Charlie Hebdo to attack Muslims again

[Shadow Wolf]

1: yes it should be illegal to joke about others religious belief.

You are free to move to places where it is illegal.
But censorship most often isn't good for society. Better we let people speak their mind than let it fester and build, and worse yet oppressed because their voice has been silenced. Worse it still, it creates a
slippery slope into waters we learned we do not want to tread. America was framed specifically to escape those ugly waters of oppressive censorship that wrongly creates criminals and in places where it is illegal to joke about religion, it creates murder victims and martyrs for their right to speak freely.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe the muslims are the ones that should learn not to be offended by a cartoon.......................................

And while theyre at it, learn to peacefully coexist in world where atheists aren't considered inherently evil, apostates aren't criminals, women are empowered amd can be man-free and not cover up, and where queers are free along with Witches and Jews and Satanists.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And while theyre at it, learn to peacefully coexist in world where atheists aren't considered inherently evil, apostates aren't criminals, women are empowered amd can be man-free and not cover up, and where queers are free along with Witches and Jews and Satanists.

All those fanatical Muslim regimes are propped up by the US, you know (besides Iran, but KSA is even worse than Iran).

 

[Howard Is]

All those fanatical Muslim regimes are propped up by the US, you know (besides Iran, but KSA is even worse than Iran).

Yep. Strange business.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All those fanatical Muslim regimes are propped up by the US, you know (besides Iran, but KSA is even worse than Iran).

Some, but not all.

 

[stvdv]

All those fanatical Muslim regimes are propped up by the US, you know (besides Iran, but KSA is even worse than Iran).

Not all

Still, if there were no violent verses in the Koran, they could not be 'propped up' that way

 

[stvdv]

Yep. Strange business.

Not very strange.

If there is opportunity, USA takes it

Take away opportunity solves the problem

 

[kiwimac]

Islam say portrait of the prophet is not right to do, what is weak about following the teaching?

You do realise some of the early Muslim artists quite happily portrayed Muhammad.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You are free to move to places where it is illegal.
But censorship most often isn't good for society. Better we let people speak their mind than let it fester and build, and worse yet oppressed because their voice has been silenced. Worse it still, it creates a
slippery slope into waters we learned we do not want to tread. America was framed specifically to escape those ugly waters of oppressive censorship that wrongly creates criminals and in places where it is illegal to joke about religion, it creates murder victims and martyrs for their right to speak freely.

No that is not true, if any, it is the American war on Muslims that created hate, not Islam or Muslims.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not all

Still, if there were no violent verses in the Koran, they could not be 'propped up' that way

There are more violence in the Bible, then in the Qur'an

 

[Spirit of Light]

You do realise some of the early Muslim artists quite happily portrayed Muhammad.

I do not know, because I have never seen it.
There is today not good to draw or paint Muhammad so that is what I speak about.

 

[Howard Is]

Not very strange.

If there is opportunity, USA takes it

Take away opportunity solves the problem

There are people I refer to as Paranational Psychopaths.
In every country.
Professing every religion, or political allegiance.
Sickeningly wealthy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No that is not true, if any, it is the American war on Muslims that created hate, not Islam or Muslims.

America had a part, but isnt the sole entity to blame. They have there own ethnic and sectarian conflicts, interstate conflicts, their own genocide, their own terrorist groups, all free of being started as a direct response to America.
And where do you suppose they got their ways? It was Americathat made ISIS behead and crucify homosexuals. America did not make Boko Haram abduct girls and fforce them into sex slavery. America does not make the Taliban persecute Christians and Jews.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do not know, because I have never seen it.
There is today not good to draw or paint Muhammad so that is what I speak about.

A question, Amanaki...
My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is that depictions of Muhammed are not explicitly banned in the Quran.
There are hadiths which do prescribe against it, more as a defense against idolatry. Clearly that is not something Charlie Hedbo was guilty of. And there are other hadiths which prescribe against the depiction of any living thing, including animals. Again, this appears slanted towards idolatry, and some commentaries seem to suggest it's permitted to depict living things if they are not being honoured.

So...what are your thoughts about depictions of animals? Should they be allowed or banned? Why?

Ayatollah Khomeini once named a portrait of Muhammed in his youth as one of his favourite paintings. What are your thoughts on that?

If...as a hypothetical...there is no Quranic objection to depicting Muhammed in art, but many Muslims become upset by depictions of Muhammed in art, what is the appropriate action, and why?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No that is not true, if any, it is the American war on Muslims that created hate, not Islam or Muslims.

The best way I ever heard it put (from a Middle Eastern Muslim man who fled to the West for his life), Liberals are wrong about Islam and Conservatives are wrong about Muslims.

 

[Spirit of Light]

America had a part, but isnt the sole entity to blame. They have there own ethnic and sectarian conflicts, interstate conflicts, their own genocide, their own terrorist groups, all free of being started as a direct response to America.
And where do you suppose they got their ways? It was Americathat made ISIS behead and crucify homosexuals. America did not make Boko Haram abduct girls and fforce them into sex slavery. America does not make the Taliban persecute Christians and Jews.

If America and other nations had not interfered, the global issue we see today would never happend. Some of the political countries in especially middle east are doing wrong with their extreme view on Sharia law, but sharia is not even written down. It is interpretation of oral laws. But when countries like America push the way they do. Muslim countries has a right to defend them self.
I don't believe for a second that it was Muslims behind 9/11 that was America them selvs.
Stop blaming Islam for it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A question, Amanaki...
My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is that depictions of Muhammed are not explicitly banned in the Quran.
There are hadiths which do prescribe against it, more as a defense against idolatry. Clearly that is not something Charlie Hedbo was guilty of. And there are other hadiths which prescribe against the depiction of any living thing, including animals. Again, this appears slanted towards idolatry, and some commentaries seem to suggest it's permitted to depict living things if they are not being honoured.

So...what are your thoughts about depictions of animals? Should they be allowed or banned? Why?

Ayatollah Khomeini once named a portrait of Muhammed in his youth as one of his favourite paintings. What are your thoughts on that?

If...as a hypothetical...there is no Quranic objection to depicting Muhammed in art, but many Muslims become upset by depictions of Muhammed in art, what is the appropriate action, and why?

Most of what you referring to here has to do with Shia Islam, I do not know enough about them to give a good answer. But my understanding is that for Sunni one should not depict the prophet.
To me a picture of animals are ok. I paint a lot my self, but would never try to depict Muhammad, Jesus or other spiritual leaders.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If America and other nations had not interfered, the global issue we see today would never happend. Some of the political countries in especially middle east are doing wrong with their extreme view on Sharia law, but sharia is not even written down. It is interpretation of oral laws. But when countries like America push the way they do. Muslim countries has a right to defend them self.
I don't believe for a second that it was Muslims behind 9/11 that was America them selvs.
Stop blaming Islam for it.

Do you know under the Ottoman Caliphate--as in including time that was way before America and very much when they were the aggressors--Christians and Jews were tolerated as People of the Book but they were taxed and definitely not equals in society. Everybody else was typically killed. America just got started and already had problems with Muslim pirates (who where known for taking slaves). The Treaty of Tripoli went under a few revisions to specifically spell out the US was not established as a Christian nation and thus carries no emnity or all the bagge of the centuries of war between the Christian Europe and Muslim Middle East.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most of what you referring to here has to do with Shia Islam, I do not know enough about them to give a good answer. But my understanding is that for Sunni one should not depict the prophet.
To me a picture of animals are ok. I paint a lot my self, but would never try to depict Muhammad, Jesus or other spiritual leaders.

The history of Islamic art is overwhelmingly architectural and geometric pattern designs because its widely and often discouraged to depict real things because it treads into the realm of idolatry.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Most of what you referring to here has to do with Shia Islam, I do not know enough about them to give a good answer. But my understanding is that for Sunni one should not depict the prophet.
To me a picture of animals are ok. I paint a lot my self, but would never try to depict Muhammad, Jesus or other spiritual leaders.

The Iranian reference is obviously Shia related, but we can skip that for a moment if you like. But the painting I am referring to was commonly shown in Iran in the late twentieth century. It did eventually get banned though. Right after a Danish depiction of the Prophet in cartoon form...

Please note, the below link contains a picture of said portrait...
Is It Ever Okay to Depict Muhammad?

Where does that understanding (that the prophet shouldn't be drawn) come from for Sunni, though?
And why is it okay to paint animals (prescribed against in certain hadith)?
And how much does the theological justification matter in your eyes, and how much is more just respecting others beliefs?