pervades in Holland will spread in Europe. Auf Wiedersehen, free speech.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
I was doing a google search on why images of Mohammed are banned and still have no real answer. This link shows up and has pictures from many different Muslim countries of Mohammed as well as the offending images from the newspapers.

-Rudey

One such voice, Jihad al-Momani, editor-in-chief of the Jordanian weekly Shihan, was arrested for republishing the cartoons (to show Arabs what they were protesting). In an accompanying editorial - which his staff subsequently repudiated - Momani wrote: "Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who draws the prophet... or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in Amman or anywhere else?"

-Rudey

Maybe there's not a definitive answer, I'm not sure, but I think people are upset over these because they are more widespread. The art shown wasn't widespread at the time. Also, no one said what these artists did was okay. We don't know what happened to them because of the paintings/drawings. Maybe nothing happened to them at all, but it does state in hadith that it isn't to be done:

http://www.islamicity.com/hadith/act...textS=pictures

They'll have to answer as to why they created them on Judgement Day.

I'm still not understanding. The easiest answer is that pictures of any kind are forbidden of anyone, but that wouldn't make sense.

-Rudey

I'm searching in the same hadith website under Muhammad and pictures but cannot find anything regarding specifically pictures of Muhammad, just pictures in general. I was taught not to have pictures of anyone hanging in the house, not just specifically the Prophet Muhammad. So, this would be pictures/images of Jesus, Moses, LL Cool J, whoever. Animals are also prohibited. Flowers and plants are okay. Perhaps someone else can add to their personal experience or knowledge with this.

OK but I know for sure that there are many, many pictures in the middle east. I guess that's where my confusion is. I told you about the example of the Ayatollah. I mean that's not exactly a group of people that know nothing about Islam that has pictures of him. Is it just in someone's house?

-Rudey

No, the rule is that the painting isn't even supposed to be created. I agree that these people definitely know the rules and aren't abiding by them. A lot of what people do also depends on culture, where they are in the world (Middle East as opposed to America), etc. etc. Another example of this would be women covering. In some countries, women cover their faces, while in other countries, women aren't even covering their heads, though there are clear rules regarding this.

In other words, people are people first, so regardless of how many rules there are, somebody is bound to go against them, make it convenient for themselves, interpret them differently, etc.

OK but is there any Muslim country that bans pictures and cameras and any type of painting?

-Rudey

Probably not, since you can have pictures of inanimate objects. Photos are looked at a little differently as well. I just know that in the household I grew up in, we couldn't have pictures of people or animals hanging up, but we did take pictures.

OK well today protestors in Iran burned the Danish embassy.

In Iran, there are pictures available everywhere of the Ayatollah and he is revered to put it mildly. Heck they kissed his hands and feet.

I'm not understanding this at all. I understand that people can be hypocrites but I think it's more than that and maybe pictures are allowed. Heck in Iran, everything is done with a decree out of Q'om and even sex change operations are regulated by the Ayatollah. It says something if he and the clerics were ok with those images being used.

In other news, Muslim protestors attacked a US army base in Afghanistan in protest. Given that America had nothing to do with this and actually objected to the images, these people are absolute morons. This is a further testament that morons and religion should not mix because they create these fundamentalists. They should have beat everyone in the crowd until they stopped being stupid.

-Rudey

I agree, morons and religion shouldn't mix.

If you mean NO pictures or likenesses of anyone, period, then it would seem that Saddam offended millions with the enormous photos and pictures of his face plastered literally everywhere during his tenure.

Does that go back to your example of women who cover faces, heads, etc. versus some who don't cover at all?

The cartoons were unnecessary and offensive. The protests have exceeded both as a reaction.

You lost me.

Jihadists have repeatedly bombed areas with Westerners in Indonesia. They have attacked the Danish embassy and Denmark has advised its citizens to leave Indonesia.

"300 agitated muslim militants from the extremist "Islamic Defender's Front" have smashed lamps, and thrown around chairs in an orgy of vandalism, whilst screaming Allahu Akbar."

I'm not sure how many people see Indonesia as moderate.

Iran is now holding a competition for Holocaust cartoons. I blame Jimmy "I love the Ayatollah" Carter for that one. http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...ch&sa=N&tab=wi shows many images of the Ayatollah. Obviously pictures are not banned in Iran, especially not of religious figures.

Additionally, nobody has stormed Jordanian or Malaysian embassies and burnt them. This is clearly an indication of the pure vitriol and hate that is taught in the madrassas of that primitive region. It is not about the fact that there are cartoons of Mohammed when they burn buildings and threaten people.

-Rudey