FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


U.S. Supreme Court depicts Muhammad





gonzo
Quote:
While Muslims engaged in violent protests worldwide over caricatures of Muhammad have insisted any image of their prophet is considered blasphemous, a prominent frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court portrays the Islamic leader wielding a sword.

The stone sculptures of 18 lawgivers, from Hammurabi to John Marshall, are meant to signify the law's foundation in a stable society. Included is Moses with the Ten Commandments.

The artwork, which is high above the justice's mahogany bench, was designed by sculptor Adolph A. Weinman for the building, which opened in the 1930s. Muhammad is between Charlemagne and Justinian.

The Muslim cartoon controversy erupted in violence a week ago over satirical drawings of Muhammad published in September by Denmark's Jyllands-Posten. The paper said it wanted to make a point about media self-censoring criticisms of Islamic terrorism.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical British Muslim cleric, told BBC Radio 4 yesterday the cartoonists should be tried and executed under Islamic law.

In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, protested the Supreme Court's Muhammad sculpture, saying, according to its annual report for that year, "While appreciating the fact that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations."

CAIR also said it was concerned that Muhammad "was shown with the Quran, Islam's Holy Book, in one hand and a sword in the other, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors."

[reinforced by their MULTIPLE world domination attempts.. duh]

Responding to the complaint, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist told CAIR the image could not be changed and explained that swords also were used throughout the court's architecture as symbols of justice.

"Altering the depiction of Muhammad would impair the artistic integrity of the whole," Rehnquist wrote. "Additionally, it is unlawful (under the U. S. Code) to remove or in any way injure an architectural feature in the Supreme Court."

[we have laws in this country that are sane.]

But the federal government revised tourist literature at the court to show more respect for Islamic beliefs. Text that called Muhammad the "founder" of Islam was changed to say Muslims believe ''the divine word of God ... was revealed to Muhammad.''

The literature also added, "The figure is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad, and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet."

The Muhammad cartoons at the center of the current controversy have been reprinted in Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Jordan, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.

In response, protesters in Turkey marched outside the Danish consulate, terror groups in the West Bank threatened Danish and European interests, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades an offshoot of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party briefly kidnapped a German and thousands of Muslim demonstrators in Beirut clashed with police Sunday, storming the city's Danish consulate and setting it ablaze. A nearby Maronite Catholic church also was attacked, prompting fears the protests could turn into a sectarian clash.

Saturday in Damascus, the evacuated Danish and Norwegian embassies were burned during protests that also damaged the Swedish embassy. Rioters reportedly tried to storm the city's French mission but were held off by police.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695

(Frieze depicts Muhammad among 18 "lawgivers" on wall above Supreme Court justices' bench)


Odd... so the blaspehmy rules is totally subjective? Or a contrivance of pure convenience?
Vrythramax
lol...this is bound to tick someone off Gonzo Smile
Soulfire
Now, let more riots begin because of this depiction of Muhammed! Commence the burning of American embassies!
ldnet
lol, hmm i wonder if the artistic will be killed? i remmeber there was one guy who made a video about Muslim women and all that and it was very offensive, like few days later after its release he was killed. so yeah artist should watch out.
Tumbleweed
Reading about the sculpture and looking at the picture are totally different
I think the artist has made the sword holding about as inoffensive as possible, he cradles the book like a child (lovingly) and holds the sword by the blade(peacefully) as if to say I am a man of peace but will protect these words like I would protect a child....

I assume Muhammad has some bearing on American law as hes represented there.....

I assume the words on the sculpture are words of law.....

Now I wonder what those words say......Anybody know ?
nopaniers
Did I miss the point? The article points out that muslims also protested the depiction of Mohamed in the sculpture. It seems pretty clear to me that portraying God and Mohamed is something which Islam does not do. What is subjective?
Soulfire
tumbleweed wrote:
Reading about the sculpture and looking at the picture are totally different
I think the artist has made the sword holding about as inoffensive as possible, he cradles the book like a child (lovingly) and holds the sword by the blade(peacefully) as if to say I am a man of peace but will protect these words like I would protect a child....

I assume Muhammad has some bearing on American law as hes represented there.....

I assume the words on the sculpture are words of law.....

Now I wonder what those words say......Anybody know ?
You hold a child with one hand like that? And the disgusted look on his face doesn't look too peaceful to me, it looks like he is ready to slice someone's head off.

nopainers wrote:
Did I miss the point? The article points out that muslims also protested the depiction of Mohamed in the sculpture. It seems pretty clear to me that portraying God and Mohamed is something which Islam does not do. What is subjective?
It says CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) protested it, not the general Muslim populace who strut around burning down buildings over a stupid cartoon.
Tumbleweed
Soulfire wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:
Reading about the sculpture and looking at the picture are totally different
I think the artist has made the sword holding about as inoffensive as possible, he cradles the book like a child (lovingly) and holds the sword by the blade(peacefully) as if to say I am a man of peace but will protect these words like I would protect a child....

I assume Muhammad has some bearing on American law as hes represented there.....

I assume the words on the sculpture are words of law.....

Now I wonder what those words say......Anybody know ?
You hold a child with one hand like that? And the disgusted look on his face doesn't look too peaceful to me, it looks like he is ready to slice someone's head off.

.


Thats why hes holding the sword by the blade....he wants to lose his own fingers when he strikes Shocked .......erm Rolling Eyes
Yes you do cradle a child with one arm for the most part.....ask a mother the other arm is usually busy doing something
Soulfire
Taking a second look at it, I guess I do see the child holding thing a bit better. I was only focusing on the hand and the Qu'ran, but I missed the whole "baby's head resting in Muhammed's arms."
You Hypocrites
nopaniers wrote:
Did I miss the point? The article points out that muslims also protested the depiction of Mohamed in the sculpture.


uh huh. did you miss when the sculpture was fist installed?

Quote:
What is subjective?


ALL interpretation of the koran. Ask any muslim.
nopaniers
Quote:
ALL interpretation of the koran. Ask any muslim.


Any muslim and they will tell you that depicting God and Mohammed is against Islam.

Also, they have the Hadiths as a commentary on the Koran to explain its meaning, although Sunnis and Shias do not place the same value on each.
nopaniers
Soulfire wrote:
It says CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) protested it, not the general Muslim populace who strut around burning down buildings over a stupid cartoon.


I didn't realize that you knew more about Islam than CAIR. You must be right and they must be wrong: only when the depictions are so offensive that people take to the streets is it wrong to depict Allah and Mohammed.
Related topics
eBay wins stay in MercExchange case
US Supreme Court rules against file swapping
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Stanley "Tookie" Williams
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
More front page news NOT on the front page..
legalize (soft)drugs
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
The Religion of Peace
The Supreme court rules
Supreme Court blocks Republican voter intimidation tactic
Kagan confirmed as Supreme Court justice
Israel Supreme Court: Occupation? What occupation?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.