Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Kurska

(5,739 posts)
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 08:30 PM Jan 2015

Why is publishing an image of Muhammad a grave insult to Islam, but eating pork is not?

Or drinking alcohol for that matter. I mean Muhammad never even mentioned the image thing. However, he was very explicit in saying that people ought not eat pork or drink alcohol.

Why is it that non-muslim westerns are "punching down" and offending Islam by not following what is essentially just a tradition of the Islamic faith, but are not doing the same by ignoring what is a set in stone rule of the faith. It is apparently justified for Muslims to be gravely offended when they see non-muslims break a rule of their faith like "don't publish images of the prophet", but according to that same logic shouldn't it be just as offensive when they see non-muslims eat pork, drink alcohol or venerate gods besides Allah?

Gee it is almost like it is ridiculous to expect non-muslims to follow Islamic law or tradition. I'm just wondering what other Islamic rules I need to accept into my life to avoid offending Muslims.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why is publishing an image of Muhammad a grave insult to Islam, but eating pork is not? (Original Post) Kurska Jan 2015 OP
are those serious questions ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #1
A better question would be why Muslims allow images of living beings at all TexasProgresive Jan 2015 #2
You may be surprised as to the answer JonLP24 Jan 2015 #23
Your 8th century assertion isn't at all definitive JackintheGreen Jan 2015 #28
My major question to muslims is dhol82 Jan 2015 #3
Iran is primarily Shia, for whom images of Muhammad are ok. uppityperson Jan 2015 #4
There are 7 million Sunni Muslims in Iran oberliner Jan 2015 #7
i doubt they have much freedom to oppose or even question things in the country JI7 Jan 2015 #15
So they don't feel it's worth risking their lives to stand up against defamation of the prophet? oberliner Jan 2015 #29
Iran has very strict blasphemy laws JonLP24 Jan 2015 #25
Well, OK, but dhol82 Jan 2015 #33
Well, OK, but dhol82 Jan 2015 #34
That one is easy, those two lack souls... n/t Fumesucker Jan 2015 #22
Depends where you are and when you are. Igel Jan 2015 #5
Rich Muslims cwydro Jan 2015 #6
happens in Iran, there are many articles and pics on it JI7 Jan 2015 #13
Apparently little girls going to school is offensive enough to get them killed. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #8
not in iran where the clerics required females to get an education JI7 Jan 2015 #16
Then the women in Iran are very fortunate. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #19
in terms of education saudi arabia is ok but afterwards too many limits , Pakistan legally is ok JI7 Jan 2015 #20
Terrorism by religious extremists. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #24
I think you'll find it is hard to understand why various religions, races, goldent Jan 2015 #9
The same people who go ape shit over abortion eat ham on Easter Major Nikon Jan 2015 #10
why do people who claim to be pro life oppose feeding poor kids ? JI7 Jan 2015 #11
These don't really feel parallel to me gollygee Jan 2015 #12
good point, i disagree with them on the images, but i get what you are saying about why JI7 Jan 2015 #18
What about images of pork? benz380 Jan 2015 #14
Which doctrine is most at odds with Islam JonLP24 Jan 2015 #17
Muhammad is more important to Muslims than a pig. kwassa Jan 2015 #21
it is all sheer nuttiness; it is just a matter of degree Skittles Jan 2015 #26
The context is a "War on Terror" that targets "Islamic terrorists", delrem Jan 2015 #27
trying to make sence out of abstracts is futile . olddots Jan 2015 #30
Hypocrisy in religion? Say it ain't so! Jake Stern Jan 2015 #31
Theres a difference treestar Jan 2015 #32
Religion is comprised of hypocrisy and Islam makes a run for first prize in that race. Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #35
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
1. are those serious questions ...
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:05 PM
Jan 2015

Will you listen to a/the answer(s)?

But before I offer an answer, tell me why you ask; but more, consider what someone reading your OP might think of your post.

TexasProgresive

(12,157 posts)
2. A better question would be why Muslims allow images of living beings at all
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 09:51 PM
Jan 2015

since there is a prohibition against them since the 8 century. This would include photographs, videos. paintings, sculpture and any other representation that you can think. That's why classic Islamic art is like this:

Someone ought to press the radicals on this issue as to why they are so blasé about images if they are true to Islam.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
23. You may be surprised as to the answer
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:25 AM
Jan 2015

Saudis risk new Muslim division with proposal to move Mohamed’s tomb



One of Islam’s most revered holy sites – the tomb of the Prophet Mohamed – could be destroyed and his body removed to an anonymous grave under plans which threaten to spark discord across the Muslim world.

The controversial proposals are part of a consultation document by a leading Saudi academic which has been circulated among the supervisors of al-Masjid al-Nabawi mosque in Medina, where the remains of the Prophet are housed under the Green Dome, visited by millions of pilgrims and venerated as Islam’s second-holiest site. The formal custodian of the mosque is Saudi Arabia’s ageing monarch King Abdullah.

The plans, brought to light by another Saudi academic who has exposed and criticised the destruction of holy places and artefacts in Mecca – the holiest site in the Muslim world – call for the destruction of chambers around the Prophet’s grave which are particularly venerated by Shia Muslims.

The 61-page document also calls for the removal of Mohamed’s remains to the nearby al-Baqi cemetery, where they would be interred anonymously.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudis-risk-new-muslim-division-with-proposal-to-move-mohameds-tomb-9705120.html

In 1801 and 1802, the Saudis under Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud attacked and captured the Shia holy cities of Karbala and Najaf in today's Iraq, massacred parts of the Muslim population and destroyed the tombs of Husayn ibn Ali who is the grandson of Muhammad, and son of Ali (Ali bin Abu Talib), the son-in-law of Muhammad. In 1803 and 1804, the Saudis captured Mecca and Medina and destroyed historical monuments and various holy Muslim sites and shrines, such as the shrine built over the tomb of Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, and even intended to destroy the grave of Muhammad himself as idolatrous, causing outrage throughout the Muslim world.[7][8][9] In Mecca, the tombs of direct relations of Muhammad including his first wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid were demolished at Jannatul Mualla cemetery.[10] The initial dismantling of the sites began in 1806 when the Wahhabi army of the First Saudi State occupied Medina and systematically levelled many of the structures at the Jannat al-Baqi cemetery.[11] This is the vast burial site adjacent the Prophet's Mosque (Al-Masjid al-Nabawi) housing the remains of many of the members of Muhammad’s family, close companions and central figures of early Islam. The Ottoman Turks, practitioners themselves of more tolerant and at times mystical strains of Islam, had erected elaborate mausoleums over the graves of Al-Baqi. These were levelled in their entirety. Mosques across the city were also targeted and an attempt was made to tear down Muhammad's tomb.[12] Widespread vocal criticism of this last action by Muslim communities as far away as India, eventually led to abandoning any attempt on this site. Political claims made against Turkish control of the region initiated the Ottoman-Saudi war (1811–1818) in which the Saudi defeat forced Wahhabi tribesmen to retreat from the Hejaz back into the interior. Turkish forces reasserted control of the region and subsequently began extensive rebuilding of sacred sites between 1848 and 1860, many of them done employing the finest examples of Ottoman design and craftsmanship.[13]

On April 21, 1925 the mausoleums and domes at Al-Baqi in Medina were once again levelled[13] and so were indicators of the exact location of the resting places of the Muhammad’s family members and descendants, as it remains to the present day. Portions of the famed Qasida al-Burda, the 13th century ode written in praise of Muhammad by Imam al-Busiri, inscribed over Muhammad's tomb were painted over. Among specific sites targeted at this time were the graves of the Martyrs of the Battle of Uhud, including the grave of the renowned Hamza ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib, uncle of Muhammad and one of his most beloved supporters, the Mosque of Fatimah Al Zahraa’, daughter of Mohammad, the Mosque of the Two Lighthouses (Manaratayn) as well as the Qubbat Al-Thanaya,[13] the cupola built as the burial place of Mohammad’s incisor tooth, which was broken from a blow received during the Battle of Uhud. In Medina, the Mashrubat Umm Ibrahim, the home of Mohammad’s Coptic Egyptian wife Mariah and birthplace of their son Ibrahim, as well as the adjacent burial site of Hamida al-Barbariyya, mother of Imam Musa al-Kadhim, were destroyed during this time.[13] The site was paved over and is today part of the massive marble esplanade beside the Mosque. The government-appointed permanent scholarly committee of Saudi Arabia has ordered the demolition of such structures in a series of Islamic rulings noting excessive veneration leading to Shirk.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia

Mosques Attacked In Wake Of Charlie Hebdo Shooting

everal attacks on French mosques following Wednesday's brutal Charlie Hebdo shooting have added to the fear of retaliation against the country's Muslim population.

At least 12 people were shot and killed and more than a dozen others wounded in what is being called a terror attack against the French satirical newspaper on Wednesday. The publication faced threats prior to the shooting and was firebombed in 2011 for publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Two Muslim places of worship and a restaurant affiliated to another mosque were attacked Wednesday evening and Thursday morning local time. Three grenades were thrown at a mosque in Le Mans, west of Paris, and a bullet hole was found in one of the mosque's windows, AFP reported.

A Muslim prayer hall in the Port-la-Nouvelle district in southern France also received shots shortly after evening prayers, while a blast erupted at L’Imperial, a restaurant affiliated to a mosque in the French village of Villefranche-sur-Saone. No casualties were reported at any of the attacks.

everal attacks on French mosques following Wednesday's brutal Charlie Hebdo shooting have added to the fear of retaliation against the country's Muslim population.

At least 12 people were shot and killed and more than a dozen others wounded in what is being called a terror attack against the French satirical newspaper on Wednesday. The publication faced threats prior to the shooting and was firebombed in 2011 for publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Two Muslim places of worship and a restaurant affiliated to another mosque were attacked Wednesday evening and Thursday morning local time. Three grenades were thrown at a mosque in Le Mans, west of Paris, and a bullet hole was found in one of the mosque's windows, AFP reported.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/mosque-attacks-charlie-hebdo_n_6436224.html

A better area to hammer the doctrines enfroced by the dominant minority is modernization influenced by foreign traders but still strictly prohibited but you'd be surprised by how much this sect privatizes. Also things like television were rationalized by the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia as a tool like a sword, its just a tool which can be used for both pure & evil, which is a backwards mindset to say the least.

JackintheGreen

(2,036 posts)
28. Your 8th century assertion isn't at all definitive
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:08 AM
Jan 2015

I'm curious about your source. I'm not saying that such pronouncements weren't made in the 8th century, but the Quran and the Haddiths both are pretty quiet about it. Islamic law isn't any more definitive until the turn of the last century when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. Even that declaration permitted the Islamic images to continue to exist.

In fact, images of Mohammad were fairly common in both Shia and Sunni spheres of influence until about the 16th century. It was really only after 1500 that conventions began to change in the Ottoman (Sunni) sphere. Mohammad was still portrayed, but suddenly he was veiled or otherwise obscured, signifying the ineffability of the prophet. Not so much in the Persian (Shia) sphere, though recently it has become a de facto "law" across the Islamic ummah (if such a thing could even be said to exist), but even now its still only a might-makes-right kind of law.

Kind of like how dems are "soft on crime" and 'pubs are "good for the economy." Neither is demonstrably true, but through constant repetition people have simply come to stop questioning the truth of the assertion. And when people leave off questioning for passive acceptance, it becomes the truth.

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
3. My major question to muslims is
Sat Jan 17, 2015, 10:34 PM
Jan 2015

why, in Iran, is it perfectly permissible to have huge picture of Khomeni and Khameni plastered all over the place when, theoretically, no images of anything with a soul is allowed?

Was just in Iran last month and saw this all over the place. My tour guide could not answer my question.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
7. There are 7 million Sunni Muslims in Iran
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:23 AM
Jan 2015

What has been the response from that community to the images mentioned?

JI7

(89,252 posts)
15. i doubt they have much freedom to oppose or even question things in the country
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:51 AM
Jan 2015

7 million sunnis but over 70 million shias

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
29. So they don't feel it's worth risking their lives to stand up against defamation of the prophet?
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:53 AM
Jan 2015

That's a good sign, I suppose.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
25. Iran has very strict blasphemy laws
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:55 AM
Jan 2015

but blasting Sunni Muslims is A-OK which is written into the law, Shia militias backed by Iran which were allowed to grow under a Shia political leader who spent his period of exile in Iran who US/CIA installed as Prime Minister (who even used his Shia dominate military to raid homes of elected Sunni officials, even killing 1 in the process, and you have the highest Sunni official in government spending exile in Turkey). So the Shia militias responded by to the ISIS problem by massacring Sunnis to give you a picture of what Sunnis face in Iran.

You end up with a problem that self-perpetuates but what you have is a situation which is typical for postcolonalism.

On edit - I forgot to add being the minority in Iraq didn't stop Wahabbis from destroying Fallujah, included "Dreamland" which was an epic resort built by & in favor of the Sunni dominated Ba'ath Party. Anyone who has driven or ridden the road "Long Island" to TQ knows it is by far (was-could be) the worst road in Iraq, we'd serve to avoid potholes but it was impossible there since manholes. It easily rivaled checkpoints 58-60 on MSR Tampa has the worst road for attacks not just for IEDs but complex attacks & even tanks. The area around Ramadi & Fallujah was famous for Daisy Chain IEDs, not sure what those are -- think Christmas tree lights.

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
33. Well, OK, but
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:38 PM
Jan 2015

I did not see pictures of Mohammed anywhere. Just the pictures of Khomeni and Khameni smiling down on the people everywhere.

If it is OK for pix of Mohammed to be displayed they sure didn't try very hard.

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
34. Well, OK, but
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 04:58 PM
Jan 2015

I did not see pictures of Mohammed anywhere. Just the pictures of Khomeni and Khameni smiling down on the people everywhere.

If it is OK for pix of Mohammed to be displayed they sure didn't try very hard.

Igel

(35,320 posts)
5. Depends where you are and when you are.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:03 AM
Jan 2015

At various times non-Muslim festivals and celebrations had to be kept discrete. Meaning "invisible."

Same for things like pigs and pork. In many Muslims countries you don't find pig for sale.

And the sale of alcohol is prohibited. If you're a church and require it, there are hoops to jump through.

It's one reason for ghettos. Jewish and Xian, both existed to allow those communities to have their own kind of system in place, without having to be too muted by the Muslim majority around them. Religious leaders were typically the political leaders and organizational centers in such ghettos.


Once I was at a student/administrator meeting that had food. Decent food. I went through the line next to a young man in the Muslim Society of America. He was disparaging and offended that they dared to have pig as part of the buffet line. He continued to vent until he noticed I wasn't eating any, and he asked if I ate pork.

I said no, he called me a nasty name for a Jew, and refused to shake my hand or even sit next to me for the remaining portion of his term. (This made his taking a seat at the committee table very difficult, since he also refused to sit next to any woman, who were about 50% of the committee.)

JI7

(89,252 posts)
13. happens in Iran, there are many articles and pics on it
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:46 AM
Jan 2015

and since these are usually from rich families they are able to avoid punishment by paying people off.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
8. Apparently little girls going to school is offensive enough to get them killed.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:28 AM
Jan 2015

Yeah, yeah, nalt, religion has nothing to do with it because different cultures and stuff and blah blah blah...


JI7

(89,252 posts)
16. not in iran where the clerics required females to get an education
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:56 AM
Jan 2015

this in turn is why there have been some protests with strong female participation .

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
19. Then the women in Iran are very fortunate.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:04 AM
Jan 2015

My parents spent a lot of time in Iraq before the Gulf War and said much the same about women there.

Otoh, I cannot begin to imagine what it's like to be a woman living in Saudi Arabia, or a schoolgirl in Pakistan.

JI7

(89,252 posts)
20. in terms of education saudi arabia is ok but afterwards too many limits , Pakistan legally is ok
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:09 AM
Jan 2015

but the problem there is terrorism.

girls can go to school and they have more freedom in how they dress also. they aren't required to cover up. but it's just not safe there and too many terrorist attacks.

as a female i would probably prefer living in iran out of those 3.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
24. Terrorism by religious extremists.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:25 AM
Jan 2015

That was my point.

As a female I'm damn glad I live in the United States.


goldent

(1,582 posts)
9. I think you'll find it is hard to understand why various religions, races,
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:35 AM
Jan 2015

nationalities. etc., find some things insulting and other things not, unless you are part of that group. But here is one rule of thumb: when they clearly state that something is insulting to them, then it is a safe bet that it is insulting to them.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
12. These don't really feel parallel to me
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:45 AM
Jan 2015

If they don't believe their religious figure should be depicted, then if I draw a picture of him, I am in their minds insulting their religious leader. So it is less that I'm not following their religious law than that I am insulting their religious leader. But if I eat pork, I'm only hurting myself as far as they're concerned. They don't have that rule for the pigs' benefit.

JI7

(89,252 posts)
18. good point, i disagree with them on the images, but i get what you are saying about why
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:58 AM
Jan 2015

they have a problem with someone else doing one but not the other.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
17. Which doctrine is most at odds with Islam
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:56 AM
Jan 2015

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)

which has beliefs & practices different from Islam - including the 21 century? The same ones behind the image thing were against the Hajj of all things. There were forced to tolerate & certainly regulate it.

You'd be surprised be what non-western Muslims aren't offended by rather than than dominant minorities.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
21. Muhammad is more important to Muslims than a pig.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:20 AM
Jan 2015

From the Islamic commentary, "Duh".

This has to be the dumbest OP I've seen all week.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
27. The context is a "War on Terror" that targets "Islamic terrorists",
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 03:53 AM
Jan 2015

in case you've forgotten.

The context is one where a double-standard is dictated by the needs of war, where war propaganda rules.
*They*, the enemy, are terrorists. They are always terrorists. *We*, the "civilized west", are the good guys. We are always the good guys. No matter what we do. No matter what depth of depravity we sink to it's always "a few bad apples" who are NEVER considered to be definitive of "the civilized west" or to represent "the civilized west".

And wow, is DU ever war propaganda central, these days.
Not surprising, considering the extent of the war machinery.

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
30. trying to make sence out of abstracts is futile .
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:02 PM
Jan 2015

I think Shecky Green said that in Vegas in 1959 .

Jake Stern

(3,145 posts)
31. Hypocrisy in religion? Say it ain't so!
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:55 PM
Jan 2015

Work with an Algerian born Muslim woman who has fumed about depictions of Mohammad.

However when Friday night rolls around she posts selfies on Facebook at the club in skimpy clothes, quaffing jello shots and smooching her boyfriend.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
32. Theres a difference
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:01 PM
Jan 2015

People eat pork or drink alcohol as part of regular, daily life. They don't do it in reference to Mohamed.

Whereas drawing Mohamed is something a non-Muslim has no other reason to do other than to taunt Muslims. I guess you could come up with rare situation where an artist has a reason to include Mohamed in a painting for art-related reasons. Other than that, the only reason to do it is to tease Muslims, knowing it will upset many of them.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
35. Religion is comprised of hypocrisy and Islam makes a run for first prize in that race.
Sun Jan 18, 2015, 08:17 PM
Jan 2015

Let's take Brunei, a nation whose Sultan enforces a devout Shria law which when not stoning gay people to death busily forbids all contact with pork or alcohol and punishes infractions of this law. Meanwhile, back in reality, among the Sultan's businesses are some in which he buys, sells, prepares and serves mass amounts of alcohol and pork, some of which is raised upon his order, all of which is consumed under his own roofs.
If Islamic rules are such that non Muslims must die for breaking them, how in the fuck can Brunei have a Sultan who vends cocktails and pork chops? It's mind boggling.
They burn Churches because non Muslims don't follow Islamic law that even Muslims don't really follow if money is involved or if they want a good stiff drink or poke in the arse.
Hypocrites and clowns, like their preening Christian cousins. 'Rules are for thee, never for me'.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is publishing an imag...