Dude, your asking the wrong person here.. Im probably more of a non Muslim then most Hindus, so your mind games are lost on me. Im only saying that a country must respect the religous sentiment of its population within reasonable limits. I dont see any reason why banning images of the prophet is unreasonable. Beside, why would a non Muslim ever want to draw a picture of the prophet anyways? Its not like your banning cigaretes..
desinum, this is one of the highest acts of blasphemy as taught by the religion, everyone knows, Jews, Christians...why havent any Holywood movies shown the Prophet PBUH? there have been countless movies on all religions and many prophets. they have shown prophet Nuh, Musa, Isa AS in various movies but have never been as much as close to showing a mere profile of prophet Mohamed PBUH. Not just out of coincidence but out of respect for the religion of Islam and its teachings and values that the film makers who made flims like Dawn of Islam, The Message and lately the animated movie which i havent seen yet, didnt want to insult as during their resercahes they must have come to know what Islam says about showing pictures or figures of the prophet.
The mere issue of having painitngs, sculptures, photographs of ordinary humans is also a much debated topic, as various tecahings say it's unislamic but the issue of the Prophet is widely accepted and understood.
so if today everyhtiong abt islam is ridiculed and anyone voicing concern or raising a protesting voice for islam is labelled an extremist or terrorist of sorts, i'm afraid thats a problem with the world and its promoted mentality and not islam, as only until few yrs ago no one would have questioned this issue...
dudes, I am not questioning your right to strongly believe in it. You did not answer my question about punishment and if the non muslim is also punishable. If every body including non-muslim is punishable than it IS like banning cigaretes. It is injurious to everybody’s health, regardless of religion, same as cigarettes.
well i'm not sure exaclt what the teaching and verdicts on it are, but yes as far as i can infere the punishment would be the same for all muslim or non muslim alike. cigarettes are injurious to an individual first and much more than those around him [keep environmental pollution out for now-that comes in much detail], drwing images of the Prophet by a non muslim would also harm the entire global community including muslims as they would at some point come across the image and find it imposed upon them...moreover since its also considered an insult to the Prophet PBUH it can be deemed everyones responsibility to prevent such from happening...for more on actual teachings and laws on it, better seek guidance at the religion forum.
If somone knowingly commits an offense against anoter persons relgion, that person is guilty regardless of who they are. If someone started killing cos in front of Mandirs, it would be the same as someone drawing a pic of the Prophet simple as that.
Why? The only people who would benefit are irreligious gits.
If we don’t want to take account the “sentiments” of people, then I’d sooner scrap your precious “freedoms”…screw it. Anyone can play the “look out for number one” game…it doesn’t work.
I think there is a lot of harm in that. if someone thinks killing cows is bad, or pork is dirty, or alchohol is sin, then convince people through logic. ultimately if it is the right thing to do, humanity will accept it, if not today then 100 yrs later. banning anything automatically makes a person want it more. govts shouldn’t pander to a group at the expense of another, thats why banning an image is allright since it being there or not being there has no impact on hindus, but banning beef will make muslims (and other beef eaters) feel deprived.
like i said desinum, i dont have a shariah book with me to quote references, your arguments are going in circles trying to negate the very concept of opposing drawing images of the Prophet SAW, or any other similar matters…we are not religous scholars and it’s not for us to try and convince you. for the technical logic you seek, you’d find much better answers at the forum focused on religous affairs here: http://www.paklinks.com/gs/forumdisplay.php?f=265
alot of learned members post here on religous affairs.
if sensitivities are not respected, be they based on religion or social heritage, it always leads to riots and chaos…why not then accept and let peace prevail…?
No one says pander to one group at the expense of others. Make the same concessions for all faiths and you wont have that problem.
And no one is saying ban pork, alcohol and beef slaughter for everyone. In Pakistan, its banned for Muslims to purchase beer, but its ok for Christians with a licence. We actually have a brewery n Rawalpindi run by a Parsi..
If hindus revere cow as their “ma,” then consuming beef would be blasphemous to hindus. But people should not draw a parallel between banning beef and banning pork, because if non-muslims eat pork, that is not blasphemous to muslims (we dont consider the pork as sacred–astagfirullah).
Also, drawing a sketch of Muhammed (PBUH) has no parallel to eating beef, because in your own words “banning an image is all right since it being there or not being there has no impact on hindus” but beef is a food source and can be considered a necesary means for survival. If you ban it because it is considered blashphemous by one religous group, then you have to ban everything and anything (chicken, rats, pork, roaches) that is considered as sacred by some other religious groups. And i am sure in a multiethnic, multireligious country like India, that could pose a bit of a problem.
dope, kudos to you you for being so rational when it comes to beef. where is the rationality and logic when it comes to drawing a picture? how does a hindu drawing a picture affect muslims in any way? someone needs to reform all these ancient superstitions - both hindu and muslim.
yes exactly, that is what i meant to say. Pakpatriot, don’t you think it’s unfair that muslims can’t buy that parsi brew? it’s like telling muslims that want to drink that htey are not capable of making their own decisions.
Well, beef is not the only source of sustenance in the world.
But I said that everything within limits. I dont see a problem with banning pork to limited extent and in certain cicumstances, or banning the slaughter of Cows with certain exceptions. There is not much else that needs to be banned. Christians for example have no problem with pork, beef, or liquor, neither do the other groups, which dont have these same hang ups. You dont have to go out on banning spree to keep all your minorities happy, but anything within limits is ok. I dont see a problem with the banning of Pork and liquor in certain areas along with the banning of Beef with exceptions.
Beef was cited only as an example. I know beef is not the only source of sustenance in the world, but if you ban it according to the logic that it’s sacred, then what will you do if some other religious cults or sub groups deifies chicken, goats and every other source of sustenence. What if some other group claims that all sources of meat are sacred except pork? What you are going to ban them too, and have muslim snack on Tofu for protein?
You cannot compare beef eating with image banning. I dont think pork and alcohol should be banned in muslim countries either, if they have a sizable percentage of non-muslims. Why stop them from consuming it if it allowed in their religion.