In a message dated 2/17/2008 8:17:26 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
"The demand" was signed by 200.000 people. What about the millions who
would appreciate, if we'd give them a chance to follow their customs?>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
199,910 of whom are imaginary I would wonder.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/17/2008 3:08:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
What "the law" says or doesn't say has very little direct relevance to
what people get directly offended by. This is not a game of nomic, as
has been explained many times over.>>>
----------------------
Which is exactly the point.
When extremists complain, the idea that we should respond, only opens the
floodgates to the next *similar* complaint. The prohibition that are thinking
they are under, affects all humans. Muhammed is not special in that way.
The only thing that will happen, is they will shift their attention from
Muhammed, to some other religious figure, until their ultimate goal which would be
to suppress all human representation.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/17/2008 4:00:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
Are you saying, that those who reject images of all human-beings are
reasonable and those who just oppose images of Muhammad are extremists?>>>
------------------------------
Those Muslims who reject images of all human beings, based on their
interpretation of Sharia law are consistent. That doesn't mean that their
interpretation, imho, is a mainstream one within the Muslim world. Are Muslim
newspapers entirely without human photographs? When they advertise burkhas do they
show drawings of women wearing them? Are there pictures of the President of
Iran in the Iranian newspapers?
Those Muslims who try to use this Sharia law as the basis for why they are
protesting the inclusion of historical representations of Muhammed, are being
inconsistent in a subtle way. They are protesting in a general way that the
image is offensive, but trying to back that up by citing a law which doesn't
apply, and doing so in a way that would appear to most Muslims to be invalid.
The basis of this, is the exact same as the basis for the Baha Ullah
article. This one only has gotten more airplay. The logical and religious basis,
is identical. We, being consistent, should address the two issues with the
same result.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/17/2008 5:22:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
Yes your last mail indeed is very instructive as it tells me,
that you have no clue about Islam. In fact the Holy Family is
very important for Muslims>>
---------------------------------------------
I know this, this is my point.
They create and display images, representational (since no one knows what
the Holy Family looked like), already, in their homes.
I don't have an idea what your point is exactly. I was pointing out that
many, if not most Muslims, already have images of humans. The "no human
representation" is a minority view, and the idea that Muhammed's image is in a
separate category is even more of a minority view.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Raphael there is simply no evidence for that.
There is no Sharia law which puts images of prophets above other human
images.
This supposed prohibition of the image of the prophet, doesn't hold any
water.
It's a tempest in a teapot, created by a few extremists.
By the way, there have been images of the Holy Family, displayed openly in
the private apartments of many Muslim families for centuries. Not that the
Holy Family holds any higher place in this situation than any other human, only
to illustrate for you, that the matter is only controversial here and now.
Which should be instructive.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
By the way, I happen to have the Encyclopedia Brittanica. So I opened to
the section on Islam (Macropedia, ed. 1985) and there I see a drawing entitled
"Muhammad's visit to Paradise, depicting Muhammad (right) upon the
human-headed steed...." From a 15th century manuscript of the Mi'raj-name.
So I think we're in quite safe waters, following the lead of EB. And I
would note this manuscript was created by a Muslim.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/17/2008 4:30:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
raphael(a)psi.co.at writes:
There are different interpretations and since the
rejection of pictorial representations is motivated by protection
from idolatry, the limit to depictions of prophets does make sense.>>
--------------------------
There isn't any such limit. It's made up.
The interpretation refers to any human representation. Prophets don't hold
a special place.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
IIRC , the exact logic used in the Baha U'llah case was, "we have pictures
for all humans, we don't make special cases". The mere fact that Baha'is are
a minority religion compared to Muslims, shouldn't change the logical
position. The fact that a minority of Muslims want to make a case out of it, should
make them come to the table with suggestions as well. The hand-wringing
doesn't bring us any closer to a solution which should be technical, not
political, imho.
Tag the images "Human representations" and then anyone can write a parser
which will not display any image tagged "human representations" and you're done.
That would be a consistent approach. If they are serious in their protest,
they should see the inherent logic and consistency in such a position.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:00:11 EST, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> That doesn't prove that 99% of the "signatures" aren't the exact same 100
> people, each signing it a thousand times. And the basis of their protest is a
> complete disregard for the basic logic of their own position. The
> prohibition is on *all* representations of humans. All of them. Not just Muhammed.
> Address that please, so we can move on.
You're expecting logical consistency from the religious crowd? When
does that ever happen? Religionists are constantly selectively
enforcing their version of God's Law. Ask the "God Hates Fags"
crusaders why they don't enforce the section of the Bible that makes
eating shellfish a sin of similar magnitude as homosexuality.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/