Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:There are frequent queries about why Muslims leaders don't condemn violence conducted in the name of Islam. Where here is an important and unexpected example of that happening:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_LEBANON_HEZBOLLAH_PARIS_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"The leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group says Islamic extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than those who published satirical cartoons mocking the religion."

"Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah did not directly mention the Paris attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead, but he said Islamic extremists who behead and slaughter people - a reference to the IS group's rampages in Iraq and Syria - have done more harm to Islam than anyone else in history."

No, really????
Did it occur to you that it's because Hezbollah is a Shi'a paramilitary group and that ISIS's number one goal as a Saudi backed movement is to rid the world of Shi'a's once and for all? So the Shi'a's are running s*** scared. Sounds like a desperation move to me.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI

Brilliant satirical take down of all of this: Full article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-how-exactly-would-we-like-muslims-to-condemn-these-attacks-9966176.html

"I suppose the one comfort we can take from this week’s events, is that some of us are lucky enough to live in a society based on Western values, because in countries like America you can’t imagine a lunatic ever going berserk with a gun in a public place.

One way in which we’re ensuring we protect those values, is by demanding all Muslims denounce the gunmen. It’s true that every Muslim leader in Britain has denounced them several times, but that’s hardly sufficient. They might denounce them at five past three, and then again at twenty past three, but what are they doing in between? For all we know they’re blowing themselves up at bus garages. So to truly distance themselves from the shooting, every Muslim should have to draw their own satirical cartoon involving Muhammad trampolining on a pig, so we know we can trust them.

Similarly, when the Norwegian Christian Anders Breivik committed his massacre, all decent people marched straight down to the church and yelled "oy vicar, why haven’t you issued a statement condemning the shooting"? And politicians insisted Special Branch must infiltrate every C of E jumble sale to prevent similar radical movements growing throughout Surrey.
...
The claim that Farage and many others appear to make is that Islam is inevitably violent, to which others reply that it’s a religion of peace, with each side quoting chunks of religious text to make their case. But this probably doesn’t help to settle the argument, as every religion’s holy book is a chaotic mixture."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did this discussion deteriorate from talking about the tragedy of terrorism and violence to a series of exasperating exchanges about the intricacies of Islam?
Focus people!! The violence has got to stop and it doesn't matter who you perceive as more prone - blacks, Muslims, the White Man, Christians, whoever - at the end of the day humanity as a whole is slowly sinking down the drain because people can't simply accept diversity, distinction, dissimilarity, and difference without wanting to shoot and maim and kill.

People can't accept diversity?

You love your god or your allah or your goddess - fine! However, when it reaches the level to where it consumes you and clouds your vision, how can you expect others to accept fanatical behavior?

This is what religion does - gives some a reason to kill in the name of god X.

Who said anything about accepting fanatical behavior - I SAID FOCUS ON THE DAMN VIOLENCE! I don't give a shit if someone prays six times a day to Kim Kardashian and fanatically follows her on Twitter and Instagram like their life depends on it...but if their next door neighbor worships bows down to Beyonce there's no need to get violent!!!!! Accept that people are different and respect the right for others to live their lives for crying out loud.

It gave no reasons but radical Islamists often target mainstream Muslims and Christians in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia, while India has recurring tensions between its majority Hindus and minority Muslims and Christians.

Tensions in Israel arise from the Palestinian issue, disagreements between secular and religious Jews and the growth of ultra-Orthodox sects that live apart from the majority.

Results for strong social hostility such as anti-Semitic attacks, Islamist assaults on churches and Buddhist agitation against Muslims were the highest seen since the series began, reaching 33 percent of surveyed countries in 2012 after 29 percent in 2011 and 20 percent in mid-2007.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did this discussion deteriorate from talking about the tragedy of terrorism and violence to a series of exasperating exchanges about the intricacies of Islam?
Focus people!! The violence has got to stop and it doesn't matter who you perceive as more prone - blacks, Muslims, the White Man, Christians, whoever - at the end of the day humanity as a whole is slowly sinking down the drain because people can't simply accept diversity, distinction, dissimilarity, and difference without wanting to shoot and maim and kill.

People can't accept diversity?

You love your god or your allah or your goddess - fine! However, when it reaches the level to where it consumes you and clouds your vision, how can you expect others to accept fanatical behavior?

This is what religion does - gives some a reason to kill in the name of god X.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Anonymous wrote:How did this discussion deteriorate from talking about the tragedy of terrorism and violence to a series of exasperating exchanges about the intricacies of Islam?
Focus people!! The violence has got to stop and it doesn't matter who you perceive as more prone - blacks, Muslims, the White Man, Christians, whoever - at the end of the day humanity as a whole is slowly sinking down the drain because people can't simply accept diversity, distinction, dissimilarity, and difference without wanting to shoot and maim and kill.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

The prohibition again illustrating the Prophet Mohammed began as a attempt to ward off idol worship, which was widespread in Islam's Arabian birthplace. But in recent years, that prohibition has taken on a deadly edge.

A central tenet of Islam is that Mohammed was a man, not God, and that portraying him could lead to revering a human in lieu of Allah.

"It's all rooted in the notion of idol worship," says Akbar Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic Studies department at American University. "In Islam, the notion of God versus any depiction of God or any sacred figure is very strong."

In some ways, Islam was a reaction against Christianity, which early Muslims believed had been led astray by conceiving of Christ, not as a man but as a God. They didn't want the same thing to happen to Mohammed.

"The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshiping him," Ahmed says. "So he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' "

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Your picking on a minor point and ignoring the rest is really not new in this thread. The main point still stands: why do I (or any other non-Muslim) have to abide by rules or practices of Islam?

Who told you you did?

The Paris assassins told Charlie Hebdo, obviously. PP was asking what's known as a rhetorical question.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Your picking on a minor point and ignoring the rest is really not new in this thread. The main point still stands: why do I (or any other non-Muslim) have to abide by rules or practices of Islam?

Who told you you did?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Your picking on a minor point and ignoring the rest is really not new in this thread. The main point still stands: why do I (or any other non-Muslim) have to abide by rules or practices of Islam?

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Anonymous wrote:OMG. The ban in imagery goes back to the Satanic Verses. First Muhammed tried to get with the people of his town to worship the little stone figures that they as animists did, then when the tide didn't turn in his favor he claimed Satan had spoken him = ban on graven images. In Judaism and Christianity there is the same ban on idolatry. Muhammed went all hard-core and extended it to a ban on all images. He presented a radical new view and people followed him. The cynical would say it was him testing out theories (not Satan) and the cynical would be put on the beheaded list a la Salman Rushdie.

Vive la differance!

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”