An image of Mohammed

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is imposing your beliefs on others and then there is doing something you know to be offensive to someone else. Drawing Mohammed is the latter, IMHO, for the most part. There may be some few Muslims who are actively engaged in the former, and it is in many aspects besides just the drawing of Mohammed. If, you do not need to understand the ban on the drawing to be respectful of it and the Muslims it offends. I don't like the ban, but really, it is sort of stupid to go around drawing Mohammed and burning Korans just to spite a population you don't like.

Offensive , controversial words , cartoons, movies and books are what free speech is about.

Just because you have a right to, doesn't mean it is right to just flat out offend someone for no good reason. You can use the "N" word, too, by right, but there is no good reason to do so.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

1st of all, you didn't ask a specific question, so there was nothing to dodge. If you have a specific question about sharia law, please do ask and I will be glad to entertain, discussing sharia without a specific question is pointless as it is too broad. 2nd my assertion that Muslims are asked to flow the law of the land where they live is not baseless, it is based on Islamic Jurisprudence and texts. Whether specific Malay Muslims, Random Muslims surveyed on the street or Pew research show that those specific Muslims desire otherwise is irrelevant as they remain just desires/wants of those specific people. You can want everyone in the entire state of NY to wear pink, that doesn't make it a law. The Islamic text is clear on this issue, Muslims who enjoy the liberty to practice their faith are required to honor the government of their country, and to live as decent, law-abiding citizens :

The obligation to follow the law of the land

That the Shari'a obliges Muslims to comply with the laws of their country of residence is premised on the Qur'anic dicta demanding fulfilling "obligations" and "covenants," as in the imperatives "You who believe, fulfil your obligations" and "Honour your pledges: you will be questioned about your pledges." Hence, when asked for a fatwa about the extent to which the Shari'a allows Muslims to obey the governments of the non-Muslim countries in which they live, the prominent contemporary Shaykh Salman al-Oadah replied:

"The Muslims living in a non-Muslim country, even if they originally entered that country by means of forged documents, are considered to be living in their adopted country under a covenant. They must, therefore, comply with the laws of their country of residence without, at the same time, disobeying Islamic Law."

By "disobeying Islamic law" is meant matters that relate to personal obligations as, for example, Muslim women being asked by the Australian government to remove their hijab (head scarf), or Muslims being asked to consume alcohol or unlawful food, which is unconstitutional and farfetched. Given that section 116 of Australia's Constitution separates religious and civil authority and prohibits the Commonwealth from enacting laws establishing any religion or enforcing religious observance, or prohibiting freedom of religious practice, it is evident that no authority, religious or otherwise, can force a Muslim to abide by, or abandon, any personal religious laws unless deemed illegal by Australian law.

Classical Muslim jurists applied the same rule for Muslims passing through enemy lands (in other words, an abode of war), as demonstrated in the fatwa of the imminent jurist of his time, Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani (748-804):

"If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy's front lines by deceptively pretended to be messengers of the Muslim's Caliph carrying official documents - or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines - they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority. This also applies in case of being truly trusted by the other party."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/10/3756163.htm

[Anonymous]

Why is the liberal media so reverent about image of Mohammad but jamming homosexual lifestyle front and center which is equally offensive to devout muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

New PP here. I don't understand this last line. If Malaysian Muslims want Sharia to apply to all Malay residents, isn't that in line with asking all to respect the laws of their land? It's not in direct opposition to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

Same new PP here. Forgot to add, here in the United States, we like to say, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." We expect all residents to abide by US law, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it, regardless of whether they know about it. Why should the same NOT apply to Malaysia's law, which happens to be the Sharia? Btw, I ask this as someone who actually is against many Sharia laws. It's just that PP's line of reasoning simply makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about what you think islam should be like. Go and find out about the religion yourself. I am not muslim and understand the sanctity and blasphemy.
Not difficult to understand if you try. No use argueing or trying to change a religion you do not believe in

Do you feel the same way about Christians--particularly Evangelicals--re the stance on employer mandates re contraception, gay marriage, etc?

contraceptives and gay marriage are not the major themes of Christianity, and different branches of the religion do not even teach the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the liberal media so reverent about image of Mohammad but jamming homosexual lifestyle front and center which is equally offensive to devout muslims.

Good question! It makes no sense.

Murdering and threatening lives over our absolute free speech right to draw any cartoon we like is an act of war. Individual Americans have the responsibility to protect the constitution by any means necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the liberal media so reverent about image of Mohammad but jamming homosexual lifestyle front and center which is equally offensive to devout muslims.

Good question! It makes no sense.

Murdering and threatening lives over our absolute free speech right to draw any cartoon we like is an act of war. Individual Americans have the responsibility to protect the constitution by any means necessary.

The United States Constitution also prohibits speech when it is likely to incite imminent violence. Public safety may trump free speech. Cartoons or images that denigrate one another's religion should be understood to be unnecessary and unwise if different cultures must learn to live peacefully with one another. It may be legally permissible under free speech, but if the image crosses the lines of decency and the law deems it as likely to incite violent reaction, that image is no longer permissible under free speech.

[Anonymous]

The entire purpose of denigrating Prophet Muhammad is to depict the religion and its leader as evil or stupid. However, millions of Muslims practice Islam peacefully and love their religion in all different cultures, among different races, and different countries.

There is a faction of adherents who live in countries where the religious practices and islamic rulings are interspersed and confused with very old tribal traditions. These are not to be confused with Islam. The proof is that Muslims living in Iceland, the US, etc.. do not embrace these stricter, fundamentalist philosophy. They are less influenced by the tribal practices of old in other countries.

The cartoons showing Islam or Muhammad in a bad light are intentionally misleading and this upsets many Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

Same new PP here. Forgot to add, here in the United States, we like to say, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." We expect all residents to abide by US law, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it, regardless of whether they know about it. Why should the same NOT apply to Malaysia's law, which happens to be the Sharia? Btw, I ask this as someone who actually is against many Sharia laws. It's just that PP's line of reasoning simply makes no sense.

Not sure what is so hard to understand. I'll spoon feed it to you.

Malaysia has two legal systems, the broadly utilized federal-level constitution, and state-level ordinances. This fairly modern legal system is based on British common law, a leftover from British colonial days much like elsewhere in the world that has legal systems based on British common law. This is the law of the land. The second legal system, Sharia law, has limited scope largely pertaining to family and religious matters, and applies only to Muslims. Sharia law is recognized and practiced in Malaysia because the Muslims there demands it. Muslims current make up a little over 60% of Malaysian population, and as indicated in my previous post, 86% of them believe Sharia law should be the law of the land, and 55% of those wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

Why is this relevant?

Because the poster Muslima claimed:

"since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there"

As you can see, Muslims prove her wrong because instead of living under the unified law of Malaysia, they demand and operate under a secondary legal system. They want their own law, Sharia law, to be the law of the land, replacing the exisiting one. This is not respecting the laws of the land.

2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws.

Again, as you can see, Muslims in Malaysia prove her wrong again, with a significant portion of Muslims wanting Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Image of prophet is forbidden. So every muslim disagrees and finds it offensive.

Art is permitted with elaborate patterns that you see in muslim countries. Otherwise drawing images is not allowed.

But why is it prohibited by non-Muslims?

It is seen as a sign of extreme disrespect. Islam rejects idolatry in all forms, and drawing pictures of the Prophet is seen as a form idolatry. Obviously this becomes an issue when living in a secular society which doesn't hold anything sacred. It is not prohibited, but most Muslims are deeply offended by this, especially if the drawings are meant to be offensive (bomb turban, pedophile, etc etc).

This is what the "ban" STARTED as, but not what it is today. The taboo concerning imagery of Muhammad has resulted in elevating him to an untouchable status that's different than the other prophets, and puts him at a god-like status. The ban on imagery was meant to correct the false path Muslims believe Christians went down - ie, the idolatry of Jesus (from human prophet to god). But it's had the inadvertent effect of doing the same thing, and deifying Muhammad.

Obviously this isn't what the intention was, but it's clearly the degree of the "ban" today. It's sad to see how many Muslims don't even see this.

Pictures of Muhammad have been painted for time immemorial.
Many paintings of Muhammad made during the Ottoman period depicted his many actions and encounters during his life. These pictures are often disputed as being counter to Muslim ideals, BUT these pictures were created by Muslims themselves. The idea that pictures of Muhammad should not be created is a very modern idea.
Even in Iran today, a five story mural was painted depicting Muhammad, they are an Islamic State.

...and from the 14th century Middle east:

and in the 1920s he was being drawn:

...

[Anonymous]

Everybody gets insulted in a free speech country. Deal with it or leave. If you threaten to kill somebody or actually do over them expressing their opinion about politics or religion in print , drawing or speaking it is an act of war and citizens need to neutralize the threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The entire purpose of denigrating Prophet Muhammad is to depict the religion and its leader as evil or stupid. However, millions of Muslims practice Islam peacefully and love their religion in all different cultures, among different races, and different countries.

There is a faction of adherents who live in countries where the religious practices and islamic rulings are interspersed and confused with very old tribal traditions. These are not to be confused with Islam. The proof is that Muslims living in Iceland, the US, etc.. do not embrace these stricter, fundamentalist philosophy. They are less influenced by the tribal practices of old in other countries.

The cartoons showing Islam or Muhammad in a bad light are intentionally misleading and this upsets many Muslims.

So what? Christians and Jews are disrespected constantly . Why do Muslims get special treatment? Are you implying Christians and Jews need to murder people who express offensive speech, art or cartoons to be respected ?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

Same new PP here. Forgot to add, here in the United States, we like to say, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." We expect all residents to abide by US law, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it, regardless of whether they know about it. Why should the same NOT apply to Malaysia's law, which happens to be the Sharia? Btw, I ask this as someone who actually is against many Sharia laws. It's just that PP's line of reasoning simply makes no sense.

Not sure what is so hard to understand. I'll spoon feed it to you.

Malaysia has two legal systems, the broadly utilized federal-level constitution, and state-level ordinances. This fairly modern legal system is based on British common law, a leftover from British colonial days much like elsewhere in the world that has legal systems based on British common law. This is the law of the land. The second legal system, Sharia law, has limited scope largely pertaining to family and religious matters, and applies only to Muslims. Sharia law is recognized and practiced in Malaysia because the Muslims there demands it. Muslims current make up a little over 60% of Malaysian population, and as indicated in my previous post, 86% of them believe Sharia law should be the law of the land, and 55% of those wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

Why is this relevant?

Because the poster Muslima claimed:

"since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there"

As you can see, Muslims prove her wrong because instead of living under the unified law of Malaysia, they demand and operate under a secondary legal system. They want their own law, Sharia law, to be the law of the land, replacing the exisiting one. This is not respecting the laws of the land.

2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws.

Again, as you can see, Muslims in Malaysia prove her wrong again, with a significant portion of Muslims wanting Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

Because the poster Muslima claimed:

"since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there"

As you can see, Muslims prove her wrong because instead of living under the unified law of Malaysia, they demand and operate under a secondary legal system. They want their own law, Sharia law, to be the law of the land, replacing the exisiting one. This is not respecting the laws of the land.

Uhm... Critical thinking is not your forte, is it? How is common law the law of the Land in Malaysia? Stop Bullshitting people. Malaysia has 2 laws, one for Muslims under sharia Law and one for non-Muslims which is the common law. 2ND the land is their land, they didn't immigrate there, they are Malay, so they can vote any laws they see fit. The "law of the land' theory doesn't apply here. That theory applies if Malays were to move to the US and want to apply their own laws in a Foreign Land. Got it???

2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws.

Again, as you can see, Muslims in Malaysia prove her wrong again, with a significant portion of Muslims wanting Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

????? This doesn't even make sense to warrant further commentary