www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Embassies burn in cartoon protest

Let God arise and His enemies be scattered, and let those who hate Him flee from before His face!

As smoke vanishes, so let them vanish as wax melts before a fire!

So let the wicked perish at the presence of God, and let the righteous ones rejoice!


[Linked Image]

To those who understand this photo, you know what I mean.

The Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy in a few weeks will have an additional meaning for me.

-uc

Amen!

CDL

The misinformation in many of the articles recently posted in this thread is sickening. Islam has not, nor does it now, universally prohibit making images of Mohammad. The authors of these articles should do a little historical research before commenting on something that they clearly know very little about.

Now I suppose it can be argued that Muslims take blasphemy seriously, but that is counterbalanced by the fact that they take the value of human life so very lightly. When religious leaders and others in the Islamic community promote the idea of killing people for drawing cartoons, or when Ulema issue fatwas against authors of books, there is something very wrong with the practice of the Islamic religion.

Finally, I have seen the twelve cartoons, and the vast majority of them are not offensive at all (Jesus even appears in one of them). In addition, it is important to note that the three cartoons that could be seen by some people as offensive are not aimed at Mohammad, but are aimed instead at those of his followers who blow themselves up in order to kill innocent people. One of the cartoons could also be seen as a commentary on the position of women in the Islamic world.

The West has its sensibilities on matters of the sacred, blasphemy, freedom of the press, etc. It may also have the sense that its sensibilites are universal. In fact, such is not the case. Todd, what do you think is the value of your commenting that you don't find these cartoons offensive? Why would you offer this opinion as though it were a simple matter of fact? ISTM that your response to the cartoons is of no significance at all in understanding the reaction of Muslims to their publication.

I note with interest your sensitivity to misinformation written by others. Can you please give us details of present Islamic law regarding depictions of the Mohammed.

Please note, I heard today that what many Muslims are PO'd about is NOT the few from the Dane's, (even if it was back several months....so, why are they getting PO'd now,..why not then..??). BUT, some Imams went to as many as 12 Muslim countries and spead dissent, and made up 'other' cartoon, that even Christians would not have accepted, and that were really rude. NOW, let's hear the TRUTH about this one. AND< if the press is going to report this and keep it up, why don't they show us the original cartoons, so we can make up our minds for ourselves. Anyone up on this??? mik

Icon of the New Martyrs of the Turkish Yoke

[Linked Image]

Tropar: Tone 1
The new martyrs, who with unremitting battle have cast down the ancient deception, have exalted the Faith of the Orthodox; for, having abolished the worship of the iniquitous and professed Christ boldly, they now unceasingly entreat Him as perfect God, that He grant us great mercy.

Kondak: Tone 2
Rejoice mystically, 0 Church of Christ, beholding Thy children, the new martyrs, standing around Thy table in their relics, like newly planted olive shoots; and cry aloud to the Creator of all: Thou art the confirmation of the martyrs, 0 Christ!

djs makes some good points above and I think that apply globally.

Mike Ross's issues were brought up on BBC last night in a rather confrontational interview between an Imam and a BBC reporter. By the end of the interview I was satisfied that no fellow Muslims are faking or reproducing cartoons in order to incite other Muslims and I was curious to know how this story got started. On the other hand, the Imam was not forthcoming in detailing specifically which political and religious forces he is working with and I took this to mean that he's affiliated with reactionary forces and trying to undermine the Iranian government.

Really, I'm hoping that some of you will avail yourselves of the opportunity to dialogue with Muslims via the links I have provided previously.

One Love.

bob r.

Dear Ukrainian Catholic,

Thank you for that icon.

Your sister in Christ,
Alice

Take a look at this opinion [opinionjournal.com] piece in the Wall Street Journal by Amir Taheri. It is clear there is no universal ban on images portraying Muhammad in Islam. We are seeing a lot of sloppy journalism. It has also been noted in multiple places that grotesque cartoons that were not published by the Danish paper were being widely circulated, starting with the Danish Imams who went on their Jihad Junket of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Also, AsiaNews is reporting another priest was attacked in Turkey by Muslim youths. Story here [asianews.it] .

Andrew

That is a great picture.

I'm sure at some point there will be people who find the commemoration of the victory at Kazan to be "offensive" and there will be calls to outlaw these crosses.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

You state:

I say, thanks to my time in the Navy, I am proficient in a variety of weapons, for defensive purposes only! Only say the word....

Michael

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
841. The Church's relationship with Muslims: The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

Todd, as you [like the liberals] limit the Church's competence when it conflicts with your opinions, you are right: this conversation is over. I falsely assumed that we held to a commonly acknowledged religious authority.
As you know, there is no Islamic Magisterium; different theologies exist as opinions only.
I hold that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and the other "Reformers" were false prophets. I do not accuse them of idolatry.
The conversation here is dismaying. I do not see a desire for peace or understanding. You all are rattling your sabers and picking at the scabs of history.
Such talk not only does not draw Muslims to Christ, it feeds radicalization.
-Daniel

Dear Friends,

I myself have books with Islamic art that depicts Mohammed - but his face is always covered.

The reaction of Muslims to those reprehensible cartoons (and Western journalists are guilty of reprehensible art pertaining to Christianity as well) should also be understood not ONLY as a reaction to perceived religious hatred.

It is first and foremost a reaction against perceived racial discrimination based on cultural identity - again, the West sees religion and cultural/national identity as separate and most of the world doesn't.

We should not act as if there have not been race riots in North America or that the potential for them don't continually exist in various areas in the "enlightened West."

U.S. racists also burn Black churches, do they not? Even now . . .

What the Danish journalists did in publishing those cartoons, they did with FULL knowledge of what they were doing, how highly Islam esteems Mohammed etc.

They did it to see how far they could rattle the Muslims' cage.

I would like to see a similar, although not violent, reaction from Christians when their symbols and traditions are attacked by similar sources.

Perhaps then secular journalism, artists and legal/government officials will think twice about "sticking it" to Christians.

Alex

DJS,

Let me preface my remarks by saying that this is a complex issue, and one that cannot really be resolved in a post at a internet forum, but I will try to give an outline of the Muslim position on the production, possession, and punishment to be inflicted on those who make or possess images. First, it is important to note that the decisions of the schools on images are not held as binding under penalty of death, in fact judgment about this matter is left to the day of the resurrection at the end of time. Second, although the schools of Sunni Islam take a strict position on images, they have never enforced this position, and this is evident by an examination of the extent of the production of art throughout Islamic history. Finally, the only thing that the Qu'ran, as opposed to the Hadith, explicitly condemns is the veneration of images, and the Qu'ran is held to be higher than the Hadith in determining the proper course of action in a given situation (in fact the whole concept of Hadith is only accepted in Sunni Islam).

That being said, various Hadith touch briefly upon the issue of the making of images and in doing so the reported action or saying of Mohammad invariably condemns the practice of painting pictures of living (animate) things (e.g., the production of images is forbidden in Sahih al Bukhari 4:3224, page 282; and 9:7558, page 398; and 9:7559, page 398; Mohammad is supposed to have said that angels will not enter a home with images placed in it, see Sahih al Bukhari 7:5949-5951, pages 438-439; Mohammad is reported in the Hadith to have commanded the destruction of images, see Sahih al Bukhari 7:5952-5953, pages 439-440, and it is reported that Mohammad forbade the placement of images in mosques, see Sahih al Muslim 4:1076; but the Sahih al Muslim also recounts episodes in which Mohammad ordered the destruction of curtains with images on them, although he allowed the cloth with the images to be made into cushions, 24:5252-5276). Mohammad also appears generally to have been against images made on cloth, either by weaving or by a type of imprinting with dye, and the Sunni schools have traditionally held to these positions in their legal decisions (fiqh).

Now beginning in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries the schools of jurisprudence began to implement prohibitions against photographic pictures (whether still or moving) and in the 1930s and 1940s they forbid the transmission of images through the use of television.

Clearly, at the legal level, the prohibition against images in Sunni Islamic shariah is fairly radical, but in spite of this, the production and ownership of images has been common throughout Islamic history, both in Sunni and Shia societies. There have even been images, i.e., images of living things, portrayed in mosques (especially in Persia and Turkey), and these images continue to be produced, and older images have not be covered over or destroyed. Nevertheless, the images in mosques are not to be venerated, nor are they to be considered as "holy" or as containing divinity (in the sense that Eastern Orthodoxy teaches).

The issue becomes more complex when one tries to determine what exactly is or is not an image. Clearly painted images of living things were forbidden (although again in practice they were and are made), because Mohammad is said to have explicitly condemned this method for producing images (in some of the Hadith Mohammad is held to have frowned even upon the making of abstract images, but other Hadith indicate that he was not opposed to this type of image, and there are even a few Hadith that indicated that he took pleasure in abstract images; see Sahih al Bukhari, 5:3874, page 127; which reads as follows: "Narrated by Umm Khalid bint Khalid: When I came from Ethiopia to Al-Madina, I was a young girl. Allah's Messenger made me wear a sheet having marks on it. Allah's Messenger was rubbing those marks with his hands saying, 'Sanah! Sanah!'" -- Sanah means 'good'). Nevertheless, Mohammad did not hold that children's toys, dolls for example, and other image related toys, were images in the proper sense of the term, and so the making of dolls and the possession of them by children was not forbidden (See Sahih al Bukhari 8:6130, page 88)

Now, the Wahabists (a minor branch within the Hanbalite School) in Saudi Arabia take a very strict position on images, but even they have ignored their own prohibitions against the transmission of images via television, although they do not allow movie theaters to operate in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, even the strict Wahabists only selectively enforce their own legal decisions (fiqh) on the use and production of images. Now in Iran, a country that Americans are familiar with because of television reports of anti-American demonstrations, the use of photographic imagery (moving and still) is permitted, and even pictures of religious leaders are allowed, which under strict codes should be forbidden. It should also be noted that the Shia have always been more willing to allow depictions of living things than the Sunnis.

Finally, in the various Hadith collections Mohammad is reported to have said that those who make images will be punished, but he always indicates that the punishment will come on the day of judgment. The reason for the punishment is that the artist has tried to create something, and only Allah is the creator, so the production of art is offensive because it is a usurpation of God's position. The religious scholars have always applied these statements in Islamic law by focusing on the idea that the punishment would come only on "the day of judgment," and so this was interpreted to mean that the production or ownership of images is not to be punished in this life, but will only be punished by Allah at the end of time.

Taking into account what has been said above, it is true that some Muslims may be offended by the production of images, but their own traditions have permitted the production of images, even in mosques; and so, the fact that many of them have advocated the murder of people for drawing cartoons is simply not founded upon their own legal traditions, not even the modern Wahabists have allowed this type of behavior (at least not so far).

The main problem for those claiming that Islam prohibits the production of living images is historical in nature, because various Muslim societies, both in the past and now, have allowed the production, and in modern times even the distribution, of images within the Umma (community).

Thus, if one were to take the strict viewpoint of the schools of jurisprudence, a viewpoint that is not even enforced by Muslim authorities at the present time, one would have to say that the entire Islamic world is daily committing the sin of blasphemy. That being said, Islamic practice in connection with images has always been lax, and this was true even at the time of Mohammad, in that he is never recorded to have ordered anyone punished for possessing an image.

Blessings to you,
Todd

I think it is important to reiterate the truth about Christ by once again reminding everyone on the forum that:

(1) The Islamic religion is false,

and (2) That Mohammad is not a prophet.

There can be no offense in creating images because of the historical fact of the incarnation, which has ushered in the dispensation of images; and so, as Christians it is our duty to evangelize the Muslim world and bring them to the truth on this and other matters.