questions for Muslims concerning drawings of Mohammed

[Jebus]

These are questions for ElHammouchiOthman or other Muslims.

Are most Muslims angered by drawings of the prophet Mohammed or is this only the reaction of a few extremists?

Why is this so angering to some (or most) Muslims? Mohammed was a human being and not God, right? Are you somewhat angered if someone makes a drawing of another human being you admired.

Superman tried not to let others know that he didn't like cryptonite. If Muslims want infidels to stop making such drawings, wouldn't it be a better strategy to ignore them? Why show the enemy your weakness?

At what point does this become offensive? I sit down and make a drawing of a middle eastern looking man. When I'm done I write Mohammed next to the picture. The assistant spa manager at the resort where I work is named Mohammed. If a Muslim walked by and saw the picture, how would he know that I did not try to make a drawing of my assistant spa manager.

Finally, an unrelated question. Why do so many Muslim parents name their son Mohammed? I have lived in two Muslim countries, and there are so many Mohammeds that it becomes unpractical and confusing. Isn't it a bit insulting to your prophet that so many commoners use his name? If parents name their son Mohammed to somehow honor the prophet, than isn't it insulting to the prophet when someone instead decides to name his child Ahmed, Mostafa, or Abu-Bakr?

[alex11230]

A related question comes to mind.

Let me start from the "No drawings of Mohammed" premise. According to various spokespeople for the Muslims, the rule applies to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Think about that for a minute. I mean, seriously, think about the can of worms that opens.

We're talking about members of one religious group dictating what the entire population may or may not do. And the Muslims aren't alone in this. The fundamentalist Christians have quite a few vocal members who love to tell women what they can do with birth control, even women who aren't fundamentalist Christians.

So what happens when -- out of the hundreds of mainstream religions -- two present contradictory rules on an issue? What happens when, say, the Skubbists step up and announce that their religion forbids divorce, and the anti-Skubbists step up and announce that divorce is permitted by their religion, and both groups expect everyone to adhere to their religious diktats?

Or what happens when some hard-core Pentecostal group steps up and explains that their interpretation of the Bible forbids interracial marriage? Does that mean all interracial marriages are now void? Some branches of Judaism don't believe in evolution. Do all the textbooks get the offending passages razored out?

Heck, let's throw the Mormons into the mix. Polygamy? Monogamy? Well, some Mormons say polygamy is a-OK. Some religions are very specific: only one spouse per person at a time.

[Viking Redbeard]

One thing that's crucial to understand about Islam is that it is as much a system of politics as it is a religious ideology. Getting the politics and laws out of Islam would be akin to getting the politics out of Marxism, i.e. practically impossible. That's why Muslims often insist that non-believers adhere to their religious laws, and consider it grossly offensive for non-believers to break said laws. It's true that Judeo-Christianity also has divine laws, but the Jews turned away from theirs long ago, and that's part why Mohammed loathed them so much. The Christians, for their part, have been driven so far back by secularism and enlightenment values that they have been largely de-clawed by now. That's why most moderate Christians tend to talk mainly about Jesus, who wasn't an authoritarian and didn't prescribe property laws or anything like that. Mohammed, though, is inseperable from the laws he prescribed.

One other thing that's worth noting is that Mohammed himself was laughed at and mocked by the polytheists and the Jews and others a lot when he was getting started, going round Mecca preaching and prosthelytising. The result of this is that he, more than any other prophet I've heard of, was uniquely sensitive to mockery in all forms, and he was known to send out assassins to, for example, murder poets who wrote disparagingly about him. He had a real victim mentality that seems to have been transferred to his followers, who are taught by their doctrines and texts to always feel under siege by the words, pictures and actions of non-Muslims, and to push back against them, both politically and militarily. This, as I understand it, is one of the reasons so many Muslims today are so keen on the idea censorship.

[Jebus]

So what happens when -- out of the hundreds of mainstream religions -- two present contradictory rules on an issue? What happens when, say, the Skubbists step up and announce that their religion forbids divorce, and the anti-Skubbists step up and announce that divorce is permitted by their religion, and both groups expect everyone to adhere to their religious diktats?

In this example, there actually is a way out, as remaining married or not getting married at all is not a sin in either religion. However, it would be interesting if someone could think of an example where two religions present two entirely contradictory rules.

[Jebus]

Hi Viking Redbeard. I don't see what you mean when you liken Islam to a system of politics. There seems to be much internal political strife in the Muslim world. To me it seems like politics is the only thing they don't agree on.

I think we should be careful when describing Mohammed's life events as there is very little historical support as to who he was and what went on during his lifetime.

[Viking Redbeard]

I don't see what you mean when you liken Islam to a system of politics

What I mean is that Sharia is an integral part of Islam, and the Qu'ran goes to great lengths to ensure that the followers of Islam fall in line and follow the will of Allah (or Mohammed) to the letter. It's extremely difficult to separate the spiritual aspects of the book from the legal statutes since the two are so tightly entwined.

Focusing only on Sunni Islam, there are currently four big schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hanafiyya, the Malikiyya, the Shafiyya and the Hanbaliyya, and they all regulate more or less the same religious laws (with only minor variations - they all, for example, state that apostates should be killed) based on interpretations of the Qu'ran and Hadith. These schools are extremely powerful in regulating the legal administration of countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and they concern themselves with every part of the lives of the people, for example, religious worship, prohibitions, property, marriage and divorce, inheritance, contracts, punishments, conduct in war and a whole lot of other stuff. And it all comes from the holy texts.

Can you think of another religion that has, or has ever had, anything comparable to this?

[Viking Redbeard]

I think we should be careful when describing Mohammed's life events as there is very little historical support as to who he was and what went on during his lifetime.

You're right, but what's important to the here and now is not what I believe about Mohammed and his adventures and proclamations, but, rather, what large swathes of the Muslim world believes. That he personally chopped the heads of polytheists in Medina, for example, may or may not be true, but I wonder what proportion of the Muslim world would dare to deny it.

It's the beliefs of Muslims about his actions and words that have direct effects on the world here and now.

[Jebus]

I see now what you mean, but isn't "legislation" the more appropriate term.

Can you think of another religion that has, or has ever had, anything comparable to this?

Catholicism during the dark ages.

[Viking Redbeard]

Sharia is so all-encompassing that politicians in countries like Pakistan can't oppose it without putting their lives in grave danger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer. Therefore, the legislation and the politics rather go hand in hand a lot of the time.

Catholicism during the dark ages.

To my knowledge, even Catholicism didn't exert the same level of control over kings and lords and common people that Sharia currently does in several modern states I could mention. Even the Spanish Inquisition didn't concern itself with how women dressed or who screwed over who in a business deal - they were mostly about weeding out Jews and stamping out thought crime. What's more, many Popes in history have found themselves at the mercy of whichever kings and queens were dominant in their day, and even the strongest men of the cloth (Cardinal Wolsey springs to mind) frequently had very little sway over the monarchs of their day. Compare this to the constant concessions the House of Saud has to make to its clerics just to keep them appeased. There's so little the King of Saudi Arabia can do in the way of reformation, and the reason is because of Sharia.

[brimstoneSalad]

Sharia is so all-encompassing that politicians in countries like Pakistan can't oppose it without putting their lives in grave danger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer. Therefore, the legislation and the politics rather go hand in hand a lot of the time.

Muslims aren't really more educated on the implications of Sharia law than Christians are on the 'ten commandments' (which most Christians can't even name).

We discussed this a bit here: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... lit=Sharia

Muslims pretty much all agree that Sharia law is great, but have no idea what that means, and even the scholars can't agree with each other because it's a disjointed mess of different ideas with varying credibility.

There's a great study linked there that shows the differences from country to country on views of Sharia law.

To my knowledge, even Catholicism didn't exert the same level of control over kings and lords and common people that Sharia currently does in several modern states I could mention.

Well, like in the Islamic world, the punishments were left to mobs, and to the state, but insisted upon by theologians.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_o ... s#Heretics

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (ST II:II 11:3 corpus)

I'm not sure what you mean by "control", since the Catholic church crowned kings, legitimizing their rule, and could topple monarchs who didn't step in line. It's why the Anglican church ultimately had to be formed in England -- because of that extreme degree of control (of course, that's something only made possible due to the renaissance, during the dark ages it would probably have been out of the question).

Even the Spanish Inquisition didn't concern itself with how women dressed or who screwed over who in a business deal - they were mostly about weeding out Jews and stamping out thought crime.

Very different thing. The Inquisition was a witch hunt. I don't know of any in Islam, where even in the most severe Islamic countries, people who were Christians or Jews are allowed to continue practicing (although they are socially persecuted).

What's more, many Popes in history have found themselves at the mercy of whichever kings and queens were dominant in their day, and even the strongest men of the cloth (Cardinal Wolsey springs to mind) frequently had very little sway over the monarchs of their day.

I think you're a couple hundred years off, that's all post-renaissance, where the church's power was already waning. Jebus is talking about the dark ages, most broadly from around the 6th to 13th century.