You Started It!

67 Responses to “You Started It!”

1. AOS on February 19th, 2008 11:09 am

   Showing an image of the prophet Mohammed isnt permitted in Islam. You are aware of that, right?

2. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 11:36 am

   “Showing an image of the prophet Mohammed isnt permitted in Islam.”

   Are you saying that you interpreted that little picture of a silly bearded man as a picture of the prophet?

   “You are aware of that, right?”

   Are you aware that that prohibition is a 20th century invention and is only followed by pagans and other people who do not appreciate the power of Islam and its prophet?

   Did you know that there are pictures of Muhammed painted to spread Islam by Muslims in Wikipedia and that a bunch of detractors are trying to remove them from Wikipedia and hence erase an important part of Islamic history?

   Did you know that Islam dictates respect for Christianity and Judaism and that hence a Muslim should have said something about the obviously disrespectful way Jews are represented in the picture?

   And did you know that focusing on Muhammed excessively is a form if idolatry and forbidden in all monotheistic religions, including Islam?

   You should really learn more before you attempt to teach others.

3. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 12:04 pm

   http://youtube.com/watch?v=OBRiWcqMX6M

4. TeacherLady on February 19th, 2008 2:43 pm

   Here’s a great post that addresses that…
   http://andfaraway.net/blog/2008/02/18/the-wikipedia-stance/

   I grew up seeing drawings of the Jews and Uncle Sam much like the one illustrated above in Arabic newspapers. A lot of energy was put into such hatred, taking away from the addressing of societal problems going on right under their noses.

5. AOS on February 19th, 2008 2:46 pm

   “Are you saying that you interpreted that little picture of a silly bearded man as a picture of the prophet?”

   Forgive me for considering a picture with a clear label that says “Muhammed” to be a percieved image of the prophet. I take it the ‘bearded’ part is central to that perception.
   The accuracy of the picture is not the issue here, but picturizing an image of the prophet is. The context, be it a jokey one, is also not the issue.
   Many things in Islam do no stem from the concept of ‘keep it light’, or ‘what is the context, not too serious? thats fine’, ‘just a little wont do you harm’. It would make life easier when being tempted to take a sip of alcohol by many around you, if it was.

   “Are you aware that that prohibition is a 20th century invention and is only followed by pagans and other people who do not appreciate the power of Islam and its prophet?”

   As it comes from interpretations of the Hadith, we could throw in an awful lot in there. Not a rhetorical question, but do you consider most hadith 20th centure invention? If so, our understanding of Islam differs a great deal.

   “Did you know that there are pictures of Muhammed painted to spread Islam by Muslims in Wikipedia and that a bunch of detractors are trying to remove them from Wikipedia and hence erase an important part of Islamic history?”

   Yes. However, you are aware that many of such pictures are considered inaccurate interpretations by Turkish and Persian artists, right?. However, as mentioned earlier, inaccuracy is not the issue here.

   “Did you know that Islam dictates respect for Christianity and Judaism and that hence a Muslim should have said something about the obviously disrespectful way Jews are represented in the picture?”

   Absolutely, and I will own up to the fact that I was wrong for not commenting on that as well. Perhaps I felt too passionate about the other picture to comment on the first.

   “And did you know that focusing on Muhammed excessively is a form if idolatry and forbidden in all monotheistic religions, including Islam?”

   Quran first, Hadith second. That is my understanding of Islam. Some have been criticized for prioritising the Hadith, however I do not consider myself one of those. Does not mean I ignore the Hadith, I find that unacceptable. It does provide us with important instructions such as how to pray, prayer during travel, so on.

6. Drima on February 19th, 2008 3:23 pm

   Salam dear AOS, quite frankly after reading your first comment I thought you were a troll but after the second I realized I was wrong. You seem like a nice and reasonable guy.

   Here’s the thing…

   Personally, I’m not comfortable with modern day depictions and drawings of the Prophet. Just like you, growing up I was taught that it’s wrong. Eventually however I came to discover the diverse interpretations available on the issue. It’s not as simple as we are made to believe.

   For Wahhabis and Salafis even normal art and pictures are haram. Mainstream Sunnis find some okay. Liberal scholars are cool with it and music. Some super liberals go as far as saying that the arguments made against depicting the prophet are weak.

   So… here I am looking at all the many and newly discovered interpretations. I stand somewhere between the aforementioned mainstream Sunnis and liberals. Am I going to go and make a drawing anytime soon? No. Am I going to be rigid about the issue? No. And that’s what I’m trying to say. It’s not something to get blown up about. There are other more important issues. Plus, just like the above cartoon demonstrates, our general hypocrisy is immense.

   Did I get a big smile on my face when the Danes first drew the cartoons? No. But then again, it’s so normal for them, they even make fun of Jesus. That’s them. And whether we like it or not, it’s their country and laws. If Muslims there want to protest, there are many constructive ways to do so and to practice that right within the law. Boycotts are an example.

   As for the Wikipedia cartoons. Whatever your interpretation on the issue is, rigid or liberal, those cartoons are a part of Islamic history. If they got taken out of museums and burnt in real life, I’d oppose it. Deleting them from Wikipedia is the digital equivelant of burning them. I’m staunchly against that.

   Just like you, for me, it’s Quran first and Hadith second BUT, I refuse to be a follower of the clergy. I am especially careful and suspicious of their interpretations and opinions which deal with political issues. Too often, their political stances end up influencing what they preach (which they end up preaching as something “Islamic”).

   Drawing the prophet now is taboo for most Muslims. That wasn’t the case for some a long time ago. Regardless of what modern day Muslims think, history should not be erased.

7. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 3:29 pm

   “Forgive me for considering a picture with a clear label that says “Muhammed” to be a percieved image of the prophet. I take it the ‘bearded’ part is central to that perception.”

   You have no reason to be sarcasting about it. It is indeed a problem that you cannot simply ignore the picture as obviously not representing the real Muhammed the same way I ignore the anti-Semitic picture as obviously not representing real Jews.

   The correct way to deal with those idiots who draw pictures of Muhammed to anger Muslims is to ignore them.

   “As it comes from interpretations of the Hadith, we could throw in an awful lot in there. Not a rhetorical question, but do you consider most hadith 20th century invention? If so, our understanding of Islam differs a great deal.”

   I consider this new interpretation of one particular hadith (I found the text on the Internet earlier) a 20th century invention.

   Whatever Muhammed said might have applied just to the context of the situation he was talking about. Taking everything he said outside the Quran (and even inside the Quran) as general rather than specific statements ignores the fact that he was a man, not a god.

   And that is exactly how this was understood by Muslims for 1300 years before the 20th century, hence pictures of man and animal and of Muhammed were in wide use.

   “Absolutely, and I will own up to the fact that I was wrong for not commenting on that as well. Perhaps I felt too passionate about the other picture to comment on the first.”

   Thank you.

   But you see there is the problem. You felt so passionate about Muhammed that you ignored what Islam actually wanted you to do. Are you sure that a certain extreme love for Muhammed did not impede your judgement?

   “Quran first, Hadith second. That is my understanding of Islam. Some have been criticized for prioritising the Hadith, however I do not consider myself one of those. Does not mean I ignore the Hadith, I find that unacceptable. It does provide us with important instructions such as how to pray, prayer during travel, so on.”

   That may be so, I am not an expert on the hadiths. (What exactly does the word mean? From the root HDT I assume it means something like “new”, since the Hebrew root HDS means “new” and Hebrew Shin is often a consonant shift from an earlier Tav.)

   However, not everything Muhammed said was strictly about everything. When he said, in the Quran, that “we have our religion and they have theirs” (I paraphrase), he was talking specifically about Muslims and Jews, not every religion. And when he called on Muslims to murder Jews he was talking about a specific battle.

   I know it is said in one hadith that Muhammed forbade creating pictures of anything, although I do not know whether he was referring to a specific situation or everything and always. I also don’t know how it can be deduced that specifically pictures of Muhammed would be forbidden, since the hadith speaks of all pictures.

   The Arabic abjad is a descendant of the Aramaic and ultimately the Phoenician abjad. Alef was originally a picture of an ox (and the meaning of a trained animal vs a non-trained animal is still alive in the word). All the letters are “pictures” of things they originally stood for. How do you reconcile the written Quran with the idea that pictures must not be produced?

   You can argue that the written word is no longer a “picture” since the letters have evolved from their original purpose. However, where would you define the limit? When is a picture of an ox a letter? At what point did _writing_ no longer violate the law against creating pictures?

8. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 3:42 pm

   “Personally, I’m not comfortable with modern day depictions and drawings of the Prophet.”

   That is a very normal position to take and certainly not extremist.

   But it does show a certain weakness. Let me explain.

   One of the funniest interpretations of Moses I have ever seen is in the Mel Brooks movie “History of the World Part 1″. In the scene Moses (Mel Brooks) appears on a hill and opens the waters for the heroes to flee through. When the heroes are gone it turns out “Moses” was just being held up by street gangsters and hence held up his hands. After the incident he walked away, swearing in Yiddish(!).

   Now, obviously the real Moses would not have spoken a Germanic language (Yiddish). It was a joke. But the point is that for me that depiction of Moses has ABSOLUTELY no influence on how I view the real Moses. It’s a joke and as such can never touch a real prophet, not as long as I believe and firmly believe.

   If your faith is strong, nothing can touch it.

9. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 19th, 2008 4:28 pm

   First of all:
   No one should speak about this issue in Islam without proper knowledge.

   No one has any basis for saying that the interpretation of this hadith is a 20century invention. To prove this, i will only rely of hadith located in the Two Sahih’s (i.e. the books of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim) so that i do not have to argue for the soundness of the narrations.

   About drawing the pictures:

   Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 428:
   Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan:

   While I was with Ibn ‘Abbas a man came and said, “O father of ‘Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures.” Ibn ‘Abbas said, “I will tell you only what I heard from Allah’s Apostle . I heard him saying, ‘Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.’ ” Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn ‘Abbas said to him, “What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects.”

   Volume 7, Book 72, Number 834:
   Narrated Muslim:

   We were with Masruq at the house of Yasar bin Numair. Masruq saw pictures on his terrace and said, “I heard ‘Abdullah saying that he heard the Prophet saying, “The people who will receive the severest punishment from Allah will be the picture makers.’”

   About keeping such pictures:
   Volume 4, Book 54, Number 448:
   Narrated Abu Talha:

   I heard Allah’s Apostle saying; “Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).”

   Reading these narrations does not leave doubt in ones heart that this is meant in the general sense, but because we are not able to make ijtihad on these narrations, we should rely on the mojtahidin.

   Now lets see what Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (a 15century scholar, not 20century!) states in his famous Fath al-Bari, in which he comments on the ahadith found in Sahih al-Bukhari:

   ‏قوله : ( ولا تصاوير ) ‏
   ‏في رواية معمر الماضية في بدء الخلق عن الزهري ” ولا صورة ” . بالإفراد , وكذا في معظم الروايات وفائدة إعادة حرف النفي الاحتراز من توهم القصر في عدم الدخول على اجتماع الصنفين , فلا يمتنع الدخول مع وجود أحدهما , فلما أعيد حرف النفي صار التقدير ولا تدخل بيتا فيه صورة , قال الخطابي : والصورة التي لا تدخل الملائكة البيت الذي هي فيه ما يحرم اقتناؤه , وهو ما يكون من الصور التي فيها الروح مما لم يقطع رأسه أو لم يمتهن على ما سيأتي تقريره في ” باب ما وطئ من التصاوير ” بعد بابين , وتأتي الإشارة إلى تقوية ما ذهب إليه الخطابي في ” باب لا تدخل الملائكة بيتا فيه صورة ” وأغرب ابن حبان فادعى أن هذا الحكم خاص بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم , قال . وهو نظير الحديث الآخر ” لا تصحب الملائكة رفقة فيها جرس ” قال فإنه محمول على رفقة فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم , إذ محال أن يخرج الحاج والمعتمر لقصد بيت الله عز وجل على رواحل لا تصحبها الملائكة وهم وفد الله انتهى وهو تأويل بعيد جدا لم أره لغيره , ويزيل شبهته أن كونهم وفد الله لا يمنع أن يؤاخذوا بما يرتكبونه من خطيئة فيجوز أن يحرموا بركة الملائكة بعد مخالطتهم لهم إذا ارتكبوا النهي واستصحبوا الجرس , وكذا القول فيمن يقتني الصورة والكلب . والله أعلم . وقد استشكل كون الملائكة لا تدخل المكان الذي فيه التصاوير مع قوله سبحانه وتعالى عند ذكر سليمان عليه السلام ( يعملون له ما يشاء من محاريب وتماثيل ) وقد قال مجاهد : كانت صورا من نحاس أخرجه الطبري . وقال قتادة : كانت من خشب ومن زجاج أخرجه عبد الرزاق . والجواب أن ذلك كان جائزا في تلك الشريعة وكانوا يعملون أشكال الأنبياء والصالحين منهم على هيئتهم في العبادة ليتعبدوا كعبادتهم , وقد قال أبو العالية : لم يكن ذلك في شريعتهم حراما ثم جاء شرعنا بالنهي عنه , ويحتمل أن يقال : إن التماثيل كانت على صورة النقوش لغير ذوات الأرواح , وإذا كان اللفظ محتملا لم يتعين الحمل على المعنى المشكل , وقد ثبت في الصحيحين حديث عائشة في قصة الكنيسة التي كانت بأرض الحبشة وما فيها من التصاوير , وأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ” كانوا إذا مات فيهم الرجل الصالح بنوا على قبره مسجدا وصوروا فيه تلك الصورة , أولئك شرار الخلق عند الله ” فإن ذلك يشعر بأنه لو كان ذلك جائزا في ذلك الشرع ما أطلق عليه صلى الله عليه وسلم أن الذي فعله شر الخلق , فدل على أن فعل صور الحيوان فعل محدث أحدثه عباد الصور , والله أعلم . ‏

   I will not translate it all but there is no doubt on the subject and i have only relied on Sahih Bukhari and its Sharh here, if i began to cite other sources one will be aware of the evidence that lies behind the consensus of the scholars of the ummah, that according to our Prophet (saws) will never unite on wrong.

   So there is absolutely no doubt that drawing living beings is unlawful to the muslims.

   As for the word “hadith”, i am not very strong at english, but i can give you some examples:
   “Haddathny” = He told me
   Man haddathaka = Who told you
   It can mean something new (like khaber) but it can also mean a story or a narration (riwaya). In religious context, it is a tradition of the Prophet (saw) and his companions, and among shiites, the same applies for traditions attributed to their holy imams.

   And as for the arab letters, you are absolutely correct that Alef is an ox in Proto-Sinaitic, but the way you see it is not shared by muslim scholars, because when one write these as letters (hieroglyphs for example), one do not intend to draw a living being, but intend to write a letter because the Alef of today represents a sound, not an animal that has a soul. Forgive me if i am unable to explain things properly, but i am doing my best.

   I am arab muslim and i live in Denmark, and i will God willing later comment on the cartoon case itself.
   (i need my own blog lol)

10. Amal on February 19th, 2008 4:30 pm

    Drima,

    I dont really have much to say on the post or anyones comment but I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that I find what you said about the Danes freedom in thier own country unacceptable.
    The muslims who live in Denmark or any other European country are citizens of these countries and their rights rank equally to those of the original danes or whatever they like to refer to themselves. The law in Denmark should take into consideration the rights and wishes of everyone without being biased to one party.
    The issue of the dipiction of the prophet Mohammed in the cartoons made by the newspapers is not whether they have an artistic right to draw such cartoons but the very circumstances these cartoons were made in.
    Denmark and Holland have witnessed a rise in extreme right politica groups support.
    This might be due to the increase of the number of immigrants or the current economic situation but there is a rising hostility against those immigrants (mostly North and East Africans), with Neo-Nazi attacks on people, schools and properties.

    Why would a newspaper publish a cartoon that its sure will upset the sensitivity of North and East Africans at such a time? I believe that this was done precisely to incite such anger.

    I am glad that people demonstrated and made their anger visible so those stupid racist know that such attempts to demean minorities will go unchecked. I dont think they banked on the reaction of Muslim people around the world and the boycott of their products. They thought they were merely picking on a group of helpless defenceless poor immigrants.

    I dont think drawing cartoons to make fun of any ethnic group is right, so the jewish cartoons are not acceptable. Making fun of the Prophet in Denmark was a cowardly attempt at poking fun of an ethnic group and has nothing to do with making fun of Islam itself.

11. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 4:34 pm

    “They thought they were merely picking on a group of helpless defenceless poor immigrants.”

    Actually, they were picking on the most violent and dangerous group they could imagine.

    I don’t think you got the joke.

    “Making fun of the Prophet in Denmark was a cowardly attempt at poking fun of an ethnic group and has nothing to do with making fun of Islam itself.”

    If making fun of Muhammed is so cowardly, why do Muslims try to intimidate the cartoonists? Wouldn’t intimidation attempts prove that the cartoonists are a lot braver than the Muslims?

12. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 4:35 pm

    “an ethnic group”

    Muslims are not an ethnic group.

13. Howie on February 19th, 2008 4:38 pm

    Geez Dudes-

    Come on George Burns played GOD in movies…as did what’s like black guy’s name with the cool voice that played in Bruce Almighty? GOD was portrayed as a Puerto Rica janitor in a movie in the 70’s…and I could go on and on and on.

    Really…but this is not just a Muslim lack of “geez, dudes…calm down a bit”…Jews and Christians can get pretty whack about this kind of thing…but when it starts into the “let’s riot, burn and kill” because we are upset…then I have a real big problem.

    I can’t live without poking fun…sorry, we take ourselves too seriously and then trouble follows. I wish you guys could sit on one of my management team meetings; white Jew, Israeli Iraqi wife cooking for the group, Iranian Muslim VP, Nicaguara refugee manager, Chinese/Vietnamese refugee manager, standard American WASP, manager, mixed bitch HR (Mexican and Greek and I don’t know what else) and our latest…a white, freckled tech. person who is pure Mexican and Yaqui Indian.

    We RIP each other…We have all learned to curse each other in 3-4 different languages…we tease, taunt etc. Yes…we try to be somewhat respectful of religion and some politics…but it has been a learning and healthy trip for all of us…

    The Prophet…peace be onto him…has no sense of humor? Stern right? Harsh, strict! Is that the only interpretation of Islam? God doesn’t have a sense of humor?…he must…he made Jews.

14. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 4:46 pm

    “No one has any basis for saying that the interpretation of this hadith is a 20century invention”

    Actually, the text you quote is precisely as I said taken out of context. When one Muslim tells another that the prophet has said X, it doesn’t mean that he said X to everyone and that X is valid at any time.

    It only means that in at least one specific circumstance Muhammed said that X was true.

    It doesn’t mean that X is a law.

    And it was not traditionally interpreted as such. The existence of pictures created by Muslims for a thousand years is proof enough of that.

    “So there is absolutely no doubt that drawing living beings is unlawful to the muslims.”

    Except to the Muslims of over a hundred years ago and those who intepreted the same hadith for a thousand years.

    You COULD say that there is no doubt IF pictures of Muhammed (and other people), drawn by Muslims did not exist. But they do and hence “without a doubt” is certainly not a true modifier.

    What is a fact that proves a statement wrong if not a doubt, at the very least?

    “one do not intend to draw a living being, but intend to write a letter because the Alef of today represents a sound, not an animal that has a soul.”

    Yes, but the point is where exactly is the limit? Can I make up an alphabet that uses a picture of Muhammed as a sound? Can I draw an ox to represent a glottal stop (Alef’s original sound)?

    At what point is my drawing not considered a picture any more?

    No, I’m afraid your opinion is not fact but a 20th century innovation. History does not agree with your idea that Islam prohibits drawing pictures and that there was never any doubt about it.

    If anything, history shows that Muslims in the past did not care about the alleged prohibition. And to say that Muslims for a thousand years deliberately ignored G-d’s law is a terrible thing to do.

15. Howie on February 19th, 2008 4:51 pm

    Dudes…on a more serious note:

    I bet RK and AB know this one…damn smart farts they are…

    But a famous Jewish philosopher, later in life turned Chasid, was a dude named Martin Buber. He stressed an idea (and I am paraphrasing here) of “the I and the Thou”…Very difficult for me to explain and I will certainly screw this up.

    Essentially…it is like we are all ONE…and one not much different than the other. In order for us to get shitty with each other, we have to mentally remove that other person’s sameness and humanity.It is only when we remove this, we are capable of things like stoning somebody to death for adultery or some crazy shit like that…believing that person is less than us, less human.

    God made us all…and I think sure…we need to take stands and positions…but these will typcially lead to conflict. Oh it is one very complex problem…yes it is…but to me…self-deprecation, humor, teasing etc. are one of the few ways to beat down those barriers…that can be an avenue to discovering…”hey dude…drop all the self-righteous I KNOW what God wants stuff and be here with me a bit. You don’t KNOW shit about God…nobody does…we are all guessing…we are all afraid.

    Me…I think, in the supposed dying words of Aldous Huxley, primarily need to “be a little nicer to one another”. That is what I believe. I believe in basic freedoms, respect, dignity, kindness, friendship and yes that is not easy to carry out in all situations…but I believe God is far more interested in that than worried about a cigar smoking George Burns making it rain inside of John Denver’s car.

16. Howie on February 19th, 2008 5:03 pm

    BTW-

    This is such a nice site…you have to play around with it to get all the capabilities…but very cool

    http://www.accuradio.com/

17. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 19th, 2008 5:03 pm

    Andrew Brehm,

    did you even care to read what i quoted from Ibn Hajar who lived centuries before the 20th century? The prohibition against these pictures is way older than him, and there in methods (manahej) to understand what makes a law and what does not makes a law, and all of these manahej agree that taswir is unlawful.

    As for the muslims who used to portray Muhammad (saw) in pictures, it is not odd at all. It was after all muslims who killed Al-Hussain (ra) grandson of the Holy Prophet, the caliph of the muslims of this time used to drink wine (refer to Ibn Hajar al-Haithamy’s book Sawaiq al-Muhreqah, also way before the 20th century), and what does this prove? That alcohol is permitted!?!?

    it was muslims who imprisoned Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahu Allah) and Ibn Taimiyya (rahimahu Allah), who lashed Imam Malik (rahimahu Allah).

    That some muslims DID something in history does not prove that this is a lawful matter. It is the legal rulings of the jurists who does.

    Thus I challenge you to provide any faqih from Salaf and Khalaf who held the oppinion that Taswir is acceptable, as i have just proven that Ibn Abbas (ra) the sahabi who lived in the time of the Prophet (saw) deemed it unlawful, as did Ibn Hajar. Maybe the Prophet (saw) lived in the 20th century according to you, i dont know.

18. Andrew Brehm on February 19th, 2008 5:21 pm

    “did you even care to read what i quoted from Ibn Hajar who lived centuries before the 20th century?”

    Yes, of course I read it. That was what I was replying to.

    You have proven nothing except that other people share your opinions. But that doesn’t make it law.

    I doubt that those Muslims who did draw pictures of Muhammed thought they were doing something illegal.

    “Thus I challenge you to provide any faqih from Salaf and Khalaf who held the oppinion that Taswir is acceptable”

    I don’t know who Salaf and Khalaf are, but finding Islamic judgements on pictures is not difficult:

    Sunni:

    http://muttaqun.com/qa/tasweer-qa.html

    Shia:

    http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=nav&nid=5&cid=561

    In fact, it seems to me that Islamic tradition is merely that pictures must not be used to create idols. You must not put up a picture of a great scholar on his grave so to avoid that people start praying to him. And since, according to Muhammed anyway, statues or pictures will stop angels from entering a house, one must not put up statues or pictures to do so.

    That’s the context of those prohibitions.

    And I am really wondering why, in the face of a thousand years of different tradition and current scholars disagreeing with you, you insist that there is “no doubt” about the legality of pictures in Islam.

    Either way, the Quran does tell you that Jews and Christians (as well as other Abrahamic monotheists) have their own acceptable laws and hence Danish (Christian) cartoonists can draw what they want. They did not violate an Islamic law that prohibits drawing pictures because they are Christians.

19. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 19th, 2008 5:53 pm

    “Yes, of course I read it. That was what I was replying to.

    You have proven nothing except that other people share your opinions. But that doesn’t make it law.”
    - I have proven that it is not a 20th century innovation as you claimed. How can you keep claiming that if i have just proven otherwise?

    In one of the ahadith i’ve cited, Ibn Abbas (ra) who lived in the time of the Prophet (saw) ordered a man NOT to draw pictures, and the argument that the pictures is only unlawful if they attract worship is invalid according to the Shari’ah, because Ibn Abbas (ra) forbade one to do what he did and it was not a matter of worship, but just portraying living beings that has a soul.

    “I doubt that those Muslims who did draw pictures of Muhammed thought they were doing something illegal.”
    - Again, that does not prove anything. Perhaps those who killed Al Hussain (ra) did not thought that they were doing something illegal.

    And you, who seeks to prove that prohibition of Taswir is a 20thcentury innovation, cites nothing but 20th century scholars to proove your view! Like this is’nt ridicolous enough, you cite from Al Qaradawi, who is among the greatest of mubtadi3in in our age, which the scholars of Islam has severely criticized him for.

    As for Ayatollah Sistani, i will not even comment.

20. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 19th, 2008 5:58 pm

    Again, i ask you to bring evidence from a faqih before the 20th century who deemed it lawful to portray people.

    “Either way, the Quran does tell you that Jews and Christians (as well as other Abrahamic monotheists) have their own acceptable laws and hence Danish (Christian) cartoonists can draw what they want. They did not violate an Islamic law that prohibits drawing pictures because they are Christians.”
    First of all, was’nt it just you who just said that we should not interpret the Quran on ourselves? There is a science of this, and i will adhere to it, not to the interpretation of laypersons.

    Second, i did not argue against what the christians do. I did not even mention it. If you want my opinion on this, simply asking is not hard.

21. Howie on February 19th, 2008 6:31 pm

    These discussions go nowhere…but at least this one is lively and healthy and not bizarre…

    You can’t debate faith and belief…well obviously you can but it doesn’t lead anywhere.

    People always find scripture to support their viewpoints…

    To me…it gets back to my comments earlier…You can look for the angry, punishment, control, fear aspects…or try to ferret out the essence.

    What is the essence of what God wants from us?

    What?

22. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 19th, 2008 6:41 pm

    Howie:

    Thank you, i did plan to comment on your post later.

    This debate is not on faith, it is about a matter of islamic jrusprudence, which applies to muslims only and not to people of other faiths.

    If you ask me as a muslim about the essence, it is Ihsan:
    To worship God just as you see him, knowing that he indeed sees you.

23. AOS on February 19th, 2008 6:54 pm

    “You have no reason to be sarcasting about it. It is indeed a problem that you cannot simply ignore the picture as obviously not representing the real Muhammed the same way I ignore the anti-Semitic picture as obviously not representing real Jews.”

    Wasn’t being sarcastic, just pointed out why I considered the picture a depiction of the prophet. As I mentioned earlier, it is not the inaccuracy of the picture, it is the concept of graphically depicting him, which goes against muslim law. Also, the intention makes no difference to me. Be it sattire, or evil-hearted propaganda, it is provocative to muslims.
    The reason I made the initial comment was because a muslim posted it and I was looking to understand his reasoning for doing so.

    “I consider this new interpretation of one particular hadith (I found the text on the Internet earlier) a 20th century invention.

    Whatever Muhammed said might have applied just to the context of the situation he was talking about. Taking everything he said outside the Quran (and even inside the Quran) as general rather than specific statements ignores the fact that he was a man, not a god.

    And that is exactly how this was understood by Muslims for 1300 years before the 20th century, hence pictures of man and animal and of Muhammed were in wide use.”

    You are free to consider what you wish, but the majority of muslims will disagree with you. Across the board of different labels muslims nowadays find themselves attached to. This is not considered a 20th century invention, it is considered a law derived from a number of interpretations of the hadith. Those interpretations are not as simple-minded as you seem to think.
    Someone touched on it earlier; only because it was practiced by muslims long ago does not make it permissable. Not all muslims practice Islam the way it should be practiced, and this applies to modern, as well as ancient, times. They might do things with the idea embedded in them that what they are doing is right, but that doesn’t make it right when judged by the Quran and Hadith.

    “Thank you.

    But you see there is the problem. You felt so passionate about Muhammed that you ignored what Islam actually wanted you to do. Are you sure that a certain extreme love for Muhammed did not impede your judgement?”

    You’re welcome. I disagree however. I do not feel there is a trend in my way of thinking which leads to my ignoring of correct Islamic teachings due to my blinded love of the prophet.
    This practice has been observed mainly with some Christians with the prioritisation of Jesus Christ over God. Perhaps that is why the practice of depicting prophet Mohammed (PBUH) graphically is frowned upon?

    Personally, I feel the reactions you get from reading words differs a great deal from those you get when looking at pictures. Therefore, your interpretation and judgement would differ.

    As for Hadiths, some more research would give you a better idea of how interpretations come about and the contexts used to get to them.

24. Howie on February 19th, 2008 7:09 pm

    Ahmad-

    You know…I have always had trouble with that viewpoint and let me tell you why…

    How then does that manifest in everyday life…Worship God…what really does that mean. And believe me…as a Jew…we spend HUGE amounts of prayer time singing to God, praising His power, greatness, everything short of His taste in clothes.

    For me…this always leaves me empty. In the Jewish/Christian world there is the “faith vs. works” debate…

    I have huge issue with many religious people, certainly my own faith included, that are fairly “holy” and strong believers…but I often don’t see a whole lot of good works coming out of them. Sometimes just the opposite…

    Does God need our admiration, compliments…No I don’t think He does…not one bit.

    What I believe, and MANY disagree with me, that unless you are taking care of the hurt, the weaker, the sick etc…then all the submission and worship in the world is just…well…to be frank…kissing God’s ass so you can escape punishment and go to heaven. As if God can’t see right through that into the depths of your soul with your doubts and confusions and selfishness etc. (I am using the editorial “you” not meaning you Ahmed”).

    In terms of hadith and sura and religious courts…well I view that the same why I view the Christiand canons and the all the Talmudic stuff and Jewish court stuff…these dudes where just that…dudes. They were not saints, prophets and had no better pipeline to God than you our I Ahmed. And the fuck if they are going to dictate to me and tell me what God REALLY meant…bullshit.

    They may have been enormously wise and good etc. But they were just fallible humans that often disagreed with each other…

    We ultimately are responsible for our behavior and decisions…me…I am humble enough to listen…but just because some rabbi said something 1,000 years ago or an Imam or whatever…well…you get my point.

25. Roman Kalik on February 19th, 2008 7:14 pm

    Ahmad, I believe that Imam Malik (and the entire Maliki school of Sunni Islam by extension) had a different view on the matter. Imam Malik ruled that three-dimentional depicits (statues) of living beings were clearly forbidden, due to their idol potential. Painted two-dimentional pictures were “tolerable”, though Imam Malik stated that it is best to avoid them as well.

    Shi’a Islam was largely more permitting in this issue, though I am not familiar with the particular rulings and schools of thought yet.

    Now, I’m not a Muslim, nor do I claim to be an expert on Islamic rulings and traditions. Thus, I ask that you look into the issue further to verify (or annul) my argument.

    Howie, as I’m familiar with many Hassidic, ideas, philosophies, and beliefs, I can clearly see why Martin Buber became a Hassid. I’m afraid I haven’t heard of him until now, though.

26. limpia on February 19th, 2008 7:17 pm

    Hi- I have heard the term ‘absolute’ which is very onerous. To apply a manuscript from so long ago precisely to the changing times shows a lack of understanding the times, and understanding the manuscript’s essence and humanity. To pull away the morals that can be used by a society in our times is what the western world tries to do: Love, respect , tolerance, nonviolence, equality. For a woman, especially,or any good person outside of the power group, to hear the term ‘absolute’ is frightening. Honestly, do u all have OCD or something????

27. Howie on February 19th, 2008 7:23 pm

    Limpia

    OCD? Naw…I think it is more like we have paranoid schizophrenia with psychotic features and delusions of grandure

    Nice name…from the Spanish “clean”…

    If so…do you clean alot

    If so…are you OCD

28. Howie on February 19th, 2008 7:30 pm

    RK-

    Here you go:

    PHILOSOPHY OF DIALOGUE

    Buber’s philosophy of dialogue views the human existence in relations, and that in two fundamentally different kinds of relations: I-It and I-Thou relations.
    An I-Itrelation is the normal everyday relation of a human being towards the things surrounding him. Man can also consider his fellows as an It - and that is what he does most of the time -, he views the other from a distance, like a thing, a part of the environment, forged into chains of causality.
    Radically different the I-Thou relation. The human being enters into it with his innermost and whole being, in a meeting, in a real dialogue this is what both of the partners do. For Buber, interhuman meetings are only a reflection of the human meeting with God. The essence of the biblical religion consists for Buber of the fact that - regardless of the infinite abyss between them - a dialogue between man and God is possible.

    I love the way he puts it…and we do mostly “it” each other…don’t we?

    Lots of stuff on google about him…seemed like a great man.

29. limpia on February 19th, 2008 7:44 pm

    Hi Howie! actually, i am not ocd, tho i know people who are! My house might tell u that i am not ocd.

    as an ‘out there’ thought though, sometimes i have wondered if some fundamentalist groups might be more ‘brain inclined’ to repetitive activity, that when shown the light of day might look ridiculous to most people. They may also tend toward things like fear of the outsider, sadism masochism! Of course, however, ocders can practice their religion as they like, just dont add the other stuff which leads to violence.Uh howie- which fundamentalist, absolutist group are u part of?

30. halalhippie on February 19th, 2008 11:49 pm

    Good cartoon (albeit old) good post, and even better discussion…

    Drima:” Boycotts are an example [of]constructive ways to [protest]” I understand the anger and the wish to “kick back” but how does boycotting cheese and Lego punish a newspaper ?

    And plz get this: the “bomb-in-turban” cartoonist who was nearly murdered lately, is a 73 year-old staunch atheist, NOT a Christian. (A Christian knows about religious feelings )

    Ahmad al-Safawi:
    [Hvis du bor i DK, deler du Amals beskrivelse af forholdende for muslimer i DK ? Jeg har talt med mange, og kan ikke genkende det ]

    When you start your blog,let me know, I’ll be there.

    Amal:”Why would a newspaper publish a cartoon that its sure will upset the sensitivity of North and East Africans at such a time? ” In their own words: to challenge their own fear/self-censorship over a tiny group of Islamist bullies who beat up Jews in the street. (Whether the paper itself believes it is another matter)

    Seems like the old cartoonist, and the Arab protester are talking two very different languages.

31. Drima on February 20th, 2008 4:48 am

    “Drima:” Boycotts are an example [of]constructive ways to [protest]” I understand the anger and the wish to “kick back” but how does boycotting cheese and Lego punish a newspaper ?”

    Hi Halalhippie, I wasn’t referring to that silly boycott. I apologize if you misunderstood. Boycotting LEGOS and cheese is silly because it basically punishes a whole nation for the actions of one *independent* newspaper. The keyword is *independent*, something many of those who called for boycotts do not understand. The boycotts also affected Arab businessmen who were distributing those products in their countries. Silly.

    The kind of boycotts I was talking about are ones aimed at the companies that advertise in the offending newspapers. It’s one that often works.

    If I’m not mistaken, a while ago Ann Coulter called gays “faggots” on her blog which led many people to contact the companies that were advertising on it. They succeeded in getting them to cancel their sponsorships.

    “And plz get this: the “bomb-in-turban” cartoonist who was nearly murdered lately, is a 73 year-old staunch atheist, NOT a Christian.”

    Yeah, I know. Been following the news.

32. Howie on February 20th, 2008 4:51 am

    Good discussion folks

33. Drima on February 20th, 2008 5:10 am

    “Shi’a Islam was largely more permitting in this issue, though I am not familiar with the particular rulings and schools of thought yet.”

    Roman, as far as I can tell, that’s true. Most of the old drawings and depictions of the Prophet that I’ve come across were made by Shia Muslims.

34. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 20th, 2008 6:31 am

    Hi friends.

    Howie:
    A sufi once said:
    “O Allah, if i worship you only to avoid hell, then let me enter it, and if i worship you only to enter paradise, then exclude me from it”.

    A radical saying imho, but it does stress an important fact. That you in Islam can enter paradise by completing the mininum of your duties (which by the way INCLUDES almsgiving and the like) is nothing but a mercy from God.

    I do not think that it is appropiate that he have this discussion here, but thanks a lot, and i understood what you just said and i did not get offended in any way

    Dear friend Roman,
    “Ahmad, I believe that Imam Malik (and the entire Maliki school of Sunni Islam by extension) had a different view on the matter. Imam Malik ruled that three-dimentional depicits (statues) of living beings were clearly forbidden, due to their idol potential. Painted two-dimentional pictures were “tolerable”, though Imam Malik stated that it is best to avoid them as well.”
    - There are certain dispensions where this might be the case. The only Maliki text i could find of this subject is the Al-Muntaqi of Imam Abu Walid al-Baji, a great maliki jurist of Andalusia. He writes:
    أمر أبي طلحة رضي الله عنه بإزالة النمط لأجل التصاوير دليل على كراهيته له وقوله , وقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيها ما قد علمت يحتمل أنه قاله في جملة التصاوير على وجه الكراهية ويحتمل أنه قاله على وجه التحريم واستثنى منه الرقم في الثوب
    This is a comment on a hadith collected by Imam Malik in his Muwatta - and i’ve reproduced it earlier in Al-Bukhari’s version (the hadith of Abu Talha, please look at my previous post). He says that it proves the impermisibillity of what in islamic jurisprudence known as taswir - drawing what has a soul.

    As for the dispensations of this general prohibitions (they often exist) in the Maliki school, i do not know, but if you like i can ask a very learned friend of mine who himself adheres to this school.

    Dear friend Halalhippie;
    “[Hvis du bor i DK, deler du Amals beskrivelse af forholdende for muslimer i DK ? Jeg har talt med mange, og kan ikke genkende det ]”
    Jeg svarer dig på engelsk min ven.

    - What part of it? The increase in attacks of Neo-nazi’s? Hehe well statistically it might be the case but it is not like we cannot show ourselves on the streets because of harrasment. I view the everyday life in Denmark as pleasant and i rarely meet discrimination. My experience in the years i’ve spend in Denmark is that the danish people in general tend to respect our right to practise our religion as long as we do not force it on others.

    What is increasing in Denmark is not physical harrasment based on ethnicity, but a hostile climate on discussion that is in increase, and this is not only among danes towards muslims.

    But i will write more on this when i open my blog. Is there any place you guys can recommend me to open a blog?

35. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 20th, 2008 6:44 am

    And yes Roman you are wright about the shiites. They even permit drawings of their twelve infallible imams, and these are often seen in their mosques and husseiniyat. A Husseiniya is a place used exclusively for shia muslims where they practice the shia rituals.

    However, these pictures only works as a help for the layman to “personificize” (if that is an actual word?) the imams, and that it is unlawful for one to believe that this was their actual appearance.

36. Howie on February 20th, 2008 6:45 am

    Ahmad-

    There was absolutely no intention of insult…again my comments were not addressed directly to you…but to thinking people in general

    “But i will write more on this when i open my blog. Is there any place you guys can recommend me to open a blog?”

    Yes…there is one with an icon that shows a picture of Mohammed with a…ah just kidding

    I think a lot of people start with BLOGG or something like that…but Drima is the main man on that one.

    A sufi once said:
    “O Allah, if i worship you only to avoid hell, then let me enter it, and if i worship you only to enter paradise, then exclude me from it”.

    Sucker stole that from old Howie did he? OK…he can take credit…I don’t mind…but yes…I like that…I like that line very very very much.

    But you strike me as more of a religious “legalist”…I understand and probably very “left-brained”…I am very right-brained…and the legalistic stuff just never resounded a good cord with me…But we could talk a whole lot about that.

    And remember…my remarks in this case were not directed at Islam…but very much at my own religion and at Christianity as well.

    The eastern religions I have studied don’t see to get as hung up on Scripture and legalism as do the we of the big 3.

    I have always had an attraction to Sufi philosophy though…I have to read more. My guess is that it ultimately lines up with the other mystical traditions be they Hindu, Bhuddhist, Jewish, or Christian…I guess I remain a mystic at heart…still believe in the potential for direct experience of the Almighty and of an Ultimate unifying force that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about our bickerings…

    Be well…you are one smart dude. Use the gift well.

37. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 20th, 2008 8:02 am

    Shalom Howie,

    “There was absolutely no intention of insult…again my comments were not addressed directly to you…but to thinking people in general”
    - I know

    “Yes…there is one with an icon that shows a picture of Mohammed with a…ah just kidding

    I think a lot of people start with BLOGG or something like that…but Drima is the main man on that one.”
    - He he..

    I will wait for Drima, then.

    “But you strike me as more of a religious “legalist”…I understand and probably very “left-brained”…I am very right-brained…and the legalistic stuff just never resounded a good cord with me…But we could talk a whole lot about that.”
    - I apologize but i do not get the left/right brained thing, what does that mean? I assume it has nothing to to with being a left- or rightwinger in politics.

    But what you said is true to some extend. I do emphasize the legal rulings of my religion, but i also emphasize the spirituality. I try to combine spirituality (sufism) and islamic law (shari’a) as good as possible, in the spirit of what some of the greatest scholars of Sharia and Sufism said.

    Shaykh Sa’id al-Nursi, a great turkish thinker, said:
    No tariqa (spiritual path) without Sharia.

    But as you said, we can talk for years aboutt his issue.

    “And remember…my remarks in this case were not directed at Islam…but very much at my own religion and at Christianity as well”
    - I know and understand, friend.

    “Be well…you are one smart dude. Use the gift well.”
    - Thank you and you too man

38. Craig on February 20th, 2008 8:38 am

    Amal,

    The muslims who live in Denmark or any other European country are citizens of these countries and their rights rank equally to those of the original danes or whatever they like to refer to themselves.

    But you aren’t arguing for equal rights. You are arguing that Muslims should have special rights.

    The law in Denmark should take into consideration the rights and wishes of everyone without being biased to one party.

    Which is exactly what secular societies are supposed to do. You are asking for a favorable bias towards the religious practices of Muslims. What makes you feel entitled to that? I frankly find your attitude quite offensive. Religion isn’t supposed to be public in a secular society. Nobody should get special treatment because of their religious beliefs. If you don’t like that, then don’t live in a secular country.

39. Drima on February 20th, 2008 8:42 am

    Dear Ahmad, it’s ABOUT TIME!

    Stay away from Google’s dreaded Blogger. Instead head over to:

    www.wordpress.com

    It is what I and most professional bloggers use. Oh and it’s FREE.

    As for legalism and spirituality, I love Sufis for how spiritual they are and for their deep philosophies. Plus, I find that most aren’t obsessed about making Islam some kind of political movement. It’s just beautiful and attractive.

    In terms of legalism, I’m individualist, preferring to rely on my own rationality rather than following the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith on simple faith. If it makes sense, easy. If it doesn’t, I reject it or stay neutral.

    So yes, the hadiths you mentioned about the prohibition of drawing do not seem logical to me. Plus, I’ve read liberal ijtihadi Islamic interpretations that approve of most kind of drawings. They emphasize the intentions behind a drawing’s purpose rather than the action of drawing itself.

    I used to consider myself strictly Sunni but now I’m not rigid about adhering to a few specific Sunni Islamic schools of thought. Instead I prefer to think of myself just as Muslim - one who has a deep appreciation and respect for aspects of spirituality in Islam (and even other religions) but who is not so attracted by other things that seem like dogma. Growing a beard, hijab, strict reliance on hadith etc.

40. Craig on February 20th, 2008 8:47 am

    Can I ask a question? Why is the discussion becoming an argument about whether Islam permits depictions of the Prophet? I’m not Muslim, and I don’t care much whether Islam permits pictures of the Prophet or not. My rights as an American to see Muslims burning Danish flags for a change are what really matters, here.

41. Drima on February 20th, 2008 9:07 am

    Context Craig. I don’t think people were talking about whether it should be permitted or not within the context of a secular country, but within the context of Islam itself.

42. Andrew Brehm on February 20th, 2008 11:08 am

    There is also the issue of whether ALL pictures are forbidden in Islam or specifically pictures of Muhammed.

    All hadith that seem to suggest, to some, that pictures are forbidden speak of all pictures rather than specific pictures.

    The only specific instance I found was a prohibition of statues of holy men on their graves, to avoid that their followers start praying to them; a prohibition I totally support.

    And given that the same protesters who “oppose” pictures of Muhammed will happily burn self-made statues of Ariel Sharon and George Bush, I feel that perhaps their belief is not that all pictures are forbidden. They seem to follow a different religion.

    The only way I can imagine that pictures of Muhammed specifically would be forbidden in Islam is in the context of avoiding idolatry. But a _cartoon_ of Muhammed is hardly idolatry.

    But the protesters obviously idolise Muhammed to the point of being willing to die for (what they perceive to be) Muhammed.

    To summarise:

    1. I think Islam prohibits statues and pictures in some contexts, mainly to avoid idolatry.

    2. I agree with some of those prohibitions.

    3. A Muhammed cartoon is not idolatry, hence doesn’t fall under any of those prohibitions.

    4. Either way, a prohibition for Muslims that Christians and Jews don’t believe in is not valid for Christians and Jews anyway, since the Quran states that they can follow their own religions as per G-d’s will.

    5. The cartoon protesters are idolising Muhammed, which is forbidden in Islam (and all Abrahamic religions).

43. Scooby on February 20th, 2008 11:21 am

    Ahmad al-Safawi - “This debate is not on faith, it is about a matter of islamic jrusprudence, which applies to muslims only and not to people of other faiths.”

    Which surely leaves the way clear for non-Muslims of any, or in my case, no religious belief (Danes included), to portray Muhammed in any way they see fit, within the context of their society’s legal framework, be it for praise, satire, criticism (he was after all only a man…). I would no more expect Shariah, or the considerations of an Imam, or pronouncements of the prophet to be considered within the context of our secular (British) legal system, than I would expect the right to make and drink alcohol, or indulge in any number of Islamically (a word..??) proscribed activities in a Muslim country if I were an “outsider”.

    Amal - you seem to have become slightly confused between the notions of “race” and “religion”. We must never discriminate, bully, oppress or hate solely on the basis of something that a person cannot change and has no choice in - their race or nationality (ie ethnic origin - black, white, asian, Danish, Afghan, Arabic - note Arabic, NOT Muslim….), their gender, their sexuality, their physical or mental disabilities. These are things we cannot change about ourselves.

    Religion, and our adoption and following of belief systems is an entirely different matter. We convert (and how much does a religion love a convert??!!), we fall out with religions, we adopt religions closest to our own world views, we analyse and cogitate and agonise and fall on the side of atheism, or we simply don’t care - our relationships with ideologies can be fleeting, or lifelong commitments. BUT, they are CHOICES, choices to adopt standards of behaviour, of dress, of diet, of commitment, of thinking. The important thing is that they are all PERSONAL and should remain exactly that. To prevent others from doing something perfectly legal in a country where your opposition to their activities is based solely on personal belief is nonsensical, and indicative of gross cultural insensitivity as great as walking through the streets of Mecca in swimming trunks and a bikini, swigging from a bottle of beer (actually, that’s a pretty odd thing to do even where I’m from). If you disagree with a law in a Western secular democracy, you lobby to have it changed. Simply being offended, however, will not give much weight to your argument.

    The Muslims in Denmark had every right to be offended and upset if they so chose to be by the published cartoons, but by demanding censorship, or far far worse, simply on the basis of offence, rather than contravention of a law, they left themselves open to an equally valid demand to ban Islam on the basis that it can be deemed offensive to homosexuals, or women, or Jews (depending entirely of course on which branch of Islamic belief, thinking and opinion you choose to espouse……)

    Nobody said it would be easy…… :o)

44. Roman Kalik on February 20th, 2008 11:43 am

    Ahmad,

    Thanks for the prompt and good reply. It’s a real pleasure talking to you.

    As for the dispensations of this general prohibitions (they often exist) in the Maliki school, i do not know, but if you like i can ask a very learned friend of mine who himself adheres to this school.

    Please do. I’m always interested in learning more.

    But what you said is true to some extend. I do emphasize the legal rulings of my religion, but i also emphasize the spirituality. I try to combine spirituality (sufism) and islamic law (shari’a) as good as possible, in the spirit of what some of the greatest scholars of Sharia and Sufism said.

    I think we’re very much alike, Ahmad.

    However, these pictures only works as a help for the layman to “personificize” (if that is an actual word?) the imams, and that it is unlawful for one to believe that this was their actual appearance.

    I think the word you’re looking for is “personify” . You sort of… forgot how to stop writing it.

    And I can well understand the Shi’a ruling on this issue. A clear line has to be drawn between a mere picture and an icon or idol, after all.

45. Howie on February 20th, 2008 12:01 pm

    Dang…it is 4:00 AM here…

    I am loving this conversation…what a fresh breath of air.

    Ahmed…the left-right brain thing…

    As you know…the brain is divided into two hemispheres. Studies have noted that most folks have one side that is dominate. Left brainers tend to be; logical, scientific, math engineer types, precise, orderly,

    Right brainers tend to be the poets, artists, more global and less precise in there thinking patterns.

    Nothing to do with politics…

    But I want to say again…I greatly admire you intellect and also the way you approach the expression of your ideas.

    Dudes I have a LOT of work to do and you guys have me freak’in addicted to this stuff…

    But this sure smacks a bit of the I and Thou thing I spoke of earlier…in a crazy, virtual, electronic kind of way…I am truly humbled by the minds that have connected here…some very sharp dudes…even Raccoon can break through his ganja haze and say something intelligent now and again.

    Come on Raccoon…let’s show the world what we Ukranians are made of…besides cheap vodka.

46. Howie on February 20th, 2008 12:07 pm

    Ahmad-

    I left out an important part:

    Right brainers naturally lean towards intellect, logic, deduction, induction…thinking

    Left Brainers- Intuition, feeling

    Kind of sort of

47. Scooby on February 20th, 2008 12:14 pm

    Oh dear. Looking back @ my post I wandered off-topic. Please don’t view it as an anti-Islam/Muslim rant - feel free to replace any mention of Islam with Judaism, Christianity (in all it’s forms) - organised religion in general really. It was more an argument against those who would impose their world view or hijack values to further their ends to the detriment of others.

    Now I’m going to have to apologise for having potentially caused offence without meaning to…..

    (But don’t think I wouldn’t deliberately cause offence were it justified!! lol ;O))

48. Scooby on February 20th, 2008 12:17 pm

    Howie, I think I might actually be a no-brainer….

    Go figure….

49. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 20th, 2008 12:39 pm

    Hey guys, so i got my blog started…

    http://abuskander.wordpress.com/

    pay me a visit. i have not written much yet but i will do, God willing.

    I am sorry i cannot respond to you all, but thank you Roman and you too, and i will get back to you as soon as i have got an answer for you.

    and andrew:
    i think i have replied to all what you are stating now in my previous post, so i will leave it there. thank you for the discussion.

50. Drima on February 20th, 2008 12:46 pm

    Scooby no need for apologies dude.

    And yeah guys. This has been one hell of a good discussion!

51. AOS on February 20th, 2008 12:59 pm

    “In terms of legalism, I’m individualist, preferring to rely on my own rationality rather than following the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith on simple faith. If it makes sense, easy. If it doesn’t, I reject it or stay neutral.”

    Drima, thanks for your reply earlier and sorry if my initial comment came across wrongly, I just wanted to express my disagreement with your posting of a drawing of prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

    I don’t agree with the above. I’ve learnt that relying too much on my own judgement is not the best at all times. There are people out there who are more knowledgeable than me and you on issues of Islam, while maintaining the same level of objectivity. Sure, it might be easy to overreact and dismiss all so-called muslim scholars’ opinions as void and use an individualistic view on things, but I just do not see myself as knowledgeable, or maybe even with the required level of faith, enough to do such. Also, as far as I know, it does not fit with the conventional method of deriving rulings. Quran first, Hadith second, and the ‘Ulama’ third to better understand and interpret the Hadith and Quran, then yourself. Sure, the lack of a proper Islamic state with the correct application of Islamic laws (covering political, social and economic aspects of life) makes the following of such a model hard to do, but we must do our best. Me personally, I have a point of reference I consider to be reliable enough (my knowing him personally, the way he explains his interpretations/sources to me, etc.), and I now feel comfortable to consult him when need to be. And no, he is not stationed in a cave in north-west khartoum with a black cat as a pet!
    I’ve just learnt to trust more knowledgeable sources and to accept that my judgement is not always accurate, be it due to my lack of knowledge or the fact that interpreting Quran, Hadith and arriving at the right judgement is just not as simple as we might think.
    You must understand that not all Islam is designed to ‘make sense’. I put that between quotations because we then explore the issue of what is ‘common sense’ and who is most able to define it. That is why interpretations in Islam are not as simplistic as some might think. Some laws and rulings just do not make sense at face value, as per the ‘common sense’ we have come to understand and somehow agree on.
    I think it was Einstein who said ‘common sense is the set of prejudices acquired by age 18′.

52. Drima on February 20th, 2008 1:31 pm

    Salam ya AOS, kafe al7al ya zool.

    “Sure, it might be easy to overreact and dismiss all so-called muslim scholars’ opinions as void and use an individualistic view on things”

    Actually I don’t dismiss all Muslim scholars. For example I like Amr Khaled. In fact I’ve got tons of his shows stored in my computer and I like to go back to them once in a while if I have something on my mind. I’m not against the tradition. I’m against relying on it excessively.

    Rationality is limited and our human intellect is not perfect. I understand and accept that. At the same time, just like you said not everything in Islam is designed to make sense.

    I guess this where faith comes in. There are aspects in which I have faith. For example, I enjoy praying.

    I don’t know why subuh has to be 2 rak3a and zuhur 4. Yet it doesn’t matter to me because I find prayer to be something beneficial.

    Other things like drawings being “haram” I find difficult to accept just based on faith. It sounds like complete nonsense to me unless there are conditional reasons.

    Also for instance, I find nothing wrong with music (not 50 cent kinda garbage, but other decent stuff, you know what I mean). Traditionalists will say it is haram. I staunchly disagree because their methods of interpretation and opinions are neither the only ones available nor are they necessarily right. This is where I become strictly individualist and rely on my own reason.

    “I just do not see myself as knowledgeable”

    Same here but I’d rather learn and be responsible for my own mind rather than relying on scholars. The final decision is mine. It might be an arrogant attitude but that’s just the way I am. You can bring the Imam of Mecca himself to me and I’d still not take his words without heavily analyzing them and filtering them as I see fit. Hell I’ll probably disagree with him about many stuff. After all the Wahhabis corrupted Saudi Arabia pretty nicely.

    I guess I question too much.

    For more, check out my Islam posts under “Best of this Blog” all the way at the top.

    Anyways, regardless of whether we agree or not, I respect your way of approach ya AOS.

    You’re more than welcome to share your opinion.

53. Drima on February 20th, 2008 1:34 pm

    “I just wanted to express my disagreement with your posting of a drawing of prophet”

    Oh and dude, who said that’s the prophet. Nobody even knows how he looks like. To the cartoonist who drew it, it’s supposed to be him. To me it isn’t.

    It’s all in the mind. It’s all about perceptions.

54. Dalu on February 20th, 2008 1:54 pm

    Everyone is forgetting the fact that Eskimo is a very derogatory term.

    Shame on you, Drima. Shame.

55. The Raccoon on February 20th, 2008 5:05 pm

    Heh, it seems I am missing out on some good discussions here… bloody work… :/

    Anyway…

    I reckon it’s the question of spirit of the law VS the letter of the law.

    Spirit of the law (Quran), the way I see it, is that idolatry is bad and is to be avoided. I disagree with this (I reckon a person should worship whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting anyone else on purpose), but then again, I disagree with religions in general.

    I am going off on a tangent here a bit… the point was that the spirit of the law is that idolatry is bad.

    Back in the day, paintings weren’t mass produced. They were rare and beautiful things, practically always of religious nature. Therefore, prohibiting idols (like, say, Eastern Orthodox Christian icons of saints) makes perfect sense.

    Moreover, Muhammad fairly consistently demanded that people shouldn’t worship him (same as Sidharta Gautama, BTW). Ergo the prohibition on pictures of him.

    It seems to me, then, that generally speaking Islam is poking a stick in its own wheels - many Muslims are, in fact, idolators of Muhammad (not to mention the Mahdi). The mass psychosis regarding pictures of Muhammad is ample proof. The insane glorification of Muhammad is yet more proof. Not to mention the idolization of the Quran itself…

    But then again, who am I (a secular, Discordian, Jewish Raccoon) to tell Muslims how to be Muslims. Maybe all this raping, murdering, rampaging, seething and whining indeed represent the way Creator intended humans to behave.

    PS

    There is this famous Koan…

    Spoken by a devout Buddhist monk - “If I shall meet the Buddha, I will kill him”

    PPS

    Another interesting point… in many Buddhist monasteries sacred texts are kept either in the toilet or in a room by the toilet. - Just to remind the monks it’s nothing but paper.

    There, I made no sense at all, didn’t I?

56. Howie on February 20th, 2008 5:18 pm

    Raccoon-

    Ah…how much did you smoke before you wrote that?

    Just curious?

57. limpia on February 20th, 2008 5:34 pm

    u madw alot of sense. Love that about the toilet location for sacred texts.

58. The Raccoon on February 20th, 2008 6:17 pm

    Howie - nothing… I don’t smoke at work

59. Andrew Brehm on February 20th, 2008 7:34 pm

    Raccoon,

    Except for your opinion about religion and idol worship, I totally agree with you.

    I disagree that idol worship is acceptable. As you yourself note, it does not do Muslims any good.

60. Halalhippie on February 20th, 2008 7:53 pm

    Drima : “The kind of boycotts I was talking about are ones aimed at the companies that advertise in the offending newspapers. It’s one that often works.” Apology accepted, and I totally agree.

    Ahmad “I view the everyday life in Denmark as pleasant and i rarely meet discrimination” You’ve no idea how happy I am to read this: my country is being painted with a rather dark brush in many places. I can’t recognize it, not being on the receiving end of discrimination.

    and “What is increasing in Denmark is[..] a hostile climate on discussion that is in increase, and this is not only among danes towards muslims.”
    I have to agree on that to, alas. There are things “we” haven’t talked about for far too long. Something good may still come out of all this mess.

    Imagine that, using my own language as a “shibboleth” to a Arab, on an Afro-arab blog with mostly Jewish commenters .

    Welcome to the blogsphere, my man.

61. Howie on February 20th, 2008 8:01 pm

    “Howie - nothing… I don’t smoke at work :)”

    Then was it the brownies?

    Hope all is well…

    kol hamispahcha magiah b’od shlosha chodashim…chaval s’lo yuchlu l’hakir otcha…

    Aval betach hem hayu hasba’ah nora’ah alecha

    

62. Howie on February 21st, 2008 12:34 am

    You know…we may never do it in this life…but can you picture all of us together? It has the makings of one great American situation comedy.

    Oh…that brings SO many images into my head;

    The cast:

    Ahmad would be the stern and loving father. Sincerely trying to keep some sense of order.

    Halalhippie- his wife who is a less than closet feminist and constantly challenges him..refusing to give up her dredlocks or addiction to Mexican soap operas. Her catch line “my goodness…look what they are doing”.

    Raccoon is their adopted son…which is perfect because alcohol is not allowed in the house, which he is allergic to, but he spends all his time in his room smoking weed and surfing the Internet and following the Aish HaTorah site…because it makes him giggle more. His catch line is “sure Pop…and ah I have the munchies”.

    Drima their enstranged son has converted to evangelical Christianity and only talks in the venacular of a black Southern Baptist Minister(with just a bit of larceny)…his line is “why wait for the pie in the sky by-and-by when you can be drivin a Coupe de Ville today

    Howie is the family therapist ( a Jew of course). Typically turning sessions into a monologue of expressing his own nuerotic fears and doubts…he looks a lot like Woody Allen. His catch line is “oy, such a mishgina goyim”.

    RK and AB are the neighbors but actually CIA undercover suspecting we are all part of a terrorist plot. Both are ranging alcoholics.

    And the name of the show:

    “What was G-d thinking?”

63. A on February 21st, 2008 8:31 am

    I found this-http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf-intresting. In the last one, why is Muhammed veiled while the caliphs are unveiled? Do any Muslim groups permit drawing caliphs, but not Muhammed?

64. Andrew Brehm on February 21st, 2008 9:33 am

    “Both are ranging alcoholics.”

    Hm… I don’t drink. Never have.

    You should also realise that in person I am apparently completely different from my online persona, as I am sure Raccoon and Roman can confirm.

65. Roman Kalik on February 21st, 2008 1:28 pm

    Hm… I don’t drink. Never have.

    And I drink rarely.

66. Ahmad al-Safawi on February 21st, 2008 1:36 pm

    Hehe howie i can very well picture that

67. lirun on February 21st, 2008 2:09 pm

    picture shmicture

Leave a Reply