Talk:Muhammad cartoons controversy

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Muhammad cartoons controversy as edited by RSchlafly (Talk | contribs) at 13:33, 18 May 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Erm, is this the appropriate page to point out that Conservapedia has a picture of Muhammad on the page with the relevant article? Remember it's not just the fact that the Danish cartoons were cartoons that caused the uproar but that they depicted Muhammad at all. Depictions of the human figure are proscribed in Islam, and depictions of Muhammad doubly irreligious.Britinme 20:55 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm working on it... --Hojimachongtalk 20:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it is a serious problem that we have one of the offensive cartoons on the page. We need to get the rest up too! If the muslims rioted in protest, this just makes me want to further publicise the images - we need to defend our free speech right, and that includes the right to be offensive towards Islam. We can't just let them trample over free speech with their threats of violence or legal action. NewCrusader 20:38, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Do we actually have a standardised spelling of Mohammed? There's at least three different ones on that page alone... On that note, I'm pretty sure that the image wasn't censored by Comedy Central and was merely made to appear as such by the creators of South Park. Barikada 23:55, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I've seen the episode - the notice in place of Mohammed explicitly said Comedy Central. And the spelling... no. There is no standardised spelling in the latin alphabet. It can't be written in that alphabet at all, only approximated. It's an arabic name. If we do settle on just one, I suggest asking the admins to run a global search-replace of the article database on a regular basis to ensure it's always used. NewCrusader 20:38, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

There is not so much debate about whether such images of The Prophet are permitted. It is a matter of difference between kinds of Islam from place to place whether some images of Holy people will be permitted. Sunni will not make any images of the Prophet or other major prophets. Some devotional images may be permitted of teachers, but general we are very "iconoclastic" as the Christians of the Western Empire prior to the church schism. Other Muslims traditions may permit images of lesser prophets, after perhaps the great grandchildren of the Prophet, but it is also uncommon in any to find images of The Prophet or Allah, Blessed be He, just as it is uncommon to find images of God, Compassionate and Most Gracious, in Christian and Jewish devotional artworks. This is based on the commentary of Muhammed upon revelation of the Holy Qu'ran which he said the Hadith that speaks against making images of any living things, including human beings. It is supported in Surah 42 (Consultation) Aya 11 of the Holy Qu'ran "The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing." It is supported in Surah 21 (The Prophets) Ayat 52-54 "When he said to his father and his people: What are these images to whose worship you cleave? They said: We found our fathers worshiping them. He said: Certainly you have been, (both) you and your fathers, in manifest error." What this article may be referring to as inconsistency to permit such images is a tradition of the Shia Muslim people many hundreds of years ago to permit images of The Prophet but He is almost always showed with His hands and face covered! I think the NewCrusader is joking that you should wish to publish more images that are offensive to some Muslim people and if they objected you would wish to publish more. This is not right conduct for any person of conscience to deliberately wish to hurt and inflame the sensibilities of any other person simply because it is the exercise of free speech. Sometimes free speech costs another man to suffer feelings of anguish for his faith when the gain to the speaker advances no reasonable interests. It is not for me to make any request whether this image of Muhammed should be on your website. I only request that you make a note that tells the reader this image is here to educate and give non-Muslims an idea of what may be offensive to some Muslim people and that you welcome discussion and debate on the propriety of having this image on the back discussion page of the article. The Prophet said "none of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." And Jesus said in Luke 6:31 "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Thank you. Rafi

I don't think that it is true that depictions of Mohammed are prohibited, or that anyone is offended by such depictions. The prohibition is against worshiping the images. If you don't want to worship the images, then don't. RSchlafly 17:38, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

You are incorrect on both matters RSchafly. Such images are prohibit because they are capable of being worshipped. It is why not even Shia Muslim people will permit such images of major prophets. Your train of though is correct but your difference of perspective have apparently led you to the incorrect conclusion. I find the image of the Prophet on the webpage here highly offensive. Many of the other people who had the strong reactions that are noted in this article itself were offended and even broke the law. I do not know why you think you are better able to judge whether people have been offended by images of the single most important Prophet in Islam, versus whether in your individual opinion as but one man you think they should be. There has been so much written about this subject in the press throughout the world. Rafi

Images of Mohammed have been around for centuries without significant objection. Yes, much has been written about the Danish cartoons, but it appears to me that it was not the image of Mohammed that caused offense. If you are really offended, as you claim, then how do know that the image looks anything like Mohammed? Why don't you also object to favorable depictions of Mohammed? RSchlafly 11:19, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

I am assume you have good faith because it appears you wish to argue some things I do not understand why. You go much beyond this article to say that it was not the image of Muhammed that cause offense. I do not know how to respond to religiously offended Muslim people across the world when the Danish newspaper public these pictures? Yes, I claim I am offended by images of the Prophet, more when one is casually put up on a website without explanation of the context with a statement that there is a debate whether images of the Prophet are prohibited! No Muslim person believes this. It is Islamic law. Many may not observe this law. It does not make it any less the Law of God, who has willed it. I wrote here 2 major groups of Muslim people believe there is a Qu'ranic prohibition on any images of the Prophet or other major prophets and God, Blessed be He. I gave reference to the ayat of the Qu'ran and Words of the Prophet to show why Muslim people people these things. How could I know whether this image look anything like Muhammed? I do not. It is not a photograph of the Prophet holding his motor vehicle operator license. It is representation art I know it is intended to be an image of Muhammed, just as you know images of Jesus and Christian saints are intended to be such things. It is clear from the context. To answer your last question again I find any image of the Prophet to be against the Laws of God, for God has willed it. Good day. Rafi

I've read your explanation, but I am not convinced. There is evidence that the riots were not caused by the Danish cartoons, but by other cartoons. It does not make sense that you would be offended by an image of Mohammed if you do not even know whether it is a likeness of Mohammed or not. You say that it is Islamic law, but I do not see any proof. Yes, Islam opposes idolatry but I don't see why it would oppose cartoons. But you are welcome to your opinion. RSchlafly 14:33, 18 May 2009 (EDT)