About Me

My Photo
Australian philosopher, literary critic, and professional writer. Author of FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE SECULAR STATE.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Not necessary (overall, you understand) to destroy sculpture of Muhammad

These women Muslim lawyers carefully considered the issue, you see, and decided that destruction is not necessary. Well, thank Zeus for that.

5 comments:

NewEnglandBob said...

?

No link to a story?

Russell Blackford said...

Damn, did something wrong. Will fix the link.

Friend of Icelos said...

I wonder ... what if they had decided it was necessary?

NewEnglandBob said...

Mohammad as a leader in law? This has to be a joke. He was a leader of tyranny, treachery, pedophilia and murder.

Mohammad would negotiate treaties with others then have them assassinated a couple of days later.

irenedelse said...

@NewEnglandbob: Actually, "leader in law" is appropriate from the perspective of Islam, because the Hadith, a commpendium of words and deeds attributed to Muhammad, is an important source in the development of islamic jurisprudence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

For a parallel in the Western world, think of the old Roman law, the Justinian Code (which contains rescriptions as barbaric as anything in "sharia"), in relation to today's legal systems.

Of course, Muhammad was both a religious leader and a political one, and his life and actions are not very edifying from our modern perspective, but as a feudal age leader in a warlike society, he was probably no worse than any.

Interesting, anyway, this advice of Karamah to queries about a sculpture of the Prophet. It shows that reasonable people who start from very different perspective *can* get to the same sensible conclusions even in matters of religion!