I'm Norwegian and I have nothing against Islam

[XU1]

Hey teddy bear.....it's just that there seems to be a hell of a lot of them these days......and I'm still waiting for member newhive to show me where in the Quran it says that you can't have an image of Muhammad.?....there are plenty of paintings of him on ancient muslim murals..........so please newhive where does it say so in the Quran?

I await in anticipation.

iTony

[gerbick]

I'm still waiting for member newhive to show me where in the Quran it says that you can't have an image of Muhammad.?....there are plenty of paintings of him on ancient muslim murals..........so please newhive where does it say so in the Quran?

breaking our agreed upon silence rule...

I can somewhat answer this one.

The whole part of idolatry is what's going on about the picture(s) of the prophet. it's written quite a few times in the Qu'ran about how Muhammed (PBUH) - hereby "prophet" to avoid too many places I might dwell into making mistakes - forbade idolatry, as part of the principal sins - idolatry and apostasy, adultery, false witness against a brother Moslem, games of chance, the drinking of wine or other intoxicants, usury, and divination by arrows.

With that, the picture of the prophet were not forbidden; they are considered sacred. Just as pictures of Jesus were once things that could get you killed by the orthodox church - or at least banished, whipped, drawn and quartered - this is what we're dealing with now. Taking a sacred person from a religious text and painting them in a manner not befitting of their sacred position in those religious text(s). A mockery basically. The other end of the spectrum... worshipping that image, thus idolatry.

This is something I've gotten from my time while in Turkey. You didn't quite see houses with pictures of the prophets, but you saw them in the mosques... where you worshipped. And even then, it was understood that it was a reminder of who brought the word, do not worship them. Worship only God/Allah.

Now, with all of that said, I'm merely slightly answering your question. There's a few entries on how the prophet stated that his wish was not to become an icon of worship, thus idolatry.

Hope that makes sense.

[swampy]

Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

[XU1]

It's true that Abraham lived in the the land of "ur" and it was a very idolatrous place, and so were some of his relatives ( interstingly Abraham was not called Abraham until much later after he left the land, when he had proven his faith in God....his name was Abram...it just leads me to think of more plagiarism on the part of Muhammad...with the intent of converting the Jews of course )

I know that Muhammad was very concerned and tortured at the idolatry around him, hence the "conquests" to unite and eliminate idol worship.

But as I stated to gerb's post I think that Islam has been corrupted like mainstream Christianity has, you can't have a prohibition of images in muslim houses, but then have images of him in the mosques.

iTony

[XU1]

breaking our agreed upon silence rule...

Code of silence lifted and I extend an apology for going overboard earlier on in another thread...

I can somewhat answer this one.

The whole part of idolatry is what's going on about the picture(s) of the prophet. it's written quite a few times in the Qu'ran about how Muhammed (PBUH) - hereby "prophet" to avoid too many places I might dwell into making mistakes - forbade idolatry, as part of the principal sins - idolatry and apostasy, adultery, false witness against a brother Moslem, games of chance, the drinking of wine or other intoxicants, usury, and divination by arrows.

With that, the picture of the prophet were not forbidden; they are considered sacred. Just as pictures of Jesus were once things that could get you killed by the orthodox church - or at least banished, whipped, drawn and quartered - this is what we're dealing with now. Taking a sacred person from a religious text and painting them in a manner not befitting of their sacred position in those religious text(s). A mockery basically. The other end of the spectrum... worshipping that image, thus idolatry.

This is something I've gotten from my time while in Turkey. You didn't quite see houses with pictures of the prophets, but you saw them in the mosques... where you worshipped. And even then, it was understood that it was a reminder of who brought the word, do not worship them. Worship only God/Allah.

Now, with all of that said, I'm merely slightly answering your question. There's a few entries on how the prophet stated that his wish was not to become an icon of worship, thus idolatry.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for that clarification, it seems pretty plausible, and I hand an incling that there was more to it than a verse in the hadiths or the Quran.

So in reality there isn't that much difference between "Christendoms" portail of Jesus and Mulsims Portrail of Muhammad?

Yet the Jews had no images whatso ever of any specific prophet, in the houses or in the synagougues.

I think that in many ways Islam has been corrupted the same way that Christianity has been corrupted, all in the name of power and interest to control people.

iTony

[gerbick]

I actually don't remember paintings of the prophet in the mosques, actually. I do remember photos of historical sites in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem.

So again, I might still be wrong - and not afraid to admit it.

I just wanted to at least share that it's in the Qu'ran as well as part of the religion due to parts of what I said above.

And apology accepted. I extend an apology back as well mate.

[XU1]

I actually don't remember paintings of the prophet in the mosques, actually. I do remember photos of historical sites in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem.

So again, I might still be wrong - and not afraid to admit it.

I just wanted to at least share that it's in the Qu'ran as well as part of the religion due to parts of what I said above.

And apology accepted. I extend an apology back as well mate.

No worries mate.. thanks

iTony

[TallGuyLittleCar]

That girl can sue the living piss out of the person and file charges against the person that made the pic. I highly recommend that Allah consult a lawyer immediately.

[Ask The Geezer]

Here's what your saying.... You expect a majority of the world to change their very mental concept of comedy to fit your mental concept of what is sacred?

It's an unreasonable expectation at best. It just isn't going to happen. In fact, by knowing the muslim world gets so upset at what the west sees as such a trivial thing just opens you up to more of the same. Some people can't help picking at scabs. If the radicals in the west see an easy way to get muslims to kill each other, riot and burn down their buildings by simply publishing a cartoon, then they are going to do it all the time.

Everything that's happened in the last few weeks because of some cartoon that was published 5 months ago shows the west what a radical and unstable world muslims inhabit. It proves to the west that the middle east is something to fear, because they can't understand such behaviour. When people fear something, they fight it harder. The same as a rat will fight like a fiend if it's cornered and threatened, but is a peaceful animal if left alone.

I would suggest you just ignore it, rather than burn down embassies and kill each other over something so trivial, such behaviour just proves to the rest of the world that all the stereotypes about muslims are true.

[ViRGo_RK]

Yes, yes. I know him.

Andy Warhol, looks a scream. Hang him on my wall.

[gerbick]

naw, you're quite correct. I typed law, thought act. But don't think it's illegal. But it's a statute nonetheless.

why not go ahead and give the other side an equal? it truly takes a lot of the wind out the sails of those saying that it's one way. let an equal one exist for them. it's only fair.

[indivision]

naw, you're quite correct. I typed law, thought act. But don't think it's illegal. But it's a statute nonetheless.

why not go ahead and give the other side an equal? it truly takes a lot of the wind out the sails of those saying that it's one way. let an equal one exist for them. it's only fair.

I think thats a good point. From a PR perspective, extremists use things like this to whip up hysteria about zionist america, etc. and it might be worthwhile to consider something like that just for the sake of taking that argument out.

But, I think the origin of the act was fair enough when Arab nations were justifying their proposals with anti-semitic arguments. I may be wrong about this, but I dont think that Israel or any other country participating in the UN has tried to justify their proposals with anti-islamic arguments?

[gerbick]

word it the same way.

see rope? don't hang self.

[XU1]

word it the same way.

see rope? don't hang self.

Hmm, I dont know, that would just open the floodgates for lawyers and arguments over definitions.

Plus, the over representation of tyrannical and opressive Muslim states in the UN would ensure that the law would evolve into some form of sharia.

And really, the UN should be turned into a soup kitchen...

iTony

[XU1]

Hey Gerbs...that avatar of yours reminds me of Pizza face from fat albert.

iTony

[gerbick]

**** a lawyer. seriously, word it the same way, sit back and say "now what? it's equal."

[XU1]

**** a lawyer. seriously, word it the same way, sit back and say "now what? it's equal."

But then I would want one for anti Christians, and then one for Buddhists, then one for Calathumpians, Breatharians, the Nude club, Gomer Pyle, Hooters, etc.

The atrocities commited on the Jews are to be abhorred and no race of people should ever go through what they did, that Anti Semitic Law is a must, since anti semitism is preached with absolute venom, and hatred similar to Hitlers era and most if not all comes out from predominanly Muslim countries.

The situation with the cartoons is completely different.

Enacting laws against offending them is just giving in to them, doing so through the UN would be suicide for free speech.

iTony

[gerbick]

But then I would want one for anti Christians, and then one for Buddhists, then one for Calathumpians, Breatharians, the Nude club, Gomer Pyle, Hooters, etc.

Roll it all into an international hate crime/anti-ethnic cleansing act... and you got something there.

there's nothing wrong with nude clubs.

The atrocities commited on the Jews are to be abhorred and no race of people should ever go through what they did, that Anti Semitic Law is a must, since anti semitism is preached with absolute venom, and hatred similar to Hitlers era and most if not all comes out from predominanly Muslim countries.

again, this is where I break rank. Jews lost 6 million in the holocaust. Africans lost over 10-12 million in the middle passage. so with that, I'm a bit apathetic because there's no law that addresses that atrocity other than the glancing blows by hate crime statutes.

The situation with the cartoons is completely different.

Enable the Anti-Garfield Act.

ok, I just don't like Garfield. Never have.

Enacting laws against offending them is just giving in to them, doing so through the UN would be suicide for free speech.

it's a step to shut up the mullahs saying that things are uneven. the same way that affirmative action is in place (unfortunately) in the US - they feel they're not on equal standing.

so give it to them. it's a necessary step to shut up the radicals. what can they say then? It's no longer equal? naw... it's all about how you act, react and treat the people around you. react like this again in the future... well then perhaps the situation needs to be looked at more closely.

I mean... the nigh-month long French riots proved how if things remain uneven for too long, that's a powder keg that's waiting to go off.

So this is a premptive solution. They don't accept it, then that's giving in. I see this as handing the people the rope. They hang themselves, who's the blame?

[XU1]

[QUOTE=gerbick]Roll it all into an international hate crime/anti-ethnic cleansing act... and you got something there.

there's nothing wrong with nude clubs.

You pervet you....

again, this is where I break rank. Jews lost 6 million in the holocaust. Africans lost over 10-12 million in the middle passage. so with that, I'm a bit apathetic because there's no law that addresses that atrocity other than the glancing blows by hate crime statutes.

Both equaly abhorrent in their own times, But the Jews were singled out for genocide and were not to be preserved at all.

iTony

[indivision]

Enacting laws against offending them is just giving in to them, doing so through the UN would be suicide for free speech.

iTony

I dont think its really a law as much as official positioning so that the members of the UN aren't forced to allow a forum for anti-semitic rhetoric which is generally not recognized as being valid by most nations. It's saying "we are officially disregarding anything you bring up if it involves anti-semitism". Its not saying "we are making special protection for Jews because we feel bad for what happened to them and we dont think anyone else deserves to be protected".