DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Feb 3 2006 12:39
Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History

Incase anyone gives a shit...

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Quote:
Controversy over the publication of images depicting Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten has erupted into an international furor. While Muslim nations are calling for a boycott of Denmark, Europeans are divided as to whether they should stand up for Western principles of freedom of speech, or cave in to self-censorship in the name of multiculturalism and fear.

While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, with nary a word of complaint from the Muslim world. The recent cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are nothing new; it's just that no other images of Mohammed have ever been so widely publicized.

dom
Offline
Joined: 27-10-05
Feb 3 2006 18:16
Quote:
While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, with nary a word of complaint from the Muslim world.

I think the reason most people are so annoyed is the fact that they depicted mohammed as a terrorist. This seems a bit racist to me.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 3 2006 18:35
dom wrote:
I think the reason most people are so annoyed is the fact that they depicted mohammed as a terrorist. This seems a bit racist to me.

I dunno, it sound better than a paedo. Which would be true.

cmdrdeathguts
Offline
Joined: 25-08-05
Feb 3 2006 19:02

i love how christians wheel that out, when the fact is they only know about it because the muslims don't make up lies about mohammed. nobody pretends he was born to a virgin, or could miraculously heal the sick, or had a glowing hula-hoop over his head. (although, muslims have some interesting stories about Jesus. but that's another matter...) christianity is a two-thousand year bout of munchausen's syndrome.

also, at the time, it was hardly a remarkable practice.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 3 2006 20:26
Quote:
I think the reason most people are so annoyed is the fact that they depicted mohammed as a terrorist. This seems a bit racist to me.

WHY?

Quote:
I dunno, it sound better than a paedo. Which would be true.

IS IT?

cmdrdeathguts
Offline
Joined: 25-08-05
Feb 3 2006 20:56
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
So you don't think it's an issue?

i think, if anything, it counts in islam's favour.

Quote:
You think John.'s a Christian?

confused

no. is he?

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Feb 3 2006 21:04
cmdrdeathguts wrote:
i love how christians wheel that out, when the fact is they only know about it because the muslims don't make up lies about mohammed. nobody pretends he was born to a virgin, or could miraculously heal the sick, or had a glowing hula-hoop over his head. (although, muslims have some interesting stories about Jesus. but that's another matter...) christianity is a two-thousand year bout of munchausen's syndrome.

also, at the time, it was hardly a remarkable practice.

Christians like yourself drink the blood of a god who fucked his own mother.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 3 2006 21:09

Best line this month 8)

Kidda
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Feb 4 2006 01:16
Tommy Ascaso wrote:

You think John.'s a Christian?

confused

somehow i could picture him taking communion on an afternoon dressed in his sunday best wink

((probably only to get the vicars daughter over the pulpit, mind wink ))

dom
Offline
Joined: 27-10-05
Feb 4 2006 09:59
Quote:
dom wrote:

I think the reason most people are so annoyed is the fact that they depicted mohammed as a terrorist. This seems a bit racist to me.

I dunno, it sound better than a paedo. Which would be true.

I wouldn't mind calling mohammed a paedo as it is a conpetly irelavent insult. Calling him a terrorist implies all muslims are evil terrorsts which is not true.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Feb 4 2006 11:33

I dont think the cartoons are anything but utter crap, but i think the media reaction, the government reaction and the fundie reaction are absolutely fucking mental and all play into each others hands.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 4 2006 13:23

I'm really not surprised that it's caused such emphatic scenes in Gaza, etc. People whose lives revolve around poverty, religion and war can be easy to provoke if you directly insult them.

Most of my family (who are Muslims) have seen the cartoons and haven't risen up to lead the islamic revolution in Manchester so I don't think we (the non-believers) have much to worry about. grin

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 4 2006 14:27
Kidda wrote:
Tommy Ascaso wrote:

You think John.'s a Christian?

confused

somehow i could picture him taking communion on an afternoon dressed in his sunday best wink

((probably only to get the vicars daughter over the pulpit, mind wink ))

wink

I have taken communion before actually. It was rubbish.

Devrim - yeah Mohammed's youngest wife was between like 9 and 13 or something. But of course cultural and historical relativism n all that... But still - nonce.

cmdrdeath - you think him being a paedo "counts in islam's favour"?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 4 2006 16:35
Refused wrote:
I'm really not surprised that it's caused such emphatic scenes in Gaza, etc. People whose lives revolve around poverty, religion and war can be easy to provoke if you directly insult them.

Most of my family (who are Muslims) have seen the cartoons and haven't risen up to lead the islamic revolution in Manchester so I don't think we (the non-believers) have much to worry about. grin

Excellent post. The implication that those crazy turbanheads are simply unable to understand satire is wholly inaccurate. The fact is that many Muslims in the West are as terrified of the global state of affairs as posters on this board, and this is simply a single provocation that sparked a reaction to long-running tensions. Clash of civilisations my arse.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 4 2006 16:49

I don't think the ones I've seen even qualify as satire.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 4 2006 17:05

Well, I'm speaking in general terms.

The sanctimosity of both sides of the media concerning their decisions to publish or not publish the cartoons is frankly nauseating.

cmdrdeathguts
Offline
Joined: 25-08-05
Feb 4 2006 17:06
John. wrote:
Kidda wrote:
Tommy Ascaso wrote:

You think John.'s a Christian?

confused

somehow i could picture him taking communion on an afternoon dressed in his sunday best wink

((probably only to get the vicars daughter over the pulpit, mind wink ))

wink

I have taken communion before actually. It was rubbish.

Devrim - yeah Mohammed's youngest wife was between like 9 and 13 or something. But of course cultural and historical relativism n all that... But still - nonce.

cmdrdeath - you think him being a paedo "counts in islam's favour"?

i think them not pretending that he wasn't counts in islam's favour.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Feb 4 2006 17:30

Firstly -

Quote:
So, are images of the Prophet Muhammad illicit in Islam? From what some people do and say you might think so.

Not so fast. This is a classic zombie error - a commonplace belief that will. not. die!

I am not a specialist in Islamic art, but I teach an occasional low-level survey of the field at these Colleges, where we have an excellent Visual Resources Collection for a school of our size, a collection which is unfortunately for your visual delight very observant of copyright laws, so I can't post any pictures. I popped some terms into the search engine and came up with this list of paintings of the Prophet Muhammad executed by Muslims that we happen to own slides of; this is not an exhaustive list!

http://www.crankyprofessor.com/archives/000492.html

Secondly -

Quote:
At this point a group of ultra-conservative Danish imams decided to take matters into their own hands, setting off on an ambitious tour of Saudi Arabia and Egypt with a dossier containing the inflammatory cartoons.

According to Jyllands-Posten, the imams from the organisation Islamisk Trossamfund took three other mysteriously unsourced drawings as well, showing Muhammad with the face of a pig; a dog sodomising a praying Muslim; and Muhammad as a paedophile. "This was pure disinformation. We never published them," Lund complained. But the campaign worked. Outwardly the row appeared to be calming down. But in Muslim cyber-chatrooms, on blogs, and across the internet, outrage was building fast.

From Denmark, the pictures were being pinged by SMS from Kuwait to Palestine. Then last week came the diplomatic explosion. Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Denmark for consultations, Libya shut its embassy.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,,1702145,00.html

Tomson95
Offline
Joined: 25-10-05
Feb 4 2006 19:07

Yep, the original images were published back in September and did not cause a huge uproar at the time in Denmark. The work of these imams in some countries of the Middle-East seems to have largely fuelled and possibly even created these angry responses ...

But anyway, knowing full well the general demonisation of Muslims as an ethnic minority today in many European countries, I think it was very foolish, if not consciously provocative, of many newspapers to reprint them ... The frontpage of France Soir read "Yes, we have to right to caricature God!", well, yes, you have the right to, but that doesn't mean you have it, especially in the current situation.

What have these newspapers really gained by asserting so arrogantly their right to the freedom of expression? Not much, from my point of view.

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Feb 4 2006 19:36
Quote:
he imams from the organisation Islamisk Trossamfund took three other mysteriously unsourced drawings as well, showing Muhammad with the face of a pig; a dog sodomising a praying Muslim; and Muhammad as a paedophile. "This was pure disinformation. We never published them," Lund complained

and what have those imans gained? exactly what they appear to have wanted.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 4 2006 20:08

i'm going to get a tattoo of muhammad on one arse cheek and one of jesus on the other.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 4 2006 20:20

I'm not even going to ask where you intend to have Moses etched in. eek

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 4 2006 20:22
Refused wrote:
I'm not even going to ask where you intend to have Moses etched in.

emerging from my mount

cmdrdeathguts
Offline
Joined: 25-08-05
Feb 4 2006 21:22

zing

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 4 2006 21:25

I object. The wee bastard planned that joke 5 hours in advance. A pox on thee.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Feb 5 2006 00:57
Tomson95 wrote:
The frontpage of France Soir read "Yes, we have to right to caricature God!", well, yes, you have the right to, but that doesn't mean you have it, especially in the current situation.

Er... what? You have the right but you don't have it?

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 5 2006 03:21
Refused wrote:
I object. The wee bastard planned that joke 5 hours in advance. A pox on thee.

Two minutes between us posting. Two minutes. Mr. T

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 5 2006 08:52
Quote:
yeah Mohammed's youngest wife was between like 9 and 13 or something. But of course cultural and historical relativism n all that... But still - nonce.
Quote:

If we are talking about Aisha, as I presume we are, she was, according to various sources, anywhere between 9 and 19 at the date of the consummation of the marriage. Also, she was the daughter of Abu Bakir, which suggests that this was a political marriage. In this case, I think lots of European monarchs at the time would have to then be considered pedophiles.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 5 2006 10:14

She was supposedly 8 when they got married, but if this was a political marriage then he would have consumated it later.

You don't want to kill her by getting her to squeeze out a kid too early.

Isn't it more worrying that htey think God spoke directly to this man?

Isn't it even more worrying that even when God's words are dictated, people still can't agree on what they mean? I'd expect my deity to be fairly eloquent, or at least clear.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 5 2006 10:22

According to some versions (the one that place her at 9 when it was consumated) she was 6 when she got married. I find most things about religion quite worrying, especially Islam as I live in an Islamic country. I was just trying to clarify the facts, and I do think the peodophile line is beside the point.

lucy_parsons's picture
lucy_parsons
Offline
Joined: 13-05-05
Feb 5 2006 10:33

Henry the eighth married Kathryn Howard when she was only 15, and he seemed a reasonable enough sort of blo... oh.