Muhammad & Idolatry

I'm just wondering whether or not it's the illustrator's fault if muslims would 'idolize' Muhammad if they knew what he looked like? I guess you don't have to be muslim to discuss but if you are one please don't give me "it's the rule that's written in Qur'an" line. Lets use something that Allah didn't give to the devils and jins. Lets face it, Muhammad did exist (we can agree on that) and there were people who knew him and knew what he looked like. We're also familiar with "There's no god but Allah and Muhammad is its rasul" line. There's no reason to put the blame on the illustrator when some so-called alim bows to a potrait of Muhammad.

Why am I so excited about illustration of Muhammad? I'm not but you know, this is 2006 and it's about damn time that Hollywood starts making movie about him. Wouldn't you at least appreciate that if Islam goes Hollywood?

:balloon2:

As far as I know, it's forbidden to depict Muhammad precisely to avoid idolatry. I heard a liberal/moderate muslim scholar explaining that the founders of Islam didn't want believers to worship Muhammad as the Christian worshiped Jesus (since the only true god is Allah), and thus banned all pics of him.

Now, I might be wrong, and a muslim member might correct me (or rather, the guy who said that), but if that was the case, it pretty much failed, as the recent events shown us.

From what I read in newspapers recently, it's not actually forbidden, it just goes against tradition.

Making pictures that is. The idol worship probably is forbidden...

i think it is kinda hypocritical the whole 'don't idolize anyone' and yet they idolize muhammed (pbuh) enough to stone danish embassies just because a picture of him (admittidly with his turban as a bomb) was in one of their newspapers
it seems a little over the top but i would like to hear a muslims point of view on this because i have no clue what goes on in an islamic world

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

From what I read in newspapers recently, it's not actually forbidden, it just goes against tradition.

---

What's the difference ? A religious rule is nothing else than a tradition.

i judasim theres the same concept not to make idols out of our leaders thats y it was not revelid were moses was buried

Hollywood-ization is corruption. I don't want a Muhammed movie. Forget it.

The bannination of depictation of Muhammed both relies on the intention to avoid people from using his existence in an unpleasant way and the idolization.

Quote:

---

..please don't give me "it's the rule that's written in Qur'an" line. Lets use something that Allah didn't give to the devils and jins. Lets face it, Muhammad did exist (we can agree on that) and there were people who knew him and knew what he looked like. We're also familiar with "There's no god but Allah and Muhammad is its rasul" line...

---

Eh, what do you want to hear ? Do you think Muslims make up excuses to avoid something ? That's what to be said and it is there said, you see ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

The bannination of depictation of Muhammed both relies on the intention to avoid people from using his existence in an unpleasant way and the idolization.

---

Then why are Bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's pamhplets and calls for murder in the name of the Prophet broadcast, quoted and copied in the entire Muslim world? Surely their use of the Prophet for terrorist purposes must be judged 'unpleasant'. Then why aren't we seeing Muslims burning effigies of Osama bin Laden for a change?

I know you are not a binladenist or an alzawahirist, instead you are a damn good Turkish computer guy and a fun member of this website. But I would appreciate some sort of an answer from a Muslim to get a better perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

What's the difference ? A religious rule is nothing else than a tradition.

---

It's not actually forbidden in the Qur'an or something. I don't know, I haven't read it, just passing on what I read in newspapers.

And yes, it's completely hypocritical to march over a silly cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb, but have no issues with someone flying a plane into a building full of people (lots of them Muslims) in his name.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say here. It is mandatory for a muslim to know that Allah is the god. If a muslim ever happens to worship the wrong god then it's his fault, not the fault of a christian who doesn't know anything or plan to know about Islam.

Quote:

---

Hollywood-ization is corruption. I don't want a Muhammed movie. Forget it.

---

I thought we're supposed to spread Islam? Seriously though, there need to be one. I grew up hearing stories of Muhammad so the movie version would be cool. At least they need to do Muhammad on History Channel.

Quote:

---

Do you think Muslims make up excuses to avoid something ?

---

No, but they use Allah-given brain. If people sit-back, relax and think for a second, moving on with their lives and getting over that whole 'burn danish flag thing' might seem to be the right thing to do.

Quote:

---

Then why are Bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's pamhplets and calls for murder in the name of the Prophet broadcast, quoted and copied in the entire Muslim world? Surely their use of the Prophet for terrorist purposes must be judged 'unpleasant'. Then why aren't we seeing Muslims burning effigies of Osama bin Laden for a change?

---

I have already accepted before that interpretion of Islam has been a quasi-disaster in many societies. It is nonsense to expect poor societies educated in a highly dogmatic and strictive interpretion of Islam to burst off in the way you mentioned of whom only wealth are their faith and religious figures. (no sympathization here) You know what kind of life women have over there. There is a set-up that men can get aroused from high heeled shoes that are banned wearing from women. You see what a mess there is over there ? The recent events are not disjunctive or exceptional at all, they are all largely connected with how the society is set up over there -yes, even with what women are banned from wearing.

Quote:

---

I know you are not a binladenist or an alzawahirist, instead you are a damn good Turkish computer guy and a fun member of this website. But I would appreciate some sort of an answer from a Muslim to get a better perspective.

---

I have the ability to reply the way I am questioned. The times before I replied were ones that casted a generalization shadow over all Muslims, therefore everytime I had to point out what I am. Because although you may have stated your previous questions like this one, Islam-o-phobia is everywhere. There were times I was reacted with horror as if I am a terrorist when I introduced myself being a Muslim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I know you are not a binladenist or an alzawahirist, instead you are a damn good Turkish computer guy and a fun member of this website. But I would appreciate some sort of an answer from a Muslim to get a better perspective.

---

Probably the same reason I get more upset with the actions of my social and intellectual equivalents then those of someone I do not feel represents my society.

Quote:

---

I thought we're supposed to spread Islam? Seriously though, there need to be one. I grew up hearing stories of Muhammad so the movie version would be cool. At least they need to do Muhammad on History Channel.

---

No one is not supposed to spread Islam. I present my knowledge and why I am a Muslim in case you are interested, you show interested or flush the idea away. We are living in a civilized and settled world where people can communicate overseas in seconds. Jihad is a way back concept -already accomplished the mission of stabilized and strong presence of Islam.

Your at least option seems more reasonable. Without depictation of Muhammed, a documentary would be nice of course. The Message was a solid movie about Muhammed's period, featuring Anthony Quinn. It is nearly a tradition broadcasting the movie with the start of Ramadan in Turkish channels every year.

Quote:

---

No, but they use Allah-given brain. If people sit-back, relax and think for a second, moving on with their lives and getting over that whole 'burn danish flag thing' might seem to be the right thing to do.

---

Hate against the West that is taking its roots from poverty and international politics has been ignited by radical Islamic terrorist organizations. THis is the 3rd time I'm saying this -their action was predictable and after all provocation that is individual (poverty), internal (terrorist organizations) and external (e.g. Danish papers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

The Message was a solid movie about Muhammed's period, featuring Anthony Quinn. It is nearly a tradition broadcasting the movie with the start of Ramadan in Turkish channels every year.

---

I didn't know it was popular in Turkey. But Quinn was Abu Bakr (he was ideally type-cast as well!) and the Prophet was never shown, only his presence was suggested.

Why would you abhor any movie that portrayed him visibly? I mean what is the importance of the taboo to you, to LEN the man personally?

The movie is absolutely popular in Turkey. And yes, Muhammed was never shown in any way, the dialogues that needed to be with him were like monologues as well.

Quote:

---

Why would you abhor any movie that portrayed him visibly? I mean what is the importance of the taboo to you, to LEN the man personally?

---

I have seen enough of this. I am a Muslim and finding the reasons to bannination of Muhammed from being shown/ depicted/illustrated absolutely rational. See what they have done in the first chance ? It may please you, you can fit it into the Freedom Of Speech. But Muhammed is my holy Prophet and does not deserve the way he is offended because of what Al-Freak-Da-Bombists have done. Even you had suggested that he would approve and be aside with AQ if he was alive after all these.

Danish newspaper would apologize in the first days of the matter and nothing would have happened. It has happened before (Muhammed being depicted in a portray by Bild, if I'm not wrong) and the case was peacefully closed by their apologize.

This is a nerve that should not be touched. It is like the West peeing on a wall religious taboo of centuries. The reason why you take it this far and find the Muslim world reaction ridiculous, lies under the Norwegian paper's words of apology (not the exact version): "We couldn't anticipate that it would state such an offence against Muslims"

Yeah it offends us and give up depciting him, let alone the ugly charicatures, why that much of insistence? Can not you have fun without depicting Muhammed ?

P.S. I've already stated my refusal against what has been done to the embassies and flags, please do not reply in a way "Should you have reacted that way?". The answer is above and I'm repeating the reasons of such harsh reactions added the contribution of fuel into the fire by Western papers doing the same thing one after another, for another time again here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I am a Muslim and finding the reasons to bannination of Muhammed from being shown/ depicted/illustrated absolutely rational. See what they have done in the first chance?

---

There is so much wrong about your statement that I am going to address only one aspect of it.

Why on earth do you think that each and every depiction of Mohammed would necessarily have to be disrespectful? If his words, his actions, the people around him can all be shown in a movie in such a fashion that this movie is shown over and over on Turkish tv, why then would any movie showing the actual Mohammed suddenly, and of necessity, be disrespectful and unfit for any audience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

There is so much wrong about your statement that I am going to address only one aspect of it.

Why on earth do you think that each and every depiction of Mohammed would necessarily have to be disrespectful? If his words, his actions, the people around him can all be shown in a movie in such a fashion that this movie is shown over and over on Turkish tv, why then would any movie showing the actual Mohammed suddenly, and of necessity, be disrespectful and unfit for any audience?

---

It does not have to be. But depictation is a means to do it. About this matter, "none" is better than "fair". Done. My statements are rightful through my point of view. I don't bother with yours being right or wrong. Screw it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Screw it.

---

I won't! :boxing: ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I won't! :boxing: ~:)

---

You hit under belt, forget it. :smoking:

I don't see why it's so tough to fathom why Muslims would be against portrayals of Mohammed. Just read up on Christianity and iconoclasm and people's reasoning behind that for starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

You hit under belt, forget it. :smoking:

---

You ain't seen nothing yet. :coffeenews:

Bannination! You have my support LEN for inventing my new favourite word.:bow:

On a related issue: Remember the film "Ben Huir" with Mr Heston? Similar sort of thing I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't see why it's so tough to fathom why Muslims would be against portrayals of Mohammed. Just read up on Christianity and iconoclasm and people's reasoning behind that for starters.

---

We do not promote the notion that all Muslims think alike or that Muslims think just like Christians, right? So I am asking one Muslim's personal view. Wrong again! 'Don't bother to ask, all Muslims think alike. Just like Christians, really.'

Jezus H... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You ain't seen nothing yet. :coffeenews:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I have seen enough of this.

---

:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I have seen enough of this. :smoking:

---

No you haven't. You haven't seen this, for instance.

https://img50.imageshack.us/img50/17...ourt0qu.th.jpg

It is a stone sculpture of Mohammed in the U.S. Supreme Court marble courtroom, part of a group depicting the 18 'law-givers' of mankind: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Napoleon, Marshall, Blackstone, Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian.

In 1997 a coalition of American Muslim groups asked the court to sandblast or otherwise remove the sculpture, contending that it was a form of sacrilege because graven images are forbidden in Islam. Chief Justice Rehnquist rejected the request, saying the Muhammad sculpture "was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship."

Rehnquist also dismissed the objection to the curved sword in the marble Muhammad's hand as reinforcing the stereotypical image of Muslims as intolerant conquerors: "I would point out that swords are used throughout the Court's architecture as a symbol of justice and that nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone." Rehnquist said that the description and literature, however, would be changed to identify Muhammad as a "Prophet of Islam," and not "Founder of Islam." The rewording, based upon "input of numerous Muslim groups," would also say that the figure "is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor Adolph Weinman to honor Mohammed, and it bears no resemblance to Mohammed."

Link

The Council on American Islamic Relations in its annual report called this rewording a 'great success'. No more protests were heard. The rewording was seen -- and rightly so -- as a sign of the respectful treatment of Mohammed by the U.S. government.

That is exacty now governments should treat religions and reilgious symbols: they are not the intellectual property of the believers, but of all mankind, and they should be treated either respectfully or not at all. What private citizens think of it (and say or do about it) is of course their own business.

Would you agree that in this particular case the depiction of Mohammed is acceptable?

No. His face should be erased. There are many miniatures of Muhammed in a book that tells of his life which is can be found in Topkapi Palace, I hear dthat a copy of it is also a property of British Museum. In all miniatures in the book Muhammed's face was not depicted.

However I don't think the particular incident you talk about needs any further reaction if they don't agree to erase his face.

Erase it? Why??? It's doesn't belong to Muslims. Push off, get your own...

Why everyone else should:

a) do what Muslims say
b) Put up with the "infidel" tag all the time (offence at which is overlooked).
c) Ignore sacrilege when done by Muslims (the Taliban demolishing a temple thousands of years old).

I completely fail to see.

As a group, the arrogance of Muslims is IMMENSE: Tear it down - we don't like it, you infidel!

The world does NOT belong to you. Yours are NOT the only set of possible laws. And "give and take" does not mean Muslims give out orders, and everyone else must obey them!

Even the moderates basically make the same set of unilateral demands, but just don't threaten those that don't comply with beheadings / death etc etc... :wall:

~:smoking:

Have some candy rory...you're acting like the people you blast...:rolleyes2:

That's it?? No irrefutable argument? No logic? My sister used to come up with a similar argument when she was about 4. But as a Muslim, I guess no other is required...

Yes, I am getting annoyed as more and more I'm hearing that things should be altered, and almost all the time it is Muslims that see offence in something; furthermore no other religion complains so hard and so long about... anything!!

Unlike the people I "blast", I've not stated that anyone should act in a certain way, unless you count acting like mature adults in the 21st Century a demand. Sadly you might, and one that Muslims more than most fail to achieve.

~:smoking:

So much wrong with your post... :no:

1) I'm not a muslim...Still, this is real nice: "But as a Muslim, I guess no other is required..."

You're just such a huggable guy..:rolleyes2:

"Yes, I am getting annoyed as more and more I'm hearing that things should be altered, and almost all the time it is Muslims that see offence in something; furthermore no other religion complains so hard and so long about... anything!!"

2) It's the muslims now, before them it was blacks...

BTW, this anti-muslim sentiment I'm seeing with: "Quran is violent" "crazy" "uncivilized" "unwashed" reminds me of anti-Semitism: "Talmud is so violent" "racists" "dirty semites"

"Unlike the people I "blast", I've not stated that anyone should act in a certain way, unless you count acting like mature adults in the 21st Century a demand. Sadly you might, and one that Muslims more than most fail to achieve."

3) But I do count that as a demand...and it's not only muslims as shown here...

"Blacks"?? What the hell has that got to do with anything? What demands are you referring to? Or are you basically making this link (Islam and blacks) with no evidence...

Making you want to hug me is not high on my to do list... :inquisitive:

Yeah, the Old Testament is extremely violent (never read the Torah). But when have the Jews demanded anyone be killed, something torn down etc etc (and Israel isn't the best example as it is a state - and has had one athiest Prime Minister in the recent past).

Crazed, unwashed... nope never said that. I didn't see any passages in the Quran specifically mentioning avoiding higene (some about not sleeping with women and then praying, but that's about it).

So, respecting others is too much of a demand? Tolerance and compassion are so you... :laugh4:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Erase it? Why??? It's doesn't belong to Muslims. Push off, get your own...

---

AdrianII asked about my personal idea. And I answered. Primarily, it's none of your business.

Quote:

---

Why everyone else should:

a) do what Muslims say
b) Put up with the "infidel" tag all the time (offence at which is overlooked).
c) Ignore sacrilege when done by Muslims (the Taliban demolishing a temple thousands of years old).

I completely fail to see.

---

a) When was it done ?
b) Who called you infidel all the time ?
c) Taliban does not represent my religion. They are worst retards I've ever seen. And were primary tool of USA in the war against Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Go learn some history. I double any reaction against what those retards had done to the temple. Is it all you can give ?

I fail to see.

Quote:

---

As a group, the arrogance of Muslims is IMMENSE: Tear it down - we don't like it, you infidel!

---

The tear-down-the-infidel population is high, I admit. Check my previous posts here for the reasons.

Quote:

---

The world does NOT belong to you. Yours are NOT the only set of possible laws. And "give and take" does not mean Muslims give out orders, and everyone else must obey them!

---

The world never belonged to Muslims. If you are looking for any imperialist, you will fail to see any Muslim state.

Quote:

---

Yes, I am getting annoyed as more and more I'm hearing that things should be altered, and almost all the time it is Muslims that see offence in something; furthermore no other religion complains so hard and so long about... anything!!

---

Depicting Muhammed offences us, pure and simple. I don't remember any other incident such.

Quote:

---

~:smoking:

---

You should stop smoking and get rid of your sunglasses inside. No I'm not threatening you, this is not a "Muslim order" -the way you get us all. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

"Blacks"?? What the hell has that got to do with anything? What demands are you referring to? Or are you basically making this link (Islam and blacks) with no evidence...

---

Your point essentially is muslims are always bitching about one thing or another.
I've heard that exact statement except "muslims" was crossed out, and "blacks" was put in...

Quote:

---

Making you want to hug me is not high on my to do list...

---

Ok...

Quote:

---

Yeah, the Old Testament is extremely violent (never read the Torah). But when have the Jews demanded anyone be killed, something torn down etc etc (and Israel isn't the best example as it is a state - and has had one athiest Prime Minister in the recent past).

---

It's happened...however, I certainly don't harbor the same attitude towards jews as you apparently do towards muslims...

Quote:

---

Crazed, unwashed... nope never said that. I didn't see any passages in the Quran specifically mentioning avoiding higene (some about not sleeping with women and then praying, but that's about it).

---

Never said you specifically said all of them, I think my quote was:

"BTW, this anti-muslim sentiment I'm seeing with: "Quran is violent" "crazy" "uncivilized" "unwashed" reminds me of anti-Semitism: "Talmud is so violent" "racists" "dirty semites"

Quote:

---

So, respecting others is too much of a demand?

---

It's a demand, but absolutely is essential. I've already stated before that the rioters deserve beatdowns and that the Arabs need to stop blaming others and improve themselves...(see "post your favorite rioter pics" thread and "Hamas" thread respectively) I only get in trouble when I mention disrespectful cartoonists though...:shrug:

Quote:

---

Tolerance and compassion are so you...

---

*blushes* Shucks, and I was just emulating you ~:pat:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Depicting Muhammed offences us, pure and simple. I don't remember any other incident such.

---

Yep, I guess the Muhammad cartoons were just the boiling point for the other crap (both self-imposed but also undeniably imposed by others) that those people face...

As for demands, we have the masses of demands against cartoons... No, I'm not going through all that again. Reasons apart from "it's insulting" were low on the ground, but BOY did we get a more explicit range of threats...

The Quran mentions "infidel" frequently. And the theocracy of Iran does tend to refer to the West as the Infidel from time to time if you want a more up to date reference.

The Taliban, whilst having been dismissed my many Muslims as not Islam can easily be seen to be following a very strict Islamic law. Christianity could be just as extreme (look up the Puritans for example - one could be killed at the drop of a hat), but in the main isn't these days.

Yes, I am well aware that they were used by the Americans and the British. No idea of the relevance of that though.

Destroying the largest temple in the world, one that is (sorry, was) unique and thousands of years old is a tremendous tragedy. Utterly irreplacable. gone now, thanks to religion...

Praise Allah the world doesn't belong to Muslims. My point was that the high handed demands are greater than Britain did at the hight of its Empire, or America does currently.

The Ottomans were imperialists. Owned masses of the Middle East till the whole thing fell apart (was torn down)

I don't wear sunglasses (think they make my look like a prat) and I don't smoke; I just like that smiley...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As for demands, we have the masses of demands against cartoons... No, I'm not going through all that again. Reasons apart from "it's insulting" were low on the ground, but BOY did we get a more explicit range of threats...

---

Yep, I guess the lack of riots after invasions and Abu Ghraib, etc.. all boiled over...

Quote:

---

The Quran mentions "infidel" frequently. And the theocracy of Iran does tend to refer to the West as the Infidel from time to time if you want a more up to date reference.

---

All religions are essentially like that. What's the point of pluralism, Judaism/Christianity/Islam, they're the only right way. BTW ever heard, "axis of evil."

Quote:

---

The Taliban, whilst having been dismissed my many Muslims as not Islam can easily be seen to be following a very strict Islamic law. Christianity could be just as extreme (look up the Puritans for example - one could be killed at the drop of a hat), but in the main isn't these days.

---

Yep, and there was one Taliban rule, compared to equally repressive secular governments under Asad, Saddam, Qadafi, Abdullah. And the House of Saud (which follows a 18th century cleric's view of Wahabbi Islam that is in conflict with the 4 main schools of Sunni Islam).

Quote:

---

Destroying the largest temple in the world, one that is (sorry, was) unique and thousands of years old is a tremendous tragedy. Utterly irreplacable. gone now, thanks to religion...

---

An action condemned all across the muslim world, even by the Iranian theocracy...And it had survived through 12 centuries of Muslim rule before that...thanks to religion...

Quote:

---

Praise Allah the world doesn't belong to Muslims.

---

And blast Zeus that it belongs to America...all perspective...

Quote:

---

My point was that the high handed demands are greater than Britain did at the hight of its Empire, or America does currently.

---

Part A: Hell no... Part B: Probably not...I've seen, "Stop Insulting our Prophet" and "Get out of Iraq"

Quote:

---

The Ottomans were imperialists. Owned masses of the Middle East till the whole thing fell apart (was torn down)

---

Yep...fell apart and is in the current situation thanks to country carving by the Brits...I mean, Iraq? Sunni's Shi'ites AND Kurds together, just for the oil...?

The quran mentions the devil frequently, it also mentions jesus, moses, abraham, allah whoever frequently. Whats your point?

Quote:

---

And the theocracy of Iran does tend to refer to the West as the Infidel from time to time if you want a more up to date reference.

---

The theocracy does not even respresent the Iranian populace, even then, 10% of the Islam doesn't amount to much.

Quote:

---

Praise Allah the world doesn't belong to Muslims. My point was that the high handed demands are greater than Britain did at the hight of its Empire, or America does currently.

---

Praise Allah!

Ignorance reaches a new height. What demands?

Quote:

---

As for demands, we have the masses of demands against cartoons... No, I'm not going through all that again. Reasons apart from "it's insulting" were low on the ground, but BOY did we get a more explicit range of threats...

---

You sure as hell will go through this with me buddy, the protests have been overhyped, 90% of the protests were peaceful.

The hypocrisy is up the roof with this one, i mean seriously you have the right for freedom of speech, but god forbid when someone protests becuase somehow they happen to disagree with you.

"Axis of Evil": North Korea, Cuba, Iraq - three secular governments. And Iran, Syria. Pakistan is Muslim and is a friend, as is Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Sure with those two I've had close enemies...

All religious texts do say extreme things, but Christianity has tended to "reevaluate" the evidence and dilute things down over the years (Catholics love their Idols, protestants think they're all going to go to hell).

Lemme get this straight... America illegally interrs people, which is decried by most of the West. Then another country completely publishes pictures - and there's a link???

Saying an object survived thank to religion is IMO slightly misleading. There was religion, and it survived. That is not to say that it would not have done in the absence of religion.

I don't think that the world belongs to anyone. Other powers are far too influential (China, Japan, South Korea). Call me extremely biased (and probably rose tinted specs as well) but only about 150 years ago did the world "belong" to anyone - and then it was only the sea.

The Brits did go into an area that was a complete shambles and kept the divisions that the Germans had instigated (who were the origional colonial masters). If the Brits had understood what the differences between the religions were, they might have demarcated the states differently... but then "divide and rule" has been a British pasttime for centuries.

~:smoking:

I tire of the Backroom. rory, I wanted to say sorry for my "Shut up" comment. I was splashed walking home and so I was grumpy. I sure as hell don't agree with you, but lets :shakehands:...(since you dont want to hug :cry:).

BTW, Iran is part of the axis of evil...

"The world never belonged to Muslims. If you are looking for any imperialist, you will fail to see any Muslim state." I would disagree with this statement and refer to the destruction of the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires but thats all water under the bridge.

Here's something to think about. All monotheistic religions are exclusive, one God only. If you worship that god, be he Yaweh, Jehovah or Allah then everyone else is basically wrong. Thats religion people, anything else is a lack of faith.

As to depicting the prophet, if its not in the Koran I don't see the problem, if it is then I do. Question: Are Muslims allowed to depict Abraham?

Quote:

---

An action condemned all across the muslim world, even by the Iranian theocracy...And it had survived through 12 centuries of Muslim rule before that...thanks to religion...

---

Why wasn't it destroyed through those 12 years under that religion ?

The British played a lot of games in the Middle East and Eastern parts of Turkey's founding times. Look how harmless they were while moving into somewhere where was comlete shambles :coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As to depicting the prophet, if its not in the Koran I don't see the problem, if it is then I do. Question: Are Muslims allowed to depict Abraham?

---

No, none of the prophets should be depicted. :book:

Quote:

---

I would disagree with this statement and refer to the destruction of the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires but thats all water under the bridge.

---

I referred to more modern times since "world is mine" is a lot more than conquering lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

No, none of the prophets should be depicted. :book:

---

Good gravy, that means all pictures of Jesus will have to be removed from churches too, right? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

No, none of the prophets should be depicted. :book:

---

Ah, well that answers that question, thanks.:bow: I think that tolleration is important. if Muslims find depictions of the Prophet offensive then they shouldn't be shoved in their face but equally, as in the American case, they should tolerate other people depicting him, provided its not in a negative light.

I realise this isn't ideal by anyone's standards but it seems like the best way to get along. Tollerate those who follow the wrong religion and don't let it bother you, that goes for Christians and Jews as well.

What constitutes "shoved in their face?"

Of course one extreme would be something as idiotic as showering Mecca with leaflets saying depicting something unpleasant, but is a TV show (everyone can choose not to watch it), a book, a newspaper?

How far into what am allowed to do / watch is the metaphorical line drawn?

Even in countries like Saudi Arabia the government can be very pragmatic when it suits them (Western compounds to ensure that the workers for the oil live as they wish, and don't offend the locals). Should we have "Eastern compounds", areas where Muslims can dictate what goes on so they don't get offended??

Wait! We do!! It's called their homes and their Mosques.

~:smoking:

Welcome back to the discussion, Faisal and Dâriûsh. You will have discovered by now that I am not the second coming of Abu Jahl, though he is one of my favourite fictional characters.
:bow:

Both of you rightly emphasize the ignorance of many westerners with regard to the Quran, the Hadith and Islam in general. And of course the Skeptic's Annotated Quran/Bible/Book or Mormon is not what it says it is. That site is just an excuse for people who want to bluff their way into religious criticism. In the meantime it does skepticism a disservice as well.

However, the SAQ is not more silly, irrelevant and intellectually offensive than the execrable Quranic exegesis on many Islamic websites. They reflect an impotence in wider Islamic culture to get some of the basic facts about their religion right and to deal with them in a rational way.

Facts such as these:

• Like Jezus, Mohammed is not a historical figure. He is a legend. It is not even certain that someone remotely resembling his description ever existed. There are no contemporary sources that confirm his existence or any details of his life story as presented in Islamic tradition. The earliest source we have dates from 800, i.e. Ibn Hishām's version of Ibn Ishaq's life of Mohammed which is usually dated around 750.
• The Quran and other Islamic sources of 'knowledge' (such as Ibn Hishām's and Tabari's texts) are demonstrably constructs of 8th and 9th century Arab political propaganda. Constructs based on myths, stories and revealed wisdom of other religions, notably Jewry and Christianity, and sent into the world at least one hundred years after Mohammed's supposed death (632). Even if there ever was a historic Mohammed of any importance, his message has certainly been severely distorted.
• Instead of regarding the Quran as the result of a historical process, most Quranic exegesis interprets history through the eyes of the Quran. Therefore, many Muslims read history 'backwards', as it were. They reason that certain ideas and statements must be true because they occur in the Quran. In reality, they don't even know what it says in the Quran because they accept no reference outside their own tradition. An example is the totally unsubstantiated notion that Mecca in Mohammed's time was a trade and caravan center.

These are serious issues for Muslims that they will have to solve for themselves if they want to fully participate in modern society, science, intellectual endeavour, political dialogue, etcetera. Taboos regarding the Prophet are only a subset of this complex.

Of course, just like the right to free speech, these facts with regard to Quranic and Islamic traditions can be easily discarded on the grounds that the Quran 'says so' and whatever the Quran says is true because, well, you know, because...

P.S. A lot of this is covered in the work of scholars like Arkoun and Wansbrough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Like Jezus, Mohammed is not a historical figure. He is a legend.

---

Erm, didn´t we come to the conclusion that at least Jesus(and I think Mohammed as well) is a historical person? I just can´t believe you´re saying that.

AdrianII, you undermine your own arguement with that bit about Jesus because you show a lack of knowledge. Jesus the man certainly existed, this si attest by Roman writers and records. Much of the Gospel, miracles aside, is demonstatably true.

"Like Jezus, Mohammed is not a historical figure. He is a legend. It is not even certain that someone remotely resembling his description ever existed. There are no contemporary sources that confirm his existence or any details of his life story as presented in Islamic tradition. The earliest source we have dates from 800, i.e. Ibn Hishām's version of Ibn Ishaq's life of Mohammed which is usually dated around 750."

The chances of the man not existing is low. That aside religion is about faith and if you have faith that something is true then thats has to be enough for you.

If you're not religionus then fine but the "because" is God, the original Because.

As to the Koran being a political construct, probably true, the same can be said about the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

AdrianII, you undermine your own arguement with that bit about Jesus because you show a lack of knowledge. Jesus the man certainly existed, this is attest by Roman writers and records.

---

I can't blame you for your lack of knowledge, but alas, there is no evidence whatsoever for Christ's existence. All we have on Christ are some Gospels. Not 'the Gospel', as you write, but a set of Gospels. And those Gospels are purely mythological in content, they flagrantly contradict each other when it comes to Christ’s biographical details, and what is more: they can not be traced, as sources, to any one close to the supposed events they describe . They were not even written by their creators. The ‘Gospel of Mark’ is after all only the ‘Gospel according to Mark’, etcetera. Nothing is known about the authors, nothing is known about the dates or places of origin of these Gospels. It is certain, however, that they were written long after Christ's supposed death. Even Christian scholars now acknowledge for instance that the Gospel of John is unhistorical. It is not a 'life of Christ', but an interpretation of his supposed prophecy in Greek philosophical terms.

As for non-Christian sources I must disappoint you as well. Many of the finest Jewish, Greek and Roman philosophers, poets and contemporary historians lived in the supposed ‘era of Christ’, they wrote about many issues and events from the highly spiritual to the utterly mundane, yet none of them makes the slightest mention of a Jezus Christ. The so-called ‘Josephus quote’ that Christians rely upon as their sole ‘evidence’ was a fourth century addition, possibly from an all too pious Christian copiist, to Josephus’ original text, the older copies of which did not carry that quote.

I knew that my approach would ruffle Christian as well as Muslim feathers, that is to be expected, but it is the only historically valid and responsible approach. And the topic is Mohammed, Jezus only comes in when comparisons are appropriate. So let us concentrate on him. Can you give me any good reason why he must have been a historical figure?

I'll get back to you. No, its not a cop out but if I'm going to refute you I need some time in the Library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I'll get back to you. No, its not a cop out but if I'm going to refute you I need some time in the Library.

---

Sure, I appreciate that. I don't think you will find any archaeological or literary evidence after so many experts went there before you, but I would certainly be interested to hear something new about the plausibility of some Gospel passage or material that supports some other Christian tradition. As things stand now, the biggest miracle Jesus performed was not to be noticed by anyone in his lifetime.

EDIT
By the way: as soon as people discuss the Bible, the Quran and other 'holy' texts as literary and philosophical sources, I am all on their side. I have always been fascinated by the multilayered, 'deep' traditions of mankind. Each comes with its own historical 'instruction manual' so to speak. I hate the way people speak of the Quran these days as some sort of Islamic equivalent to the Bible. If you approach it that way you are bound to be disappointed. That is what happens to most people who pick it up in a bookshop or library, read a few barren suras and go: 'Is that it?' However if you read the Quran against the background of the Islamic traditions on Mohammed's life and times, the book gets a whole new dimension.

In Iran it is common to have an image of Muhammed in each home. Even on the street, you may see him.
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel.../IMG_1609a.jpg
That's supposed to be the guy, apparently.

Are you sure that's a bloke? To be honest, I'd not be worried about him stealing my girlfriend for one reason or another if you get my drift...

And for one living in the Middle East 1,500 years ago he's aging really well. That oil of Olay has been around longer than I thought...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul Peru

In Iran it is common to have an image of Muhammed in each home. Even on the street, you may see him.
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel.../IMG_1609a.jpg
That's supposed to be the guy, apparently.

---

This just does not look what he was told to be looking like, that seems like some kind of fake news. We need a hand over here ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

I'll get back to you. No, its not a cop out but if I'm going to refute you I need some time in the Library.

---

We had a discussion about that subject some 5-6 weeks ago: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59181 There are some links to various sites with more info.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

This just does not look what he was told to be looking like, that seems like some kind of fake news. We need a hand over here ~:)

---

OK, it seems this is an original Dagbladet article, so I can't find it in English.
here's the article:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/16/458005.html

Quote:

---

That's Muhammed! That's Muhammed! The taxi driver exclaims.

---

The taxi driver goes on to explains that most Iranians honour the prophet by keeping his picture on the wall at home. He may be pulling the journalist's leg, of course.:embarassed:
There are also experts telling about how shiites are less strict about depiction.

Hmm, well while I'm looking I'll just say this. If Jesus wasn't real who invented him. Remember his death was around 35AD and the Gospels were written around 70AD weren't they? So thats not very long at all to invnet the Messiah. Also all the stuff about him riding into Jerusalum, you wouldn't write that if it wasn't true.

Added to which the Roman record is very spotty. We only have 35 of Livy's 142 book history for example.

The same arguement goes for Mohammed. If he didn't exist who in hell invented him?

(Pun intended.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

If Jesus wasn't real who invented him. Remember his death was around 35AD and the Gospels were written around 70AD weren't they? So thats not very long at all to invent the Messiah.

---

If he never existed, then why would his death have been around 35 a.D.? And Messiahs have been announced throughout Jewish history, they didn't need to be invented. Besides, the whole region in this period was rife with revelations, prophecies and movements. A new one was 'invented' every day so to speak.

The point is that like those other, mostly short-lived cults, much of the Christian cult wasn't built from scratch. It incorporated older material from Greek, Jewish and other pre-existing sects and sources. This is basically the case with all great religions that have survived to this day. The most plausible explanation is that Christ was a mythological figure just like the Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman or Arabic prophets and human or devine oracles. One recent theory, based on scrutiny of the chronology of pre-Pauline and Pauline texts, situates the entire Gospel story in the heavens, the place where the Gods and demi-Gods of mythology have always roamed. Only later, according to this theory, has Christ been humanized and his life story been situated on earth.

Anyway, the Christ story that we 'know' nowadays is the result of bitter theological and political infighting that accompanied the Church from the earliest days of its recorded history. The Gpspels are a political and philosophical testament to an entire age, just like many of the other great Prophecies of mankind. That does not make them a fairy-tale, like many atheists claim. They are is much more than that. They are the deposit of the experience and wisdom of many generations, to which layer upon layer was added down the ages, mostly in oral form.

In that respect the Gispels aren't alone either. I would suggest you leave the realm of litteralism (i.e. the source as litteral historical truth) and stop bothering with the silly tit-for-tat between atheists and believers over a quote here and an inscription there -- 'Look, Jesus existed! See, he didn't exist!' -- and look at the larger picture of what Karl Jaspers called the 'Axis-time', a period roughly from 800 b.C. to 800 a.D. which emcompasses the advent of nearly all the great religious 'holy books'. Some thinkers and prohets, , like Heraclitus, Confucius and Buddha, were contemporaries. Some remained anonymous, others left clear historical traces. What these Prophecies (and the supposed Prophets) have in common is that they introduced radically new principles of thought and action.

They were revolutionaries. We can find many traces of their radicalism in the sediments of what we call the 'traditions'. They internalised and at the same time universalised the moral precepts of mankind. Internalised, i.e they were not content with outward appearances and ritual (in fact they often despised those) and emphasised the inner growth, reflection and conscience of man. Universalised, i.e. they prophesied for all time and for all mankind, instead of just their own tribe. They shunned doctrinaire issues. Buddha would have denied that he believed in God, Ezechiel would have shook his head had anyone asked him if he was a monotheist. Most important of all, they enunciated an ethic of compassion and empathy that was nearly always new for their place and time, and often very controversial because it undermined established interests and views.

I like to think that, in a sense, both the great religious and the great secular movements of our time descended from those same prophets. Like man and monkey, they have a common ancestor in the Axis time. Only the religions have come to emphasize the ritual and doctrinaire aspect, the secular movements have to come to emphasize the radicalism and free thinking. Both appeal to man, none is per se superior to the other. And in any case the seekers in both traditions are much more interesting thinkers than the doctrinaire types.

P.S. Long post -- yes, I have an empty house tonight and time on my hands.. ~:)

I'll start with the easy part. If he was born in 3-5BC and died aged 35-40 then he would have been dead by 35AD, simple. My point was that you couldn't invent Jesus, I'm not talking about his doctrine I'm talking about the charator of the man. It would have taken Jesus to invent Jesus.

"In that respect the Gispels aren't alone either. I would suggest you leave the realm of litteralism (i.e. the source as litteral historical truth) and stop bothering with the silly tit-for-tat between atheists and believers over a quote here and an inscription there -- 'Look, Jesus existed! See, he didn't exist!' -- and look at the larger picture of what Karl Jaspers called the 'Axis-time', a period roughly from 800 b.C. to 800 a.D. which emcompasses the advent of nearly all the great religious 'holy books'. Some thinkers and prohets, , like Heraclitus, Confucius and Buddha, were contemporaries. Some remained anonymous, others left clear historical traces. What these Prophecies (and the supposed Prophets) have in common is that they introduced radically new principles of thought and action."

I don't take the Bible litterally but I don't think its a pipe dream either, with the exception of Revelations. 800-800 is a huge time period and it only encompases the religions that survive. Its also a time of literacy in all the regions these religions sprang up in. Greek Ortheism might have suplanted Christianity if it had been spread more effectivly to Rome and beyond. The Orthics had a doctrine and all the stuff Christianity has. They just didn't quite make it.

Spiritualism is a product of the Middle Classes, they're the ones with the time, the education and the axe to grind usually. They see the problem with a "service" religion which basically exchanges goods for services between god and man.

I don't buy this "Axis-time" you're talking about. Its like designating the early Medieval the "Dark Ages" its an arbitory attempt to divide and classify history. At any rate he's wrong, Sihkism arrives in the 16th Century, Lutherism in the 14th, Mormanism in the 18th.

Religious ferment happens whenever people have time, education and spiritual dissatisfaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

If he was born in 3-5BC and died aged 35-40 then he would have been dead by 35AD, simple.

---

Indeed, if he was born at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

My point was that you couldn't invent Jesus, I'm not talking about his doctrine I'm talking about the charator of the man. It would have taken Jesus to invent Jesus.

---

Literary authors invent literary characters all the time. Mankind has 'invented' countless mythological characters. Why couldn't a sect under the Roman Empire have invented Jesus in the course of a hundred years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Religious ferment happens whenever people have time, education and spiritual dissatisfaction.

---

In other words: all the time. Henceforth we can substitute The Ironwall Credo for the Barnum Credo: there is a Prophet born every minute.

Most literary authors just reinvent. All heroic fantasy stems from Homer, for example. Or the characters were based on real people. I maintain that it would take a man like Jesus to actually invent the man Jesus, so it probably was Jesus. Since he already existed you wouldn't need to invent him.

As to the invetion of mythological characters. Achilles, Cuchulain and Beowulf probably all existed, then they were just elaborated on. Exactly the same with Jesus.

As an aside, the "prophet born every minute" is the pro arguement for religion, given all the ahcks the theory is that you need divine intervention to start a religion and keep it going. Also its not always right fro religious revolution. Monarchial Greece, the Hellenic era and Feudal Europe are all examples of when there wasn't alot going on and the reason was that there were two classes, masters and slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Most literary authors just reinvent. All heroic fantasy stems from Homer, for example. Or the characters were based on real people. I maintain that it would take a man like Jesus to actually invent the man Jesus, so it probably was Jesus.

---

If you look a bit closer you will see that much of the Jesus cult was already present in Jewish, Greek and other sources, both contemporaneous and older. The very notion of a redeeming Messiah, which is at the core of his Prophecy, was an age-old Jewish idea. It was one of the thirteen principles of faith for Jews, and it has been recorded time and again by Isaiah, Ezekiel and other Jewish Prophets. The Jesus cult was probably just another splinter group that worked with the same concepts as many of the others that did not survive through the ages, although their existence has been recorded. Even the Jesus sect was short-lived and was only later revived, in drastically altered form, by Paul. All in all these elements do not speak to the historicity of Jezus in any way.

I wasnt sure where to post this. But seeing as it might get sticky I put it here.

Well I was going to ask what if hollywood made a movie on the life of Mohamed and the birth of Islam. How would Muslims in the Middle East react?
Well It turns out there already is such a movie. I did a quick google and found it. Now that I look at it I remember seeing it. It was a really good movie.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...%28film%29.jpg


The Message (1976)
Also Known As:
Mohammed, Messenger of God


Credited cast:
Anthony Quinn .... Hamza
Irene Papas .... Hind
Michael Ansara .... Abu Sofyan
Johnny Sekka .... Bilal
Michael Forest .... Khalid


I cant find anyone playing Mohamed here though.

Quote:

---

In accordance with Muslim beliefs, Mohammed could not be depicted on screen nor could his voice be heard. This rule extended to his seven wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This left Mohammed's uncle as the central character (played by Anthony Quinn). In the completed film, actors speak directly to the camera and then nod to un-heard dialogue.


Muhammad Ali expressed interest in playing the role of Bilal, but producer Moustapha Akkad refused, stating that such casting "would smack of commercialism."


Production stopped when the financeers withdrew their support, leaving cast and crew stranded for two weeks in Morocco (in a hotel with broken air conditioning; they slept under wet towels). Financing was eventually supplied by none other than Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.


The University of Al-Azhar in Cairo and the High Islamic Congress of the Shiat in Lebanon were involved in approving the accuracy of the film.


At its initial release, this movie was banned from many Middle-Eastern countries because the religious leaders didn't like the idea of having the Prophet Mohammed's story being made into a motion picture.
This film was made in both English and Arabic with two different casts. Scenes were shot back to back in both languages.


300 of the extras also helped with the construction of the sets.


It took 4 ½ months to build the ancient city of Mecca.

---

LINK

What do you think the reaction would be today if they made such a film? And who would play Mohamed?

I think I may check this movie out again. Been a longtime since ive seen it.

Heres a link from Wika on it

I dont believe you ever actually saw Mohamed in it. Id like to know if any of our muslim members have seen this movie and how they would feel if a movie were made where he was shown. Can you imagine the Passion without ever seeing Jesus?

Also how many here would like to see such a picture made?

Can't you just read other threads and participate in the discussions instead of making new threads all the time with your cut and paste crap? Take it from here .

Well excuse me for missing a post. Ive been busy. I suppose it could be moved there. I never claimed to perfect like you.

There was no need for an insult.

Well, apparently, Muhammad was depicted in high middle age books and manuscripts.
Can't upload a pic atm, but they're mostly showing the prophet talking to angels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well excuse me for missing a post.

---

People do that all the time. We have seven threads on this issue already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As an aside, the "prophet born every minute" is the pro arguement for religion, given all the ahcks the theory is that you need divine intervention to start a religion and keep it going. Also its not always right fro religious revolution. Monarchial Greece, the Hellenic era and Feudal Europe are all examples of when there wasn't alot going on and the reason was that there were two classes, masters and slaves.

---

I would say is all you need is some sort of advantage to start a religion.

After all until it gets a bit of age and respect most religions are called cults.

Some of these cults are to stroke the leaders ego, his bank account or for him to stroke his followers.

Some cults have been made purely to get the advantage in the tax code of most nations not taxing them.

Hubbard is a classic case of creating a cult to garner monetary gain.

A lot of cults pander to peoples fears and say that they will easily and effortlessly lead them away from those fears.

Although I havn't seen a cult to lead people away from their fear of public speaking (well maybe NLP is a bit of that) I have seen plenty of cults saying they can give people eternal life, youth, vigour, happiness, oneness with the universe. All hold the essential spiritual truth of the universe and all they require are a percentage of your material possesions in return for this spiritual enlightenment.

Most religions are a shell game and the followers are the marks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

No. His face should be erased. There are many miniatures of Muhammed in a book that tells of his life which is can be found in Topkapi Palace, I hear dthat a copy of it is also a property of British Museum. In all miniatures in the book Muhammed's face was not depicted.

However I don't think the particular incident you talk about needs any further reaction if they don't agree to erase his face.

---

I would have to disagree. In regards to pictures, sculptures etc in museums, books etc the Islamic university of Kairo have stated that depictation of Muhammed is not desired, but as long as it is in good and educational purpose for non-muslims, no argument should be given by muslims.
There are alot of discussions on this of course, but just as with the sharia law, it is not a law/rule that includes non-believers, as long as it's not blasphemy. The Danish cartoons are insulting regardless Muhammed being depicted is an issue or not.

throughout theis argumant there have been two things that i have wondered about:

1. Why is Islam a seperate religion? yes im seroius, for one thing they base themselves on Abraham same as cristians and jews, in the quran itself there is a passage when some cristians say they are ''muslims'' already!, muslims accept jesus as a prophet (so they should surely be annoyed at all his depictions?), add to that that Allah is not a name and is merely the (arabic?) word for god and youve got a lot of similaritys!

the only problem is that the musims ignore some of the teaching of their prophet jesus, in particular where he said there would be no more (genuine) prophets untill the end!

2. muhamed is often reffered to as ''the prophet muhammed'', but this is surely not his title to non muslims are we not placating muslims by useing the phrase? (unless they are gonna start saying ''Jesus son of god'')

Odd things like that, isn't it? Jesus says he's the last prophet.

Muslims cheerfully ignore that - isn't that sacrelege to Christians? Apparently not.

Mohammed says he's the last prophet, and although he's as good as told us the last guy to say that was wrong, he's to be believed, ok?

We call him the Prophet Mohammed as we have to play nice; Muslims don't call Jesus the son of God as that's against their religion... Simple double standards.

~:smoking:

Christians may well call Mohammed a prophet but I doubt they would call him The Prophet. In the same way Muslims are happy to call Jesus a prophet, but not The Messiah. I see no real double standard.

If a theologian or religious fundamentalist wants to make a doctinal point out of this difference then fair enough, at least they have a stake in it. IIRC from your other posts Rory you are hardly religious enough to warrant that much righteous indignation.

Slyspy, i find two problems with your statement:

firstly its not just christians that call muhammed the prophet muhammed and secondly he is refered to as ''the prophet mohammed'' by everyone, that is what muslims usually call him too (although i think they have to say ''peace be apon him'' each time) ive not heard him referred as ''a prophet muhammed'' very often

AdrianII, you are persistantly missing my point. I'm not talking about the Messiah, the doctrine, the belief or anything. I'm talking about the man Jesus, you couldn't invent him.

Back on topic:

ByzMerc, hit the nail on the head. How can Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and then say he's not the last or not the son of God. Lack of fundamental internal logic. This is different to Jews who just ignore Jesus as a fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

ByzMerc, hit the nail on the head. How can Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and then say he's not the last or not the son of God. Lack of fundamental internal logic. This is different to Jews who just ignore Jesus as a fake.

---

Maybe because they believe the bible/Christian doctrine is corrupted???

I mean the trinity doctrine was codified in the 4th century, and there were many sects of Christianity which were crushed and exterminated because they didn't follow Nicean doctrine.

Think about Arianism, which stated that Jesus was not divine...

As for Jesus's or Muhammed's existence...most historians think so otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Maybe because they believe the bible/Christian doctrine is corrupted???

I mean the trinity doctrine was codified in the 4th century, and there were many sects of Christianity which were crushed and exterminated because they didn't follow Nicean doctrine.

Think about Arianism, which stated that Jesus was not divine...

---

yes, but i don't know of any christian sects that fitted with the muslim view either, the gospels were chosen specifically because they fitted best (and used more material from) the old testament and Judaism and so had less of the later influences on cristianity present in their construction,
but this is beside the point as as far as i know the muslims don't have any source from which they could have got any other information on jesus besides other christian texts which would have been relatively similar to the oficial version by the time of the founding of Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

yes, but i don't know of any christian sects that fitted with the muslim view either, the gospels were chosen specifically because they fitted best (and used more material from) the old testament and Judaism and so had less of the later influences on cristianity present in their construction,
but this is beside the point as as far as i know the muslims don't have any source from which they could have got any other information on jesus besides other christian texts which would have been relatively similar to the oficial version by the time of the founding of Islam.

---

Byzantine Mercenary, as I recall, Islam is a strictly monotheistic faith. Therefore, any talk about "son of God" would be cast aside...Therefore, the christian idea of Jesus being the son of God would be incompatible, but Jesus as a prophet would not...

I really don't know which version, muslim or christian is right...but that's my point, there are two versions, it's not a "lack of fundamental internal logic" as you state, because they simply believe differently about Jesus.

That's why they are two separate religions...however similar, there remain key differences in their doctrines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

AdrianII, you are persistantly missing my point. I'm not talking about the Messiah, the doctrine, the belief or anything. I'm talking about the man Jesus, you couldn't invent him.

---

Alright. Heh, I am doing my bloody best here to understand you. The problem is we do not know anything about a 'man Jesus'. All we have is sources about a Jesus character that are mythological and therefore essentially literary. If you can demonstrate that these sources necessarily refer to a historical person, then you are on to something and you will certainly have my undivided attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

How can Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and then say he's not the last or not the son of God?

---

They do accept Mozes, Jesus, etcetera, but they do not accept those parts of the OT or the Gospels that emphasise their uniqueness as Prophets. The Muslim view has always been that the Jews and Christians have falsified their holy texts in order to erase all passages that refer to Mohammed's coming as the one and only definitive Prophet.