Images of Mohammed - collected articles - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-29T11:16:56Zhttp://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/images-of-mohammed-collected-articles?groupUrl=freespeech&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A167859&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A108934&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThis is an interesting develo…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-11-07:3766518:Comment:1723352015-11-07T06:47:46.428ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>This is an interesting development. A non-muslim parent and a non-muslim school controller, both not only enforcing principles from islam on non-muslims, but actually extending those principles to apply to religions other than islam.</p>
<p>If is kuffar self-hatred.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>A school district superintendent in semi-rural Southern California has completely outlawed all drawings of all religious leaders on campus</strong> because a history teacher assigned a vocabulary…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is an interesting development. A non-muslim parent and a non-muslim school controller, both not only enforcing principles from islam on non-muslims, but actually extending those principles to apply to religions other than islam.</p>
<p>If is kuffar self-hatred.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>A school district superintendent in semi-rural Southern California has completely outlawed all drawings of all religious leaders on campus</strong> because a history teacher assigned a vocabulary worksheet that asked students to draw images of Muhammad.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aadusd.k12.ca.us/?page_id=258" target="_blank">Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District superintendent Brent Woodard</a> implemented the far-reaching ban after <strong>a single parent complained</strong>, <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20151104/school-district-bans-drawings-of-religious-leaders-after-acton-students-draw-muhammad" target="_blank">reports the Los Angeles Daily News</a>.</p>
<div><div id="mb_video_syncad" class="floating_banner"></div>
</div>
<p>The seventh-grade history assignment at High Desert School in Acton, Calif. was a worksheet called “Vocabulary Pictures: The Rise of Islam.” It featured several words including Quran, Mecca, Bedouins and Muhammad. There was space for students to sketch their own images representing the various words.</p>
<div id="mb_video_syncad_bottom"></div>
<p><strong>The parent who found the assignment offensive is Melinda Van Stone, a chiropractor in nearby Palmdale.</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/06/school-district-outlaws-depiction-of-any-religious-leader-after-mom-protests-muhammad-drawing/" target="_blank">http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/06/school-district-outlaws-depiction-of-any-religious-leader-after-mom-protests-muhammad-drawing/</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>These two "liberals" are imposing the most fundamentalist principles of Islam upon non-muslims in a secular society. And just like in an islamic society kafirs cannot openly display their religion or its icons, so in California schools, sikhs and christians are banned from depictions of their own religious figures.</p>
<p>Where's the ACLU? Where's SPLG? Where's the demos by the anit-fascists?</p>
<p>A far greater enemy of kuffar than the muslim, is the so-called progressive liberals, who are in fact liberal fascists. The extraordinary thing is that these fascists are not even identifiable as such, simply because they clothe themselves as anti-fascists.</p>
<p>What is it with this phenomenon of "being opposed to fascism"? Already by the 1940s, Orwell was pointing out that the word "fascist" had lost almost all meaning. Yet it clearly performs an extraordinary totemic function in liberal democracy. Describing oneself as "a liberal democrat" is almost as vacuous as describing onself as "a carbon-based life-form". Yet describing oneself as "an anti-fascist", whilst implementing fascistic principles of a fascistic religion, makes one appear like a highly-principled individual.</p>
<p>These liberals are "holier than thou", pouring petrol on the bonfire of western values.</p> What amazes me is that in 199…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-16:3766518:Comment:1683222015-06-16T16:44:52.233ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>What amazes me is that in 1997 CAIR could <span style="text-decoration: underline;">DEMAND</span> that the face of Mohammed be sanded off the frieze. Then the Supreme Court turns round and says "well, it's not exactly Mohammed, just someone who looks like him".</p>
<p>It was already clear that at the very heart of America, they had surrendered to islamic domination by the mid 1990s. I guess the muslims' massive bomb in the WTC in 1993 had shown America the future, and the elite just…</p>
<p>What amazes me is that in 1997 CAIR could <span style="text-decoration: underline;">DEMAND</span> that the face of Mohammed be sanded off the frieze. Then the Supreme Court turns round and says "well, it's not exactly Mohammed, just someone who looks like him".</p>
<p>It was already clear that at the very heart of America, they had surrendered to islamic domination by the mid 1990s. I guess the muslims' massive bomb in the WTC in 1993 had shown America the future, and the elite just capitulated.</p>
<p>The response to CAIR in 1997 should have been to immediately ban the organisation, and block all future immigration by muslims.</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Philip Smeeton said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/images-of-mohammed-collected-articles?groupUrl=freespeech&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A168212&xg_source=activity&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A108934#3766518Comment168420"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>It doesn't matter what we think about images of Mohammed being forbidden. One of the first things on the Muslim list of things to do when they take over America is to pulverize that offensive frieze in the supreme court, and of course burn all American law books. They are not going to stop killing opponents any time soon, at the slightest provocation.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Hi Shiva,
I can do that for o…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-16:3766518:Comment:1682122015-06-16T15:41:11.611ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
Hi Shiva,<br />
I can do that for one image, but if there are a few, it just takes too long. But having said that, i will try do it for this discussion, because the images are crucial to the message.
Hi Shiva,<br />
I can do that for one image, but if there are a few, it just takes too long. But having said that, i will try do it for this discussion, because the images are crucial to the message. Alan.
The problems with the i…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-16:3766518:Comment:1684242015-06-16T15:21:02.688Zshivahttp://4freedoms.com/profile/shiva
<p>Alan.</p>
<p>The problems with the images is because Newsweek do not like folks hot linking to their images.</p>
<p>It is quite obvious you have drag and pasted the article including the images. A lot of times this works.</p>
<p>Any-way it is not safe,, should the site you have hot linked to dissapears from the web, the images also dissappear.</p>
<p>What you have to do, is drag the image from the article to your desktop, If you can not "right click to drag, then you must resort to image…</p>
<p>Alan.</p>
<p>The problems with the images is because Newsweek do not like folks hot linking to their images.</p>
<p>It is quite obvious you have drag and pasted the article including the images. A lot of times this works.</p>
<p>Any-way it is not safe,, should the site you have hot linked to dissapears from the web, the images also dissappear.</p>
<p>What you have to do, is drag the image from the article to your desktop, If you can not "right click to drag, then you must resort to image grab and as you are using MAC (command shift 4) then use the "insert image tool" </p>
<p>This way the image is stored with ning</p>
<p>If you do not use the ning image tool then you are at the mercy of whatever sight is hosting the image</p>
<p></p> It doesn't matter what we thi…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-15:3766518:Comment:1684202015-06-15T13:22:01.349ZPhilip Smeetonhttp://4freedoms.com/profile/PhilipSmeeton
<p>It doesn't matter what we think about images of Mohammed being forbidden. One of the first things on the Muslim list of things to do when they take over America is to pulverize that offensive frieze in the supreme court, and of course burn all American law books. They are not going to stop killing opponents any time soon, at the slightest provocation.</p>
<p>It doesn't matter what we think about images of Mohammed being forbidden. One of the first things on the Muslim list of things to do when they take over America is to pulverize that offensive frieze in the supreme court, and of course burn all American law books. They are not going to stop killing opponents any time soon, at the slightest provocation.</p> Well, correct observation abo…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-15:3766518:Comment:1683182015-06-15T10:07:38.497ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>Well, correct observation about images removed, but wrong blame allocation, as far as I can see.</p>
<p>I just tried creating a new forum and posting that article into it, and the same thing happened there as well. I also tried posting the article into this forum, and tried using another browser, to make sure its not browser dependent, and the same thing happened.</p>
<p>This is a problem dependent on Newsweek (and some other sites I guess). They've embedded photos in their articles in a…</p>
<p>Well, correct observation about images removed, but wrong blame allocation, as far as I can see.</p>
<p>I just tried creating a new forum and posting that article into it, and the same thing happened there as well. I also tried posting the article into this forum, and tried using another browser, to make sure its not browser dependent, and the same thing happened.</p>
<p>This is a problem dependent on Newsweek (and some other sites I guess). They've embedded photos in their articles in a way which does not allow us to copy and paste them into other places, with nary a care in the world. It may be possible to do some simple magic on the posted block to embed the images properly, but I haven't time to check that out now :-)</p>
<p>As regards the annoying and ridiculously small limit on posts that Ning has put it place, yes its a total pain. But for those two articles, since they really define what this discussion is all about, I have put them as the start block of this whole forum, and thereby got around the character limit.</p> Alan,
It's not going to work…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-15:3766518:Comment:1681072015-06-15T09:06:49.803ZJoehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/38DD
<p>Alan,</p>
<p>It's not going to work doing this "collected articles".</p>
<p>Replies are not long enough to allow all info to be inserted e.g. the reply I just did has had all the (highly relevant) images removed.</p>
<p>Alan,</p>
<p>It's not going to work doing this "collected articles".</p>
<p>Replies are not long enough to allow all info to be inserted e.g. the reply I just did has had all the (highly relevant) images removed.</p> Dutch MP Geert Wilders to sho…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-10:3766518:Comment:1678592015-06-10T19:55:35.737ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p><span>Dutch MP Geert Wilders to show Muhammad cartoons on TV</span><br/><br/><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32997038" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32997038</a></p>
<p><span>Dutch MP Geert Wilders to show Muhammad cartoons on TV</span><br/><br/><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32997038" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32997038</a></p> Have pictures of Muhammad alw…tag:4freedoms.com,2015-06-10:3766518:Comment:1673902015-06-10T19:54:12.362ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<h1 class="story-body__h1">Have pictures of Muhammad always been forbidden?</h1>
<div class="byline"><span class="byline__name">By John McManus, </span><span class="byline__title">BBC News </span><span style="font-size: 13px;">15 January 2015</span></div>
<div class="story-body__inner"><br></br><p class="story-body__introduction">The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has published an issue which commemorates the victims of last week's shootings in France - using an image of the Prophet…</p>
</div>
<h1 class="story-body__h1">Have pictures of Muhammad always been forbidden?</h1>
<div class="byline"><span class="byline__name">By John McManus, </span><span class="byline__title">BBC News </span><span style="font-size: 13px;">15 January 2015</span></div>
<div class="story-body__inner"><br/><p class="story-body__introduction">The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has published an issue which commemorates the victims of last week's shootings in France - using an image of the Prophet Muhammad on the cover. Most Muslims say that pictorial depictions of the founder of Islam are forbidden - but has that always been the case in all of the Muslim world?</p>
<h2 class="story-body__crosshead">(This article contains a historical image of the Prophet Muhammad)</h2>
<p>If you set aside for a moment the issue of whether satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad are insulting, there's a separate and complicated debate about whether any depiction - even a respectful one - is forbidden within Islam.</p>
<p>For most Muslims it's an absolute prohibition - Muhammad, or any of the other prophets of Islam, should not be pictured in any way. Pictures - as well as statues - are thought to encourage the worship of idols.</p>
<p>This is uncontroversial in many parts of the Islamic world. Historically, the dominant forms in Islamic art have been geometric, swirling patterns or calligraphic - rather than figurative art.</p>
<p>Muslims point to a verse in the Koran which features Abraham, whom they regard as a prophet:</p>
<p>"[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"</p>
<p>Yet there's no ruling in the Koran explicitly forbidding the depiction of the Prophet, according to Prof Mona Siddiqui from Edinburgh University. Instead, the idea arose from the Hadiths - stories about the life and sayings of Muhammad gathered in the years after his death.</p>
<p>Siddiqui points to depictions of Muhammad - drawn by Muslim artists - dating from the Mongol and Ottoman empires. In some of them, Muhammad's facial features are hidden - but it's clear it is him. She says the images were inspired by devotion: "The majority of people drew these pictures out of love and veneration, not intending idolatry."</p>
<p>At what point then, did depictions of Muhammad become haram, or forbidden?</p>
<p>Many of the images of Muhammad which date from the 1300s were intended only to be viewed privately, to avoid idolatry, says Christiane Gruber, associate professor of Islamic Art at Michigan University. "In some ways they were luxury items, perhaps in libraries for the elite."</p>
<p>Such items included miniatures which showed characters from Islam.</p>
<p>Gruber says the advent of mass-circulation print media in the 18th Century posed a challenge. The colonisation of some Muslim lands by European forces and ideas was also significant, she says.</p>
<p>The Islamic response was to emphasise how different their religion was to Christianity, with its history of public iconography, Gruber argues. Pictures of Muhammad started to disappear, and a new rhetoric against depictions emerged.</p>
<p>But Imam Qari Asim, of Leeds Makkah Mosque, one of the largest in the UK, denies there has been a significant change. He maintains that the effect of the Hadiths, with their injunctions against any images of living things, is automatically a prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.</p>
<p>He says the medieval images have to be understood in context. "The majority of these images relate to this particular Night Journey and the ascension to Heaven. There is a ram or a horse. He is on the horse or something like that.</p>
<p>"The classical scholars have very strongly condemned those depictions as well. But they do exist."</p>
<p>A key point is that they are not simple portraits of Muhammad. Asim also argues that the subject of many of the images is unclear. There is a question of whether all of these depictions actually intended to portray the Prophet or a close companion involved in the same scene, he suggests.</p>
<p>Prof Hugh Goddard, director of the Alwaleed Centre for the Study of Islam in the Contemporary World in the University of Edinburgh, says that there has been a change.</p>
<p>"There isn't unanimity in either of the foundational sources - the Koran and the Hadiths. The later Muslim community has tended to have different views on this question as on others."</p>
<p>The Arab scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, whose teachings paved the way for Wahhabism, the dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, was a key figure.</p>
<p>"The debate has become much more vigorous - particularly associated with the movement of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. You had suspicion of veneration of anything other than God. That included the Prophet.</p>
<p>"There has been a significant change over certainly the last 200 years, but probably 300 years."</p>
<p>The situation is different with sculpture or any other kind of three-dimensional representation, notes Goddard, where the prohibition has always been clearer.</p>
<img class="js-image-replace" alt="Image from a 16th Century Iranian manuscript showing the ascension to Heaven" src="http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/80268000/jpg/_80268603_prophet.jpg" width="624" height="946"/><span class="media-caption__text">Image from a 16th Century Iranian manuscript showing the ascension to Heaven</span><br/>
<p>For some Muslims, says Siddiqui, the aversion to pictures has even extended to a refusal to have pictures of any live being - human or animal - in their homes.</p>
<p>The prohibition against depiction didn't stretch everywhere though - many Shia Muslims appear to have a slightly different view. Contemporary pictures of Muhammad are still available in some parts of the Muslim world, according to Hassan Yousefi Eshkavari, a former Iranian cleric, now based in Germany. He told the BBC that today, images of Muhammad hang in many Iranian homes: "From a religious point of view there is no prohibition on these pictures. These images exist in shops as well as houses. They aren't seen as insulting, either from a religious or cultural viewpoint."</p>
<p>Differences in approach among Muslims can be seen along traditional Shia/Sunni lines, but Gruber says that those who claim a historical ban has always existed are wrong.</p>
<p>It's an argument that many Muslims would not accept.</p>
<p>"The Koran itself doesn't say anything," Dr Azzam Tamimi, former head of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought told the BBC, "but it is accepted by all Islamic authorities that the Prophet Muhammad and all the other prophets cannot be drawn and cannot be produced in pictures because they are, according to Islamic faith, infallible individuals, role models and therefore should not be presented in any manner that might cause disrespect for them."</p>
<p>He is not convinced by the argument that if there are medieval depictions of Muhammad that suggests there is no absolute prohibition. "Even if it were that would have been condemned by the scholars of Islam."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30814555" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30814555</a></p>
</div>