Really? Besides Muhammad, name 1 other well known person who showing a benign picture of him causes a real risk of getting killed by his fans?
Noooooo you forgot the (PBUH) when you mentioned Muhammad (PBUH), now I will have to kill you :( look what you made me do
name 1 other well known person who showing a benign picture of him causes a real risk of getting killed by his fans?
I’ve gotta say, I know quite a few Muslims and I can’t think of one who would so much as take a swing at me for running around in a big t-shirt with Muhammad’s face on it. Meanwhile, I can think of a few people who would take a swing at me if I was wearing, say, Osama Bin Laden.
Does this narrow it down better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
I’m really confused about the “No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name” situation.
Religions are kind of weird, aren’t they?
Always has been. Religion is the single biggest reason to not believe in religion.
the picture thing is to avoid idolatry, which was the main type of religion in the region at the time Islam was beginning. people were used to worship to (or via) visual depictions of gods, so a ban on visual representations of people was an effort to avoid people falling into old habits.
that’s why currently an overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t care about depictions of people in general, but they still don’t allow the prophet or god to be depicted (god isn’t supposed to have any physical form anyway) because that would be too close to idolatry.
kind of the opposite approach of christians with pagans, where christians appropriated pagan symbols to make Christianity more appealing, media were concerned with differentiating themselves from other religions.
uttering names isn’t taboo in Islam like it is in Christianity. while some Christians avoid saying God, Jesus or the like, Muslims are encouraged to use god’s name frequently. however they’re not allowed to call people certain names reserved for god alone, but that isn’t the case for the prophet. so it’s considered sort of a tribute or a sign of respect to name people after the prophet.
interesting fact, Muhammed isn’t the prophet’s only name, so while this is the most common name in the world, the number of people named after the prophet is even higher, because it includes some other names, most common after Muhammed being Ahmed.
Well, really fundamentalist whackdoodle strains of Islam actually go so far as to claim that no pictorial depiction of any living thing is allowed. They just get really extra touchy about old Mr. M.
Jury’s out on how, exactly, that would stand up to things like television and photographs. But I’m not an imam and I don’t have the entirety of the hadiths in front of me so I don’t fuckin’ know. The whole thing is obviously wonky on its face.
It’s a rule thing. Like not eating pork or shellfish, but less tangible and comprehensible than a dietary restriction.
Not depicting people with representative art is a thing that isn’t universally embraced in Islam or by every Muslim. But similarly there’s going to be some person out there who feels as strongly about it as they would if someone intentionally snuck pork into their food.
I’m really confused about the “No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name” situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm#
Just an artifact of history.
There once was a post on the Onion about a caricature of Christian, Judaist, Hindu and Buddhist gods having an orgy and no believers wishing death upon the author, but sighing and closing the tab instead.
There was one with mohammed included too in a french satirical paper, but it was sometimes in the -70 or -80. Much cooler times.
…didn’t that French newspaper then much later end up getting shot up?
I think it’s the same but I’m not sure. The shooting was like 40 years later though so not relevant to the mohammed orgy images.
Pls don’t kill me for posting this. A holy warrior already smote the guy that drew it 🙏
My question is, if it is supposedly abominable to show a picture of Mohamed, thus there are no extant pictures of him, how does the claim that any particular doodle of a guy in a turban with a beard actually is a depiction of Mohamed stand up to logical scrutiny? (That was a rhetorical question. I know my error was actually in including the word “logic.”)
You can’t prove it’s actually him. This could just be the Continuing Adventures of Captain Bomb Hat, an individual completely unrelated.
You’ll KNOW it’s a drawing of Muhammad because the artist will be killed by a Muslim.
