4 ms·

Muslim Here - I don't know the full story (a bit late). Before this gets any hotter - just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is p

Muslim Here - I don't know the full story (a bit late). Before this gets any hotter - just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited [wiki: Aniconism, Idolatry, Islamic Art, ...]. I personally don't watch any episode/movie/play with Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Moses (PBUT) drawn or acted (I don't feel comfortable - Silly Me). Religion is the only boundary that some have left. It encapsulates things as simple and beautiful as ethics and manners. What's wrong with a little of these? freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values. I don't like Southpark (but I'll be waiting Futurama) :)

gort 17y ago
"freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Actually, it is. I have read the Qur'an, all of it. Page after page it tells me that people like myself deserve to be tortured for zillions of years. I find it pretty offensive and hateful. But I don't call for it to be banned.
- tamersalama 17y ago
  That was quick.
- ivenkys 17y ago
  This is absolutely spot-on. I have seen debates on T.V where respected Muslim scholars agree on and defend this interpretation - its the duty of a Muslim (Mu'min) to kill or convert an unbeliever (Kaafir). I don't understand why this argument(of banning the Qu'ran) is not made whenever this topic comes up.
xenthral 17y ago
> "just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam" Hold on there, don't go speaking for all of Islam, in Sunni Islam, yes, its considered a sin by all major schools of thought, but thats not really the case in the shia tradition. Until not that long ago you could buy posters of Mohammed in Tehran (saw it done in a british documentary... Mo looked like he went heavy on the make up). > "freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Freedom of speech/expression isn't merely the right of saying what _you_ want, it is also the right for others to hear/see it, so when asking for people not to express their views because some can be offended, you have actually attacked my values, because maybe (and in this case, definitely) I'm very interested. So I do hope you'll condemn a campaign of whispered threats of horrible violence for people who just want to express themselves, rather than condemning southpark (which granted you didn't, just said you didn't like them).
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
tomhoward 17y ago
That's fine, don't watch it. If it offends you, turn off the television, close the YouTube tab, whatever. It's very simple for you to avoid allowing this to cause you offense. What offends non-religious people is the expectation that we should censor our statements and cartoons on the threat of murder. So much for "manners". I mean really. It's a bear suit. The whole point of this South Park portrayal is to show - as if it needed to be shown again - just how absurd is this lust among certain religious believers for any opportunity to be offended. Is there any point at which you're able to be a little reflective and think "yeah ok, I guess we're being a touch precious here"?
- arethuza 17y ago
  Clearly not all religious people - the same episode had Buddha snorting cocaine and I don't see anyone getting too upset over that.
arethuza 17y ago
"physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited" is there any explanation in the Qur'an why they are prohibited?
- oozcitak 17y ago
  Koran prohibits idolatry only. Physical depictions are prohibited in hadiths not in the Koran. From Sahih Muslim: "Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures."
tome 17y ago
freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values. Freedom of expression is absolutely freedom to attack others' values. It's the freedom to criticise them openly without fear of physical violence. It's the freedom to lampoon them in public, and make them the subject of satire and riducule. I can understand you might not like that when it affects you, but I suggest to all muslims -- or indeed to anyone who feels their values are being attacked, religious or otherwise -- that the correct response is to publicly debate why you feel this way, and why you think your feelings should be protected. Threats of murder are unacceptable.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
jsz0 17y ago
My understanding is in the US, in modern times, the freedom of expression is only restricted in cases where some other law would otherwise come into play. For example I could express myself by suggesting I would pay someone to commit a murder for me but I would still be charged with criminal conspiracy to commit murder. Since the US is not an Islamic theocracy we have no laws on the books regarding the physical depiction issue. Basically I think you could say the freedom of expression is paramount in all but a few very specific areas and we have a special flare for protecting freedom of expression in relationship to religion since this country was founded also on religious freedom. I'm probably not representing the actual argument properly but I think it's pretty close.
- ilkhd2 17y ago
  Yes, probably this is true, but, it is like saying that "by nature, all humans have facilities for speech, and they are free to speak up whatever they want; however there are many laws they can be used for punishment afterwards". I remember in the movie "Food Inc" in Colorado there is a law that prevents you from public criticizing businesses if you can hurt there profits. So "freedom of speach" is quite narrow term in fact.

gort 17y ago

"freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Actually, it is. I have read the Qur'an, all of it. Page after page it tells me that people like myself deserve to be tortured for zillions of years. I find it pretty offensive and hateful. But I don't call for it to be banned.

tamersalama 17y ago
That was quick.
ivenkys 17y ago
This is absolutely spot-on. I have seen debates on T.V where respected Muslim scholars agree on and defend this interpretation - its the duty of a Muslim (Mu'min) to kill or convert an unbeliever (Kaafir). I don't understand why this argument(of banning the Qu'ran) is not made whenever this topic comes up.

xenthral 17y ago

> "just wanted to say that physical depictions of holy figures in Islam" Hold on there, don't go speaking for all of Islam, in Sunni Islam, yes, its considered a sin by all major schools of thought, but thats not really the case in the shia tradition. Until not that long ago you could buy posters of Mohammed in Tehran (saw it done in a british documentary... Mo looked like he went heavy on the make up). > "freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values." Freedom of speech/expression isn't merely the right of saying what _you_ want, it is also the right for others to hear/see it, so when asking for people not to express their views because some can be offended, you have actually attacked my values, because maybe (and in this case, definitely) I'm very interested. So I do hope you'll condemn a campaign of whispered threats of horrible violence for people who just want to express themselves, rather than condemning southpark (which granted you didn't, just said you didn't like them).

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

tomhoward 17y ago

That's fine, don't watch it. If it offends you, turn off the television, close the YouTube tab, whatever. It's very simple for you to avoid allowing this to cause you offense. What offends non-religious people is the expectation that we should censor our statements and cartoons on the threat of murder. So much for "manners". I mean really. It's a bear suit. The whole point of this South Park portrayal is to show - as if it needed to be shown again - just how absurd is this lust among certain religious believers for any opportunity to be offended. Is there any point at which you're able to be a little reflective and think "yeah ok, I guess we're being a touch precious here"?

arethuza 17y ago
Clearly not all religious people - the same episode had Buddha snorting cocaine and I don't see anyone getting too upset over that.

arethuza 17y ago

"physical depictions of holy figures in Islam is prohibited" is there any explanation in the Qur'an why they are prohibited?

oozcitak 17y ago
Koran prohibits idolatry only. Physical depictions are prohibited in hadiths not in the Koran. From Sahih Muslim: "Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures."

tome 17y ago

freedom-of-expression (which should be held dearly) is not freedom to attack other's values. Freedom of expression is absolutely freedom to attack others' values. It's the freedom to criticise them openly without fear of physical violence. It's the freedom to lampoon them in public, and make them the subject of satire and riducule. I can understand you might not like that when it affects you, but I suggest to all muslims -- or indeed to anyone who feels their values are being attacked, religious or otherwise -- that the correct response is to publicly debate why you feel this way, and why you think your feelings should be protected. Threats of murder are unacceptable.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

jsz0 17y ago

My understanding is in the US, in modern times, the freedom of expression is only restricted in cases where some other law would otherwise come into play. For example I could express myself by suggesting I would pay someone to commit a murder for me but I would still be charged with criminal conspiracy to commit murder. Since the US is not an Islamic theocracy we have no laws on the books regarding the physical depiction issue. Basically I think you could say the freedom of expression is paramount in all but a few very specific areas and we have a special flare for protecting freedom of expression in relationship to religion since this country was founded also on religious freedom. I'm probably not representing the actual argument properly but I think it's pretty close.

ilkhd2 17y ago
Yes, probably this is true, but, it is like saying that "by nature, all humans have facilities for speech, and they are free to speak up whatever they want; however there are many laws they can be used for punishment afterwards". I remember in the movie "Food Inc" in Colorado there is a law that prevents you from public criticizing businesses if you can hurt there profits. So "freedom of speach" is quite narrow term in fact.