• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m really confused about the “No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name” situation.

    Religions are kind of weird, aren’t they?

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      3 months ago

      Always has been. Religion is the single biggest reason to not believe in religion.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      the picture thing is to avoid idolatry, which was the main type of religion in the region at the time Islam was beginning. people were used to worship to (or via) visual depictions of gods, so a ban on visual representations of people was an effort to avoid people falling into old habits.

      that’s why currently an overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t care about depictions of people in general, but they still don’t allow the prophet or god to be depicted (god isn’t supposed to have any physical form anyway) because that would be too close to idolatry.

      kind of the opposite approach of christians with pagans, where christians appropriated pagan symbols to make Christianity more appealing, media were concerned with differentiating themselves from other religions.

      uttering names isn’t taboo in Islam like it is in Christianity. while some Christians avoid saying God, Jesus or the like, Muslims are encouraged to use god’s name frequently. however they’re not allowed to call people certain names reserved for god alone, but that isn’t the case for the prophet. so it’s considered sort of a tribute or a sign of respect to name people after the prophet.

      interesting fact, Muhammed isn’t the prophet’s only name, so while this is the most common name in the world, the number of people named after the prophet is even higher, because it includes some other names, most common after Muhammed being Ahmed.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, really fundamentalist whackdoodle strains of Islam actually go so far as to claim that no pictorial depiction of any living thing is allowed. They just get really extra touchy about old Mr. M.

      Jury’s out on how, exactly, that would stand up to things like television and photographs. But I’m not an imam and I don’t have the entirety of the hadiths in front of me so I don’t fuckin’ know. The whole thing is obviously wonky on its face.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s a rule thing. Like not eating pork or shellfish, but less tangible and comprehensible than a dietary restriction.

      Not depicting people with representative art is a thing that isn’t universally embraced in Islam or by every Muslim. But similarly there’s going to be some person out there who feels as strongly about it as they would if someone intentionally snuck pork into their food.

    • ___qwertz___@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fun fact: While pictures of Mohammed are a no-no for Sunnis (Arabic World), it’s a common thing for Shias (Iran mostly).

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      That right there is so annoying… Imagine a doctor’s waiting room, and a nurse asks Mr Mohammed to come in and 20 guys stand up.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I remember when the South Park drama happened, and Matt and Trey were both like “you guys realize he’s been in every single episode for months now, right? He’s in the intro. It’s only an issue now because we had him as a focus of the episode.”

  • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    3 months ago

    There once was a post on the Onion about a caricature of Christian, Judaist, Hindu and Buddhist gods having an orgy and no believers wishing death upon the author, but sighing and closing the tab instead.

  • mysticpickle@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Pls don’t kill me for posting this. A holy warrior already smote the guy that drew it 🙏

  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    Well, because Exodus 20:4-6, the Second Commandment, says:

    4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    Belief It or Not just did an episode about it, too.

    What’s interesting is both how lax Christians and Jews are about it, and how severe the wording actually is. By some interpretation, any visual depiction of nearly anything is an idol. Certainly a big statue of Jesus or a fresco of God should both qualify, and yet…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      There was a whole schism in the Byzantine Empire during the late 700s over whether religious iconography constituted graven images. This enveloped all the Abrahamic Religions and periodically reasserted itself for nearly a millennium, both in the academic sphere and in riots lead by hot-headed zealots of various sects.

      Muslims simply ended up on the iconoclast side of the fence once the dust settled. If you study art history of the region, you get some truly incredibly geometric patterns emerging throughout the Muslim world, well into the 20th century, because of this stricture against iconography. There’s some speculations iconoclasm inspired efforts to produce these shapes and patterns, resulting in a heavy religious patronage of Islamic mathematics in much the same way the Renaissance Era in Europe contributed to the modernization of art and sculpture.

      But the idea that Islam is somehow unique in the views on artistic reproduction of the human form is really more an artifact of history than of the religion itself. Absent certain twists of fate, we’d be angrily denouncing Muslims for making big bronze statues of their religious figures, which 600 years of Protestant iconoclasty informs us is only something a bunch of evil religious psychos would ever do.

    • GCanuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Punish third and fourth generations for the sins of their ancestors. Sure whatever.

      Showing love to a thousand who love and keep commandments. Sure fine.

      But what happens if my grandparents loved and kept commandments, but my parents didn’t? Does the punishment supersede the love? Or do me and my kids get fucked, but my grandkids are back in the good graces?

      Just sayin.

    • ealoe@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      Phobia is an irrational fear. Being afraid of extremists who want to brutally murder you for drawing a cartoon is perfectly rational.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is a poor semantic argument. It actually originates with right-wing rhetoric around “homophobia”.

        The argument also hinges on there being only one meaning to a word. Kinda like how Trump is confused about how you can be Asian and Black.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I am honestly shocked at the level of bigotry in this meme and this comment.

        Comparing Islam to a fanbase that will ‘literally murder you for showing a picture’ is so obviously Islamophobic I don’t know how else to say it.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            It is the attribution of that extremism to being a part of ‘muhammad’s fanbase’ that is islamaphobic, not pointing to an example of the extremism itself.

            A member of a group committing murder and citing that group’s beliefs isn’t a justification for casually implying that members of that group are murderous, even if it’s true is the most limited sense of the word.

            Especially when that group is itself subject to extreme violence and genocide on the basis of their membership.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Offensive: “christians believe that an imaginary flying bearded man in the sky speaks to them”

        Bigoted: “Muslims are barbaric murderers that will kill you for showing a picture of their prophet”

        You see the difference there?

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          But christians are barbaric murderers who will kill you for not converting to Christianity. I am not sure which of us is more confused.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago
            • Only one of those groups is subject to violent marginalization in the western world on the basis of their belief
            • It is possible to be bigoted/prejudiced against multiple groups of people at the same time

            I am quite sure it’s you who is confused.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Can you expand on this point? It’s not immediately clear what difference you are trying to highlight.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            One is mocking the belief of a group by portraying it as ridiculous, the other is a bigoted portrayal of a group as homicidal on the basis of their belief.

            The meme isn’t offensive toward ‘religious fruitcakes’ (the use of this word is kinda ironic but unrelated), it’s actively bigoted and Islamophobic. Socsa was presumably defending the meme by saying they enjoy offending all religions and not just islam, and I was pointing out that the post wasn’t simply offensive, it was bigoted.

            Edit: responding here because this post was removed on my home instance for Islamophobia.


            you’re still coming across to me as just saying “it’s never ok to criticize bad Islamic practices, it’s automatically bigotry.

            It isn’t a critique, it is portraying Muslims as fanatical murderers.

            I assume you find the practice of brutally murdering people for the act of drawing a picture of a fictional character to be bad. How would you phrase a legitimate criticism of the practice without being bigoted?

            In the same way that you would ‘critique’ Christianity, which justifies acts of terror such as bombing PFP clinics with Genesis 9:6, or Romans 13.

            Extremists in Christianity are not seen as representative of the faith, but they are for Islam.

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I’m really, honestly trying to understand your perspective to the point of being weird and following you around in a comment section, but you’re still coming across to me as just saying “it’s never ok to criticize bad Islamic practices, it’s automatically bigotry.”

              Let’s flip this on its head, maybe that will help. I assume you find the practice of brutally murdering people for the act of drawing a picture of a fictional character to be bad. How would you phrase a legitimate criticism of the practice without being bigoted?

            • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Nah, bigoted would be saying “these people are inferior humans because they have stupid beliefs.” Or perhaps the act of infantilizing people for use as an ideological cudgel.

              What I am saying is that they are very normal, run of the mill humans, and that having stupid beliefs is pretty typical of the human condition, writ large.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      There was also a time when it was believed that Jesus, being perfect, was incapable of change. It’s why so many old paintings of Jesus look like middle aged babies; They believed that Jesus was born with an adult’s body, just baby-sized. Cuz if he was perfect, there would be no room for change. So lots of old paintings of Jesus have him looking like a tiny middle aged man.

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You’re probably joking but if you’re not, this idea pisses me off.

            The average is skewed by childhood mortality at birth or due to childhood diseases and birth defects. If you made it to 20 in the Bronze Age and weren’t killed by violence, there’s a damn good chance you’d hit 60 or 70 years old.

            • evranch@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s even referenced in the Bible, showing that the writers had a good idea of the maximum human lifespan even back then.

              [Genesis 6:3] Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.”

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This predates the internet. And I’ve heard it in at least two other languages besides English. I love it.

    • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      This type of comment is always hilarious to me. We’re talking about it right now. Nobody has been called bigoted. It’s fine.

    • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Fuck off, all religions are fucking stupid and need to die. They have no place in human civilization anymore. It is time to move on.

      Isreal is a religious ethnostate, in the same way most of the middle east is, in the same way large swaths of the bible belt try (and many times succeed) to be.

      The only difference between these three is the amount of money and leeway they’re given to enact their stupid bullshit. Its time the adults in the room stopped putting up with it.

      You can throw around “edgy reddit atheist” all you want, but were not the group of people enabling and engaging in some of humanities most heinous acts over the fact that you where too stupid to question your parents. I’m so tired of wearing kid gloves around religious folk.