Time warp news
Sep. 16th, 2012 01:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richI guess I know that grudges can be held for years, decades ... even lifetimes, but I read a news item today about the reward on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie being increased, and realized I hadn't thought about that since it was declared when I was a kid, I think. You'd think they might get the hint nobody wants to turn the guy in, but grudges don't work that way when there's over $3 million behind them, I suppose.
This is what I as a normal consumer of information and unaffiliated religion (sure, I do like certain rituals like decor and carols and such more associated with Christianity, but only the rituals) don't get about the directive to not portray or question or insult Mohammed: It's not as though he WAS a divine figure, right? He was a man, who was visited by prophecy from Allah - am I correct? Whereas the figure of Jesus was considered half-divine - but also a prophet, if a different flavor, of God. So while I know you can't say Christianity and Islam are the same, they do have some parallels and Christ was being portrayed in art and criticized and questioned when Mohammed lived - were the rules of prohibition thought to quell any doubts about Mohammed's right to dictate religious precepts? As in, if people can't draw it or say it, they surely won't think it? (If I remember right, it's not just Mohammed though ... there's prohibition against making art of any living thing, is there not? Or is that just one faction of Islam?)
I just find it interesting because an article I read quoted this religious group offering Rushdie's reward as basically saying it's his fault all these people the past 20 or so years have dared to portray Mohammed - that if he'd been caught timely, then the other people wouldn't have felt so brave to make such insult.
This is what I as a normal consumer of information and unaffiliated religion (sure, I do like certain rituals like decor and carols and such more associated with Christianity, but only the rituals) don't get about the directive to not portray or question or insult Mohammed: It's not as though he WAS a divine figure, right? He was a man, who was visited by prophecy from Allah - am I correct? Whereas the figure of Jesus was considered half-divine - but also a prophet, if a different flavor, of God. So while I know you can't say Christianity and Islam are the same, they do have some parallels and Christ was being portrayed in art and criticized and questioned when Mohammed lived - were the rules of prohibition thought to quell any doubts about Mohammed's right to dictate religious precepts? As in, if people can't draw it or say it, they surely won't think it? (If I remember right, it's not just Mohammed though ... there's prohibition against making art of any living thing, is there not? Or is that just one faction of Islam?)
I just find it interesting because an article I read quoted this religious group offering Rushdie's reward as basically saying it's his fault all these people the past 20 or so years have dared to portray Mohammed - that if he'd been caught timely, then the other people wouldn't have felt so brave to make such insult.
