I note that it is a ban on all imagery, including images of the other prophets. Most Muslims don't fret about what non-Muslims do.

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?

Doesn't matter who does it. The prophet is the most respected and it is still very offensive, sacrelidge.

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.

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).

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?

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.

+1

Why would you want to draw Muhammed? If not to just find something to offend them with

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.

Depends on who you are....

What if you see an image of the Prophet on a toasted cheese sandwich. Is that blasphemy?

I ignore them and usually don't even know they exist, unless it is pointed out somewhere in the media. I would say most Muslims would be offended if he was drawn into pornographic poses or offensive imagery, but most will just go on with their day and ignore the cartoonists.

Just extremists. And people who can't/don't think for themselves, or have lost their critical thinking skills.

I'm copying my comment in an earlier thread about the Paris Charlie Hebdo attacks, because I think it's a perspective that a lot of people don't read:

- - - - -

Religion is a tool that can be used how its followers choose to use it. So while this incident may not have anything to do with your interpretation of Islam, or the interpretation of most, it is absolutely a reflection of the perpetrators' view of Islam.

I mean think of how ironic it is. The terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo, because they depicted characterizations of the prophet Muhammad. Characterizations of prophet Muhammad are frowned upon, because it's mean to discourage idolatry (like how Muslims believe falsely led to idolatry of the prophet Jesus).

Yet... these terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo to "avenge" prophet Muhammad.

I don't consider myself Muslim, but I was raised in the faith. And absolutely disgusted with the idolatry of Muhammad. How people put Hadith & Sunna on the same degree as the Quran. That seemed so profoundly un-Islamic to me. Muhammad was a prophet, but a human being. A mortal. Homo sapien flesh. Too many Muslims place way, way, way too much emphasis on Muhammad, and don't realize just how much they worship Muhammad. They idolize him - they're doing what the whole non-depiction of Muhammad was meant to avoid. It's totally backfired.

Shiites don't care as much. And my family (in laws) who are Sunni don't really care. They wouldn't draw or buy a picture, but they'd just ignore others who do. At most they'd bristle at the intentional disrespect by some artists. When it's more about the motive than the act.

Different poster. I would also like to ask how would one even know if a drawing of an Arab man was even Mohammed unless there was a little sign with an arrow pointing to him? Can I draw an Arab man, and it's just not blasphemous until I label him as such?

Is this a problem for all Mulims or just extremists?
Does it matter who draws him or puts up an image of him, meaning why does it matter what a non-Muslim person does?