Global Image of Islam ...

[Sukerkin]

When I read of religious terrorist/criminal incidents like this one, I am ever given to wonder if those that carry them out think for a moment on just how their actions will actually reflect upon their religion?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350

They may well be extremists nutters but what the general public reads is just that, yet again, followers of a faith are behaving in such a way as to make acceptance of them impossible.

My own opinion? Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough. Then followers of that faith should not breach that edict. The rest of the world should be able to depict what on earth they like, in accordance with the laws of the country they live in. Pretty simple.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Simple to a rational mind, not one steeped in "religion". It wasn't so long ago that Christianity was executing people for 'heresy' for not believing as they do. In some places, "witches" are still killed by the local Christian groups. 50-100 years from now I expect Islam will be where Christianity is today. A bit tamer. Until then, fanatics will continue to do what fanatics always have unfortunately.

 

[Jenna]

I agree with what is said. I think I would paraphrase what Bob has said and propose that this is NOT a problem of religion per se. Rather it is a problem of FANATICISM.

When people feel they are "right" about something to the extent that anyone who disagrees with them must be silenced, then this is what we get. If these absurd and mindless acts were not ill-advisedly committed in the supposed name of a religion that would NEVER condone these acts in its central tenets, then it would be done in the name of race, or colour, or political ends or any number of things.

Indoctrination into the MISINTERPRETED expressions of religion that leads to fanaticism is the problem, NOT religion.

Just as you cannot blame Austrians for birthing Nazism, nor can you blame Islam for birthing fanaticism committed "supposedly" in its name. That the two are undoubtedly linked creates neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for such continual wildly generalising conclusions in the minds of anyone except dumbass mainstream media and those that follow it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well since we are talking a “Global Image” just for therecord these are the countries we are talking about

Islam is more than just the Middle East; there is even a rather substantial Islamic population in China in Yunnan province and Henan province

 

[fangjian]

My own opinion? Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough. Then followers of that faith should not breach that edict. The rest of the world should be able to depict what on earth they like, in accordance with the laws of the country they live in. Pretty simple.

Free Speech and Free Inquiry is the most important concept for continued progress. It is often considered rude to criticize another persons beliefs. This is where things need to change. And they are changing. I too, used to be under the spell of 'criticizing religions is disrespectful' until I finally came to my senses. When in the world is it considered rude to criticize Socialism, Republicanism, Cosmology or ANY subject for that matter?

 

[Big Don]

As with any large group, the misbehaving 1% will give the others a bad name. Except, of course lawyers, where the 99% give the 1% a bad name.

 

[andy.m]

My own opinion? Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough. Then followers of that faith should not breach that edict.

Totally agree, the rules of religion apply SOLELY to the followers of that religion . Worryingly, if you look, Islams calender, the date is only 1431. If you do a parallel date history, the Reformation is due. Just how bad was that from renaissance Europe. So I hope your right and things settle down quickly.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well, Islam forbids the depiction of its prophet - fair enough.

OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?

 

[Jenna]

OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?

If it is a serious question XS, then I would suggest that to require a picture of one's deity or prophets is to encourage idolatry and which is a thing that is rife in many religions where statues, icons and images are worshipped over / or in place of the word of God. This is the reason for the exhortation not to depict Mohammad. Again, this is not Qur'anic doctrine per se. And further, many Muslim people do not subscribe to this exhortation at all.

 

[elder999]

OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?

Beyond the fact that Islam-that is to say, the Koran, does not specifically forbid the depiction of Muhammad, this Islamic world is divided over this.Most Sunni will find any depictions of Muhammad distasteful, while most Shia accept respectful depictions. As for your very logical question, it's a matter of context, isn't it. I mean there's this:

and this:



and this:

 

[Tez3]

At least he still looks like he comes from the Middle East unlike many depictions of Jesus where they make him a blue eyed blond because we really wouldn't want to be following a Jew now would we.

 

[Twin Fist]

how about a drawing that shows him marrying the 6 year old?

 

[Big Don]

OK this may get me in trouble but I am actually asking a serious question. If you cannot show depictions of the prophet then how do they know what he looks like and how do they know anyone is actually showing a depiction of the prophet at all?

What? That? NO! That isn't Mohammad. He was taller...

 

[Big Don]

At least he still looks like he comes from the Middle East unlike many depictions of Jesus where they make him a blue eyed blond because we really wouldn't want to be following a Jew now would we.

20+ years ago, Eddie Murphy had a bit about that... "Skin of bronze, hair like a wooly lamb... Jesus was a ******."

 

[elder999]

how about a drawing that shows him marrying the 6 year old?

She was 9. And?

 

[Carol]

At least he still looks like he comes from the Middle East unlike many depictions of Jesus where they make him a blue eyed blond because we really wouldn't want to be following a Jew now would we.

My brother in law has a T-shirt that says "My boss is a Jewish carpenter" :lol:

 

[Twin Fist]

no, he married her at 6, consumated it at 9.

and yes we know, yo defend those actions

She was 9. And?

 

[granfire]

no, he married her at 6, consumated it at 9.

and yes we know, yo defend those actions

And you think that he is/was the only one over 1600 years ago conducting himself in this manner?
hell, it is rumored that Charlemagne had relations with his own daughters...the sword of Christianity himself....

And there are plenty of 'good church going people' these days, when we certainly know better who do the same thing.

 

[Tez3]

The girl was 9 and Metheselah was 969, does anyone think perhaps that timespans and the way of counting the years perhaps were a little different from how we count it? Or it is much easier not to think about it and instantly condemn Islam?
Moslems think a great deal about this, they argue back and forth as we do. Like a lot of things to do with politics and religions too many just generalise and see what they want to see.
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

 

[Jenna]

The girl was 9 and Metheselah was 969, does anyone think perhaps that timespans and the way of counting the years perhaps were a little different from how we count it? Or it is much easier not to think about it and instantly condemn Islam?

That is a valid inquiry Tez.

I would say that Numbers play a far greater role in religious metaphor and ritual than we apprehend nowadays. There is nothing wrong with these numbers. There is only a problem with our ability to interpret those numbers correctly. Those that advocate literal and decontextualised interpretation of ANY of the holy texts are at fault in their reasoning.

I think Tez, there are those that will condemn religions regardless of the potential for good, choosing instead to follow media guidelines and focus on the juicier contortions of the true Word of God. That is just my opinion. Though it is obvious just from reading some stuff around here.