Comments on: Images of Mohammed

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:16:03 +0000

I have read the only description I could find of Mohammed, in the stories of the companions, and would think even an identikit image would be impossible to make from it. How then can any image be said to represent Mohammed?

Also according to the quraan, making an image of Allah or Mohammed is not forbidden, but impossible, which I can understand as even defining an infinite being is a bit of a poser.

By: stuart allen

stuart allen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:42:30 +0000

For another take on depiction:
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/sfa/Depictions.html

By: Jim Baerg

Jim Baerg — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:53:56 +0000

Here's a report on another such incident.

Network Solutions Blocks Movie On Quaran: Here’s what you can do.
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=486

By: Nes

Nes — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:06 +0000

It's about time you posted something on Islam...

I thought I had posted a comment to someone once showing several examples, on this site alone, of criticism of Islam, but I can't find it now (if I even posted it!). Anyway, just search the site for "Islam" or "Muslim", I doubt that you'll be disappointed. There's also at least one essay on the parent site.

By: Dutch

Dutch — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:15:51 +0000

I haven't been here in awhile

It's about time you posted something on Islam...You/we have much more to fear from radical Islam than from radical Christians.

There is some hope. The following link is a NYTimes article about the growing disenchantment some Iraqis are having with radical clerics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04youth.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

By: TEP

TEP — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:02:26 +0000

I definitely think that these cartoons should be widely reprinted. They present a legitimate commentary on the nature of Islam. They raise the question of whether the teachings of Islam are responsible for terrorism. This, of course, is a vitally important issue that needs to be debated, rather than avoided out of fear and political correctness. The fanatics do not want a debate on this matter; they want to stifle all criticism and questioning of Islam. It is natural that they will be upset at any cartoons which portray Islam in a negative light. Any censoring of the cartoons is to cave into those who wish to stifle debate.

If Muslims have a problem with the message of the cartoons, they should provide counterarguments. They should say 'we do not agree with this message, and consider it to be inaccurate. We do not believe that Mohammed would have supported terrorism for these reasons . . ." If they really do oppose terrorism, then that would be the appropriate response. They should respond in the same way that anybody else would respond if somebody made a cartoon suggesting problems with their opinions - by making an argument as to why they think the cartoon is mistaken or inaccurate. Instead, the main response to the cartoons has been to prove that the claims made by them are correct - that the teachings of Mohammed do promote violence.

By: Chet

Chet — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:14:19 +0000

It's an interesting process of building up the law to keep it from being broken

I see it more as the kind of pandering we see even today, the pandering that results in things like extraordinarily out-of-proportion sentences for minor crimes. I can easily imagine medieval politician-clerics arguing about who was "tougher on graven images."

By: Brit-nontheist

Brit-nontheist — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:15:23 +0000

Spanish Inquisitor:

Is it me? Am I some cultural bigot? I look at those cartoons, and others, and I see a clearly Muslim male with a beard. Nothing more... There are literally millions of Muslim men who look like that now. Osama bin Laden looks like that...

Actually, one Iranain pointed out in a documentary about the cartoons that the famous cartoon with the bomb-turban looks far more like a picture of an Indian Sikh than an Arabic Muslim (the beard/moustache shape and the shape of the turban are the elements he pointed to) and I'd have to agree with him. If it wasn't for the fuse and the Arabic writing, I don't imagine even Muslims would assume it was their prophet, much less an attack on him.

By: Ingersoll's Revenge

Ingersoll's Revenge — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:46:25 +0000

The same anti-iconic impulse was a strong streak in early Christianity, at one point leading to blood running in the streets of Constantinople.

Ah, but this was an idea that the Ottomans picked up from the ruling families of Venice, as they frequented that city due to the extensive trade network of its port. So clearly, those rulers were tempted by the Devil when they ventured into an unholy land.

No true Muslim (Scotsman?) would make graven images of the Prophet (peace be upon him!). Therefore, it is obvious that if anyone insults the Prophet, he must be killed.

*Sarcasm disclaimer: I am not responsible for anyone who takes this post seriously.

By: Spanish Inquisitor

Spanish Inquisitor — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:16:16 +0000

Is it me? Am I some cultural bigot? I look at those cartoons, and others, and I see a clearly Muslim male with a beard. Nothing more. What makes them images of Mohammad, as opposed to any generic Muslim male. He doesn't have a big "M" tattooed on his face.

There are literally millions of Muslim men who look like that now. Osama bin Laden looks like that. Why don't they all look in their mirrors (they do have mirrors over there, don't they?) and question why they insist on wearing Mohammad masks. It seems that they, by their own facial makeup, reproduce a graven image of Mohammad every day.