Muslima
06/03/2015 11:32
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.
It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!
And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.
While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.
I agree.
Anonymous
06/03/2015 11:24
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What if you see an image of the Prophet on a toasted cheese sandwich. Is that blasphemy?
Well, considering nobody knows what he looks like, most Muslims would just tell you to get your eyes checked
Anonymous
06/03/2015 11:23
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….
That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.
Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.
Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.
Also, it's only Islamic law under a caliphate, not just randomly (like how it is in this day and age). And it's only applied to males that are adults because it excuses them from fighting against invasions and attacks. They are the responsibility of the caliph. And Muslims are also taxed 2.5% without any excuses.
Anonymous
06/03/2015 11:21
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:What if you see an image of the Prophet on a toasted cheese sandwich. Is that blasphemy?
It is insulting to most Muslims, so I don't buy into Muslima's "most people woudn't care." Many people do care, they feel hurt, so don't do it. Hurting others' feeling will not add to your life experience in any meaningful way.
Anonymous
06/03/2015 11:19
Subject: Re:An image of Mohammed
And I just wanted to add, although I am a Muslim, it also irks me to see any Hindu gods/goddesses on clothing and as accessories too. It's someone's deity, not a fashion statement!
Anonymous
06/03/2015 11:18
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.
It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!
And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.
While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.
+1000000 lol Thank you!! I don't understand how people don't get this...yes one has a right to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean they should be an asshole! There are images of Prophet Muhammad that have been around for a while but they've always been in a respectful way (in artwork and illustrations in books), not with a bomb on his head or any of the other ridiculous stuff out there these days. But they have a right to make a statement, I guess it doesn't matter to them if they look like intolerant idiots
Anonymous
05/31/2015 01:28
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:It seems to be the custom in the land to look down om beliefs and religion that is not your own
If whats happening in AZ is any indication, I suppose you are right.
Anonymous
05/31/2015 01:27
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.
It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!
And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.
While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.
+1000
Anonymous
05/30/2015 08:18
Subject: An image of Mohammed
It seems to be the custom in the land to look down om beliefs and religion that is not your own
Anonymous
05/30/2015 01:47
Subject: An image of Mohammed
I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.
It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!
And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.
While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.
It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!
And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.
While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.
Anonymous
05/27/2015 17:05
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….
That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.
Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.
Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.
Anonymous
05/27/2015 15:36
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….
That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.
Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.
Anonymous
05/27/2015 03:36
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Muslims do not usually like depiction of their prophet even for worshpiing puposes. Some times Shi'a muslims depict muhammed as a historical firgure in their texts but do not worship these depictions. This is because of their opposition to idolatry (something christians believe in to). The insulting depictions are not apreciated by muslims just as rude depictions of jesus are not appreciated by christians. Faanatics christians attack those who insult jesus in the same way fanatic muslims attack people who insult muhammed. There are many reasosn y fanatic christians are moderating and/or dying out while for many other factors muslim fanatics are on the rise, both are detrimental to society but not in the exact same way. I dont think it was a wise idea draw muhammed in an insulting way and i would be dissapointed by someone i knew of they did that even thoough im not a muslim, just as i would b annoyed if someone i know did something similiar about jesus but the terroists involved deserve what they got and worse the radicals who think they can affect freedom of expression r an enemy to human progress
Anonymous
05/27/2015 01:10
Subject: An image of Mohammed
Forgot to add….
That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.
That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.
Anonymous
05/27/2015 01:09
Subject: An image of Mohammed
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.
Yes, Muslims are told they need to respect the laws of the land where they reside. HOWEVER, Malaysia is a democracy despite the fact that it has a monarch. The king is largely ceremonial figure and all representatives, including the prime minister, are elected officials. Therefore, if the majority of the citizens wish to make amendments, they may do so using the legislative system in place. Besides, Islam came to Malaysia well before the British came to Malaysia. Islam predates British political influence and the citizens of Malaysia simply want to revert back to Islamic law or some form of it. Their right…as much as it may boil your blood.