If there are supposed to be no drawings, portraits or other idols of Mohammed The Prophet. How did people know that it was The Phophet that was being depicted?
2006-07-08 18:46:58 · 19 answers · asked by Michael 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Mohamed was a great person, a great prophet. He was totally against any form of idol worship. It is against the grain of Muslims to have him represented in any form whatsoever. If something harms or affects millions of people, it is not right to harm those sentiments.
The cartoon very much implied that the person depicted was Mohamed, hence the implications are enough.
I am not a Muslim.
st
2006-07-09 05:51:20 · answer #1 · answered by Starreply 6 · 11⤊ 1⤋
They wrote 'Prophet Muhammad' on the comic strip. When they depicted him with God, they labelled God as Allah. Its got nothing to do with imagination--that wouldn't make sense anyway; the simple drawing of a bearded man could be Moses, Bin Laden, or a redneck for all we know! Had the drawings not been labelled to make it obvious, no one would've been the wiser since some Islamic books have described the Prophet, and the drawings don't even come close..
2006-07-09 02:00:16 · answer #2 · answered by alrashid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They called the cartoon by the name that gave it away. We don't have a picture of him (peace be upon him) rather, we have the reports of what he looked like, similarly to the other prophets.
It was also a deeper issue then just the drawing, but the intention of making fun of him. Maybe some muslims didn't understand the real reason that should have caused their anger (the reviling of him) and instead based it off on a drawing which is not even him but rather a guy who sat down and wasted his time drawing what he thought would upset us.
2006-07-09 03:28:15 · answer #3 · answered by ummlayth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not the depiction, it's the intention. This is "thoughtcrime" in same way Mapplethorpe's "piss christ" made people uppity. People's faith (all faith is, really) is so weak they'll attack anyone or anything they don't like.
By the by, it wasn't the 12 Danish drawings that started the furore, it was three others (a French comedian and muslim wearing a pig nose, a drawing of mahound the rapist and a muslim copulating with a dog) that started it.
Of course, the western media deliberately ignored that fact, or the fact that the three images were disseminated by three Danish muslim imams, and NOT printed in any newspaper....
2006-07-09 02:02:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beats me but the Cartoons are not the 1st drawings of Mohammed since images of Mohammed were made in Europe centuries ago including images of Mohammed burning in Hell.
2006-07-09 01:51:08 · answer #5 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A news paper show a picture of Mohammed with a bomb turbin and the muslims kill people over it.
Liberals put crosses in bottles of urine and display it at musems and call it art and not a damn thing happens.
2006-07-09 01:51:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Woot! You figured it out. I wondered the same thing after first hearing about this. Obviously, Muslims DO have an image of what they think Muhhamed looked like, because even they don't take the inane ramblings of Muhhamed seriously.
2006-07-09 01:48:51 · answer #7 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well do u actucally think jesus looks like the white guy they depict him to be. nobody knows 4 sure. i think they focus more on his teachings then wondering what he looked like and how he dressed or if his cloths matched, if he had a some airsandels on stuff like that.
2006-07-09 01:56:23 · answer #8 · answered by noname247 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OMG! A great mind at work here! But I think it was implied! But you just made my day! Keep up the good work!
2006-07-09 01:51:30 · answer #9 · answered by obitdude2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just more excuses from the 'religion of peace' to claim victimisation and then riot, and kill. They don't have much else to do with their time.
2006-07-09 01:57:01 · answer #10 · answered by athensanthony 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋