From a book the history of the Arab people, I found this interesting picture.
(//http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad231/Shiranu3/20130929_223658_zpsb8d4a4c9.jpg?t=1380515849)
The guy on the white horse is Muhammad in 634 preparing for battle.
My question is this;
A. Why is this image of Muhammad permitable?
B. How old is the rule banning depictions of Muhammad?
From what I have found, depictions are not banned by the Qur'an but rather by later haddiths. Perhaps it was created before the haddith forbid it, but why then was the art work not destroyed?
It also seems to vary between what sect of Islam the Muslim is following as to if it is permitable or not. Shi'ah Muslims apparently have less of a problem with it, but since this art was most likely Arabian that wouldn't explain why it was allowed to exist.
If some Muslims are going to go batshit over a cartoon of Muhammad, should this not as well warrant protests until the book removes the picture and all copies of it are burned? Or is it only when people disagreeing with Muhammad portray him that it becomes a great evil and insult worthy of killing people for and that the rule is flexable depending on who breaks it (therefor de-legitimizing the rule)?
If nothing else, just thought I would share because it seemed interesting to me that this doesn't cause any controversy.
Is there anything dumber than killing someone over a picture of a man just because this man heard voices in his head and in his insanity spoke to an angel? Only religion and politics can make people this stupid---and maybe truculent sports. :roll: I honestly believe if public hangings and Gladiator "sports" came back it would be the biggest hit on TV and the internet. :shock: :twisted: Solitary
(//http://clouddragon.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/m-33-modern1.jpg) (//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Maome.jpg) (//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/South_park_muhammad.jpg)
Werid, isn't it? Historically, there have been lots of depictions of Muhammad by Muslims (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Muhammad#Depiction_by_Muslims). Strange that it is such a taboo thing now.
There seem to be two main reasons why they don't like it:
1) outsiders drawing caricatures of Muhammad
2) fear of idolatry (Arguably, that ship has already sailed. He's allegedly the greatest man who ever lived and treated with such reverence that westerners used to refer to muslims as Mohammedans (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan), apparently mistakenly believing that he was worshiped by muslims. One gets the distinct impression that depicting Muhammad is forbidden because he's too sacrosanct to be depicted.)
Quote from: "Hydra009"1) outsiders drawing caricatures of Muhammad
2) fear of idolatry (Arguably, that ship has already sailed. He's allegedly the greatest man who ever lived and treated with such reverence that westerners used to refer to muslims as Mohammedans (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan), apparently mistakenly believing that he was worshiped by muslims. One gets the distinct impression that depicting Muhammad is forbidden because he's too sacrosanct to be depicted.)
there seems to be a conflict between these two ideas: are outsiders likely to fall to worshiping images of Muhammad as an idol? Obviously no. Are Muslims likely to worship a picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban as an idol? Again, clearly no.
I'd say the "no images of Muhammad" rule, as it is actually "enforced" by angry mobs, is--clearly--mostly a took to silence those with disparaging/dissenting views; with no serious concern for idolatry.
Quote from: "Shiranu"The guy on the white horse is Muhammad in 634 preparing for battle.
My question is this;
A. Why is this image of Muhammad permitable?
B. How old is the rule banning depictions of Muhammad?
From what I have found, depictions are not banned by the Qur'an but rather by later haddiths. Perhaps it was created before the haddith forbid it, but why then was the art work not destroyed?
Your question should be asking- why is that pedophile bastard unworthy human preparing for battle,does his imaginary friend in the sky called Allah demand 20% of all war booty?
//http://www.quran.com/8/41
To appease the leftist Islamic apologists from the USA how many battles did Jesus lead the christians in? is it zero zip zilch? please pardon my ignorance towards the buy-bull.
Mo the pedo led the muslims in more than a few battles, the motivation for the early ones was to relieve muslims from poverty.
//http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
Mo was a horny fat dwarf,do you think that might have something to do with it?
QuoteThis Muhammad of yours is a dwarf and fat.
//http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/42/154
The plural of hadith is hadeeth or some use ahadith, the Quran was made into a book about 23 years after Mo died by the caliph Uthman,muslims had to wait another 200 years for the hadith.
Quote from: "Shiranu"From a book the history of the Arab people, I found this interesting picture.
[ Image (//http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad231/Shiranu3/20130929_223658_zpsb8d4a4c9.jpg?t=1380515849) ]
The guy on the white horse is Muhammad in 634 preparing for battle.
My question is this;
A. Why is this image of Muhammad permitable?
B. How old is the rule banning depictions of Muhammad?
From what I have found, depictions are not banned by the Qur'an but rather by later haddiths. Perhaps it was created before the haddith forbid it, but why then was the art work not destroyed?
It also seems to vary between what sect of Islam the Muslim is following as to if it is permitable or not. Shi'ah Muslims apparently have less of a problem with it, but since this art was most likely Arabian that wouldn't explain why it was allowed to exist.
If some Muslims are going to go batshit over a cartoon of Muhammad, should this not as well warrant protests until the book removes the picture and all copies of it are burned? Or is it only when people disagreeing with Muhammad portray him that it becomes a great evil and insult worthy of killing people for and that the rule is flexable depending on who breaks it (therefor de-legitimizing the rule)?
If nothing else, just thought I would share because it seemed interesting to me that this doesn't cause any controversy.
Islam takes praying to icons very seriously, thats why the have no images in the archetecture. False idols. Since they believe that god is divine and is the only one worthy to worship, they ban pictures, images, and icons of profits and people for fear that people would pray and worhship the image instead of Allah.
(//http://i.imgur.com/qDn56uy.jpg) :roll: Solitary
(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/islamproblem.gif) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/islamproblem.gif.html)
Quote from: "Solitary".. and in his insanity spoke to an angel?
Mohammad insane? He was the smartest man in his time in Arabia. He just had one bout of insanity when he did not know whether he had sex or not. This condition lasted for about six months.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "Solitary".. and in his insanity spoke to an angel?
Mohammad insane? He was the smartest man in his time in Arabia. He just had one bout of insanity when he did not know whether he had sex or not. This condition lasted for about six months.
The one-eye man is king among the blind. The people living in the desert might have been skillfull at surviving in that harsh environment, but I doubt if they were well educated to challenge or eschew a ruthless snakeoil salesman like Mo'.
Maybe it was legal to draw him in the past, before it was forbidden. And with time they got stricter on the teachings (My suggestion), if you have heard of the Wahhabi movement, which was ultra conservative, but also violent and very strict on Islams teachings. Just my suspicions though.