Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Tim Cavanaugh unearths the forgotten history of Muhammad images and icons.
|5.19.06 @ 4:38PM|#
As a defense against idolatry, I would think that rare artifacts
would be more dangerous than ubiquitous use.
I think it is probably closer there being one set of rules for the
elites and the rest can't handle it.
|5.19.06 @ 5:27PM|#
As a defense against idolatry, I would think that rare artifacts
would be more dangerous than ubiquitous use.
I think it is probably closer there being one set of rules for the
elites and the rest can't handle it.
|5.19.06 @ 6:43PM|#
And the whole statement about Christians technically banning images... not broadly true...just can't worship them.
Tim Cavanaugh|5.19.06 @ 9:34PM|#
Christians don't ban images because they don't do what their sacred scrolls tell them to do.
Godfrey|5.20.06 @ 1:13AM|#
Tim:
"Christians don't ban images because they don't do what their
sacred scrolls tell them to do."
Actually, Christians *do* obey their magic scrolls; they just don't
obey them all the time. And given some of the Great Pixie's
commandments, that's probably a good thing.
|5.20.06 @ 1:22AM|#
The key, says Florida State University art historian Cynthia
Hahn, is in the context. �Almost all these images are from
manuscripts,� says Hahn. �That�s a very private, elite, expensive
medium, which the average guy would never see. Part of the reaction
to the cartoons was that they were in a newspaper, which is such a
public forum.�
I happen to be a Muslim and have no intention to start some kind of
jihad here but this has to be the most ridiculous explanation I
have ever heard abt the cartoon controversy.
These Persian prints and some others are widely available in Iran
and other central Asian countries.
The issue was not his images. It was the way he was portrayed and
the drawings made him look like some bloodthirsty caricature of
Osama bin Laden or a terrorist. I doubt that I can ever support the
violent reaction of some Muslims in the Middle East but I still do
think that if the Danish newspaper had run these images instead of
those cartoons, nobody would have cared abt them.
I doubt that there is going to be any fatwa against the Reason.com
for printing these images.
Godfrey|5.20.06 @ 1:40AM|#
...the drawings made him look like some bloodthirsty
caricature of Osama bin Laden or a terrorist.
Actually, it's his followers that make Mohammed look like a
bloodthirsty caricature. The cartoons are editorial; they merely
reflect what the "religion of peace" has become in the eyes of the
rest of the world.
We would all be better off without prophets and messiahs. Then
people would have to resort to good old-fashioned cognition to get
things done.
God forbid.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245