No, it doesn’t Extreme Sunni sects ban the drawing of living things. For a Christian analogue that’s like saying all Christians abhor any medical procedure that requires transferring blood, cannot drink alcohol, serve in the military, socialize with non Christians, or smoke tobacco.
Which I’m sure you know is patently ridiculous but there’s 8 million self identified Christians who follow those rules. Surely they represent all of Christianity as much as Wahhabis represent all of Islam?
If the Bible itself prohibited such things, then yes, I would be making this point and also making fun of the Christians for not following it, like how they’re not supposed to wear mixed fabric or have female teachers.
A ban on depicting living things is documented in a fairly well-supported ahadith. While strict adherence is rare in modernity, it is indeed something present in religious texts and widely practiced historically, which merits mockery.
A hadith is not the Bible. That’s the Quran you’re looking for. The entire point of hadiths is that they are not agreed on by all Muslims. Especially across lines of sects, ethnicity, and regions. The one you’ve chosen is only adhered to in Wahhabism. Otherwise known as the doomsday cult that spawned Al Qaeda.
Of course it’s somewhere in history, that does not mean it’s a current practice as you depicted. If we held entire religions to the history of a sect then buckle up because Christianity and Judaism have some barnstormers that are coming back. But of course you’re willing to look past that. You understand Christianity isn’t represented by the dicks holding signs at funerals. And yet you hold all of Islam hostage to it’s worst people.
I know that hadith hold less weight than the Quran. That being said, there are several ahadith that say that painters will get screwed over by Allah that are considered canon by pretty much all Sunni Muslims. Many of them don’t follow these rules, but I personally know several Muslims that drink. This does not change the fact that the actual written rules of the religion prohibit it.
You’re also completely missing my original point. The guy I was originally replying to was joking that following Christian fundie logic will lead to a ban on images. I then drew parallels between the Christian and Muslim extremists who are both trying to institute their respective religious laws as the laws of countries, hate each other furiously, consider themselves the exact opposites of each other, and yet seem to converge on a number of issues.
P.S. I am pretty sure that Shi’ites have no equivalent rule regarding aniconism. I know very little about Shia Islam in general so I won’t comment on it.
I mean yeah, but it’s in a text most Muslims believe in. It makes sense to say that Christianity forbids women from being teachers even though most Christians ignore the rule, no?
What’s extra funny is that Islam bans drawing living things.
No, it doesn’t Extreme Sunni sects ban the drawing of living things. For a Christian analogue that’s like saying all Christians abhor any medical procedure that requires transferring blood, cannot drink alcohol, serve in the military, socialize with non Christians, or smoke tobacco.
Which I’m sure you know is patently ridiculous but there’s 8 million self identified Christians who follow those rules. Surely they represent all of Christianity as much as Wahhabis represent all of Islam?
If the Bible itself prohibited such things, then yes, I would be making this point and also making fun of the Christians for not following it, like how they’re not supposed to wear mixed fabric or have female teachers.
A ban on depicting living things is documented in a fairly well-supported ahadith. While strict adherence is rare in modernity, it is indeed something present in religious texts and widely practiced historically, which merits mockery.
A hadith is not the Bible. That’s the Quran you’re looking for. The entire point of hadiths is that they are not agreed on by all Muslims. Especially across lines of sects, ethnicity, and regions. The one you’ve chosen is only adhered to in Wahhabism. Otherwise known as the doomsday cult that spawned Al Qaeda.
Of course it’s somewhere in history, that does not mean it’s a current practice as you depicted. If we held entire religions to the history of a sect then buckle up because Christianity and Judaism have some barnstormers that are coming back. But of course you’re willing to look past that. You understand Christianity isn’t represented by the dicks holding signs at funerals. And yet you hold all of Islam hostage to it’s worst people.
I know that hadith hold less weight than the Quran. That being said, there are several ahadith that say that painters will get screwed over by Allah that are considered canon by pretty much all Sunni Muslims. Many of them don’t follow these rules, but I personally know several Muslims that drink. This does not change the fact that the actual written rules of the religion prohibit it.
You’re also completely missing my original point. The guy I was originally replying to was joking that following Christian fundie logic will lead to a ban on images. I then drew parallels between the Christian and Muslim extremists who are both trying to institute their respective religious laws as the laws of countries, hate each other furiously, consider themselves the exact opposites of each other, and yet seem to converge on a number of issues.
P.S. I am pretty sure that Shi’ites have no equivalent rule regarding aniconism. I know very little about Shia Islam in general so I won’t comment on it.
See, one word there would completely change your statement above. Extremist.
I mean yeah, but it’s in a text most Muslims believe in. It makes sense to say that Christianity forbids women from being teachers even though most Christians ignore the rule, no?
Not really no. Not just because the evidence for that is highly conflicted, but also because you’re giving a false picture of Christianity.
Comrade, we’re specifically talking about people trying to push for a ban on porn and the 10 Commandments in every classroom.
Does this mean can draw the prophet Mohammed since he is dead? Finally a loophole.
Maybe if you draw him as a corpse ;)
Or a zombie!
Well, the other really big religion has a zombie as its mascot so it isn’t without precedent.
The mascot was the process of becoming zombie - they worship the process