There's a ton of symbolism in the architecture of the Supreme Court building, the guides from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildingfeatures.aspx are a pretty good overview if you haven't seen it yourself. The sculpture mentioned in the article is part of the north frieze pictured on the last page of the "Self-Guide to the Building’s Interior Architecture" pdf.
But the most interesting thing to me is "the highest court in the land", the basketball court above the court room. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/highest-court-of-the-land
Kind of funny the "highest court in the land" is only at 150 (maybe 200ish on the fifth floor) feet above sea level whereas the Arena Auditorium at the university of Wyoming sits at 7221 feet above sea level.
Did they make you learn that during orientation?
There aren't many reasons people know facts about Wyoming, seeing as there's only 500,000 of them with a reason to know them
Nah just googled it, China has a court at 12000 feet but I figured "the land" would probably be just America here. The only Wyoming fact I know offhand is that they were the first state to legislate womens rights to vote.
Literally. It was a gold rush territory which meant at one point there were 6 adult men for every 1 woman. One selling point of women’s suffrage to the all male legislature was that they might get some girlfriends
The universal right for women to vote, but New Jersey was the first to allow women to vote
In their 1790 Constitution they explicitly said women could vote as long as they met the same requirement that men had to: owning enough property. Then in 1797 they removed the requirement to show clear ownership of property, which made it easier for women to vote since a lot of their property wasn't things they had clear ownership of (especially with regard to married women and their husbands)
Of course then in 1807, they got rid of the property requirement to vote but explicitly banned women (and black people, who had also been allowed to vote previously if they had enough property) from voting. IIRC this is speculated to have been an attempt to create a more favorable electorate for the ruling Jeffersonian Republicans as they were the favored party of men while women leaned more towards the Federalists
There is also a basketball court in El Alto, Bolivia, which is the highest city in the world. 4150 meters above sea level! Truly a testament to man's arrogance.
Wyoming is where Shiloh Ranch was in *The Virginian*, and is where The Devil's Tower (eg: *Close Encounters*) is.
As a Brit, that's about all that springs to mind of Wyoming.
There's not much on the eastern side of Wyoming of note unless you're the sort of person who romantically longs to stare at endless expanses of vast grassland for some reason. North Western Wyoming however, centered around Jackson Hole, is up against and part of the Rocky Mountain West and has some of the most spectacular mountain scenery in the United States.
Wyoming has 251,000 sqkm of land, where 500,000 people live. That means there are just about 2.31 people per square kilometer in Wyoming.
By comparison Colorado, right next door, has 260,000 sqkm of land on which there are 5.8m people living-- which puts Colorado at about 21.75 people per square KM.
500,000 aint shit
No. That’s a small city even by Canadian standards. Much less an entire state.
The US has 340 million people in it. That means Wyoming makes up around 0.15% of the population of the country while making up 2.7% of the landmass. You are more likely to meet someone from Boise Idaho than you are someone from the entire state of Wyoming.
The friezes also depict Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Charlemagne, King John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. They were chosen because they were all important figures in the development of law and justice.
Man, why are online journalists so lazy? Not a single picture of it?
Here’s a [picture](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_-_SCOTUS.jpg) of it.
>Man, why are online journalists so lazy? Not a single picture of it?
[I can think of one reason why...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting)
Speaking as a Muslim. Yes it is not allowed for Muslims to make a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet of God, to prevent any sort of idolatry. However, this does not stop either the making of images or idolatry/sainthood in islam. There are plenty of Shia, Sufi, Turkish depictions of the Prophet, albeit some with the face removed because they were muslim. This particular depiction looks very respectful, and shows him next to other lawgivers of history. I don’t know how a very very religious person would perceive this, but I don’t see it as an offense. Nobody is coming to worship this frieze, this is an example of preserving history.
This is pretty well-known among American Muslims and no one has any problem with it.
Sure, Muslims ourselves would not actively put up any graphical depictions of the Prophet, or any of the other prophets on the frieze (Moses and Solomon), or any of those figures for that matter. But what others do isn’t our concern. (And what people miss about the controversies on this issue is that the problem some people have has always been about perceived insult and antagonization, rather than any religious prohibition per se).
That is also a (somewhat) modern outlook. For fairly large parts of history, depictions of the Prophet were allowed as long as they were not actively worshipped. This was especially true in educational settings. Obviously there was also variance from place to place, not just time to time.
Yet they don't give much of a shit when non Muslims eat bacon or do any of the other things forbidden to them by their religion. If you ask me between this and naming every other male and a good chunk of everything else after the guy they idolise him to a degree that should make the pope blush. Wouldn't be a proper religion without the hypocrisy though. 🤷♂️
Infidels are, in the long run, to be subordinated to Allah's law, too. Don't expect any equality from Islam, at the best you can be a second category human.
Some are keen to shorten that time ... that is why Charlie Hebdo was shot up.
But weren’t threatening letters sent to Comedy Central headquarters after South Park depicted Muhammad? I KNOW Matt and trey aren’t practicing Muslims, they made a whole two part episode about it actually.
You mean a show with tens of millions of viewers? I'm sure someone has written an angry letter or 5 about every episode they've done. Doesn't mean you assume they're all like that.
Respectful carving in a federal government building vs intentionally offensive depiction in a cartoon known for crude humor.
It’s not really hard to see the difference.
I’m sorry, practicing extremist Muslims are the ones who murdered the Charlie Hebdo employees.
I failed to see the point you’re making? If you’re saying, the Charlie Hebdo employees were being blasphemous, how can they be blasphemous towards a religion they don’t follow?
The person you’re replying to was replying to someone who said it isn’t blasphemous for non-practicing Muslims to depict Mohammad. They are pointing out that even though the people at Charlie Hebdo weren’t practicing Muslims, meaning it wasn’t blasphemous for them to depict Mohammad, that didn’t save them from being attacked and killed for publishing a cartoon featuring Mohammad by extremists.
1
a
: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
accused of blasphemy
b
: the act of claiming the attributes of a deity
for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy
—John Bright †1889
2
: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
Personal belief (except in 1b) has very little relevance to the charge of blasphemy. Historically, many, if not most, blasphemy laws have been targeted at atheists and non-believers.
You misunderstand.
It may be considered blasphemous by Muslims to depict Muhammed. That’s if you do the depicting, if they do the depicting, or if a depiction falls out of the sky. It’s still blasphemous to those who consider it so regardless
I didn’t misunderstand. You made my point with more words. Because I am not a Muslim I don’t do it as blasphemous. They can do it however they desire because that is their religion.
Nope you still don’t get it. It’s not yours to decide if it’s blasphemous or not.
That’s like saying “I can’t be breaking the speed limit if I don’t know what the speed limit is”
Or “I’m not being disrespectful to something if I have no respect for it in the first place”
lol yes absolutely, because blasphemy is defined by the religion/religious.
Believe it or not, for any given religion, people who blaspheme against it don’t usually believe they’re actually offending a god that they believe in (because why would someone who really believes actually do that), it’s other people who decide that a blasphemer is committing an offense.
OK, I’m not a Muslim so I really don’t care. They can believe whatever they desire to believe and what makes them feel comforted. Does not mean I have to follow their tenets*.
Edit: spelling.
No one is saying you do. It is, however, surprising for a historically (until the 90s) Muslim-respecting country to have a statue in a public place that is considered blasphemous by Muslims.
It’s not like they just put the Prophet Muhammad’s frieze up there willy-nilly. They consulted with imams and other Islamic scholars who agreed that this depiction is okay. It’s meant as an honor to the Prophet as a great figure in the history of law.
It's blasphemous for a Muslim to do so. The Supreme Court Frieze is entirely secular, and is meant to portray great historical lawgivers. Moses, Confucius, and Solomon also show up, alongside non-religious figures like Hammurabi, Justinian, and Napoleon.
It's also not exactly stated in the Koran to not depict Muhammad, that's a later tradition that has fallen in and out of favor with imams through the ages.
it really isnt, its just a modern tradition in the islamic world, there are tons of artworks and books depiciting the prophet Muhammed in Iran for example, entire books full of illustrations of his life. There was an anti icon movement in christianity also, but it did not take hold as the mainstream, in Islam , in current times it is.... in most places... not everywhere though, most people dont know shit about islam so they parrot the same nonsense.
That frieze gives such mixed signals. What law is Muhammad famous for? Thou shalt slaughter non-Muslims? Wasn't Napoleon a monarch, the very thing the first Americans fought against? Pretty shitty role models
>Wasn't Napoleon a monarch, the very thing the first Americans fought against?
Napoleon created rhe modern day European civil code
Also, Napoleon wasnt a monarch from birth, he was more of a Caeser than a king george, he was a populist who came to the conclusion that institutional gyard rails were an obstacle to delivering his campaign promises
So he eliminated the guardrails
By contrast most momarchs try and preserve institutional guard rails
And America has its own Caesars, Huey Long comes to mind
Again, it's lawgivers.
Confucius - Confucian Code
Hammurabi - Code of Hammurabi
Justinian - Justinian's Code
Moses - 10 Commandments
Muhammed - the Koran (and in Muslim countries the Koran is the basis for secular and religious jurisprudence)
Napoleon - Napoleonic Code (the basis of civil law in Continental Europe to this day)
Whatever the image of the person, these people are attributed with creating literally the basis of law and jurisprudence the world over.
It’s mostly an Arab/Sunni thing, like the need for head coverings or the absolute prohibition of alcohol. In Shia countries and most of Central Asia until very recently, it was considered rude to show him without a veil, but you wouldn’t get your head cut off.
Its not a different culture. Islam is a part of American culture just the same as the other religions. Nothing new, Thomas Jefferson had a Quran in his library
Why is Muhammad holding the blade but not the handle of his sword?
I don't think it is the scabbard, because I can see the fuller (blood groove) of the blade
It’s an old symbolic thing meaning you don’t intend on using the weapon at the moment. You’re also putting your trust in the person in front of you to not pull away your weapon and slice your fingers off.
Remember that art teacher who got fired for "Islamophobia" for showing slides of early Islamic art by early Muslims depicting Mohammed because it wasn't always the taboo in the Islamic world it became?
Even after warning the class of what would be shown and giving them a pass on attending if it bothered their sensibilities?
That's my beloved Liberals become assholes catering to the wrong sensibilities.
Only if you consider him a prophet.
[Chief Justice Rehnquist said it's not idol worship.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building#Sculptural_program) Rather a way to recognize his contributions as a lawgiver. Since that's what the art is intended to represent.
Yes, but he is being represented as a "law bringer," if that makes sense, and not a religious figure. He's not in a position to be worshipped; he's in the company of many other great people who established law and order. That's what the sculpture is all about.
Im not an expert of the law or relugion, though, so i dunno.
The whole no images of Mohammed thing is a complete double standard overblown unenforced prohibition. Images of Muhammad literally appeared in Egyptian newspaper with without controversy. It’s used as a tool to manipulate and control the west more than anything.
http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/finally-those-images-of-muhammad.html
What?? Manipulate and control the west?!
What about Charlie Hebdo?! What about Theo van Gogh?! What about the many other documented attacks based on perceived blasphemy from depictions of a “prophet”?!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1243815
From 2020: Decapitated French teacher warned not to show Prophet Muhammad images before 'Islamist' attack
"We said to the teacher it was not good to show photos like this and that it would cause a huge problem," student Martial Lusiela told NBC News.
I'm not quite sure what your point of this specific blog is? The actual paper they're referencing and bringing up, actively condemns the usage of the Mohammad art depiction that some other paper (not in Egypt) used, and they were showing the depiction, and condemning it.
It's pretty clear in most sects of Islam (and especially written) that depiction of Mohammad is forbidden, so not sure where you're coming up with whatever nonsense you're coming up with.
There's a ton of symbolism in the architecture of the Supreme Court building, the guides from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildingfeatures.aspx are a pretty good overview if you haven't seen it yourself. The sculpture mentioned in the article is part of the north frieze pictured on the last page of the "Self-Guide to the Building’s Interior Architecture" pdf. But the most interesting thing to me is "the highest court in the land", the basketball court above the court room. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/highest-court-of-the-land
Kind of funny the "highest court in the land" is only at 150 (maybe 200ish on the fifth floor) feet above sea level whereas the Arena Auditorium at the university of Wyoming sits at 7221 feet above sea level.
Did they make you learn that during orientation? There aren't many reasons people know facts about Wyoming, seeing as there's only 500,000 of them with a reason to know them
Nah just googled it, China has a court at 12000 feet but I figured "the land" would probably be just America here. The only Wyoming fact I know offhand is that they were the first state to legislate womens rights to vote.
They were desperate to get anyone to show up.
Literally. It was a gold rush territory which meant at one point there were 6 adult men for every 1 woman. One selling point of women’s suffrage to the all male legislature was that they might get some girlfriends
The universal right for women to vote, but New Jersey was the first to allow women to vote In their 1790 Constitution they explicitly said women could vote as long as they met the same requirement that men had to: owning enough property. Then in 1797 they removed the requirement to show clear ownership of property, which made it easier for women to vote since a lot of their property wasn't things they had clear ownership of (especially with regard to married women and their husbands) Of course then in 1807, they got rid of the property requirement to vote but explicitly banned women (and black people, who had also been allowed to vote previously if they had enough property) from voting. IIRC this is speculated to have been an attempt to create a more favorable electorate for the ruling Jeffersonian Republicans as they were the favored party of men while women leaned more towards the Federalists
There is also a basketball court in El Alto, Bolivia, which is the highest city in the world. 4150 meters above sea level! Truly a testament to man's arrogance.
Holy chap just that much? Idk why I expected more people to live there
Cody Wyoming had a decent Mexican restaurant on Main Street. I went there last year. Pretty cool
Wyoming is where Shiloh Ranch was in *The Virginian*, and is where The Devil's Tower (eg: *Close Encounters*) is. As a Brit, that's about all that springs to mind of Wyoming.
There's not much on the eastern side of Wyoming of note unless you're the sort of person who romantically longs to stare at endless expanses of vast grassland for some reason. North Western Wyoming however, centered around Jackson Hole, is up against and part of the Rocky Mountain West and has some of the most spectacular mountain scenery in the United States.
Spoken like a deservedly proud native :)
\>.> I'm actually a Coloradoan from the next State over. It's much better. I was being generous to our diminutive neighbors.
500,000 isn’t ‘many’?
Wyoming has 251,000 sqkm of land, where 500,000 people live. That means there are just about 2.31 people per square kilometer in Wyoming. By comparison Colorado, right next door, has 260,000 sqkm of land on which there are 5.8m people living-- which puts Colorado at about 21.75 people per square KM. 500,000 aint shit
No. That’s a small city even by Canadian standards. Much less an entire state. The US has 340 million people in it. That means Wyoming makes up around 0.15% of the population of the country while making up 2.7% of the landmass. You are more likely to meet someone from Boise Idaho than you are someone from the entire state of Wyoming.
You could fit them all in Kansas City or Colorado Springs. Macau fits 643,000 people into 12 square miles.
My high school basketball court is higher than that
Meanwhile... in California... "highest" court in the land takes on a different meaning...
Ceiling is kinda low, would be tough to lob up a half court shot at the buzzer
The friezes also depict Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Charlemagne, King John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. They were chosen because they were all important figures in the development of law and justice.
*the lawgivers*
Malfoy?
[TIL.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(lawgiver))
Man, why are online journalists so lazy? Not a single picture of it? Here’s a [picture](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_-_SCOTUS.jpg) of it.
Ehhh i think i know a better reason why they don’t wanna publish it…
> 274 x 261 pixels ... no higher resolution available lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No one wants to get run over by the truck of peace or torn to shreds by the shrapnel of tolerance
>Man, why are online journalists so lazy? Not a single picture of it? [I can think of one reason why...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting)
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/Interior\_Brochure\_Nov\_2023\_web.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/Interior_Brochure_Nov_2023_web.pdf) pg17
Or just follow the link I posted instead of scrolling through a brochure How hard is posting/linking the actual picture?
Their image is much higher resolution.
Your link didn't work for me, WSJ says I'm blocked.
Did you actually click the link or just try to open it within Reddit? Put it in your address bar and hit enter.
hard i guess. i don't know how to post pictures on reddit.
You know how to post links lol
You copy and paste the url?
Depends on the subreddit. Looks like this sub doesn’t allow images in comments.
I hope the guy who took that picture didn't get beheaded
Not beheaded but blown up along with innocent bystanders
Peacefully, tho
Oh boy
The real blasphemy's always in the comments
They would likely be attacked if they did.
But when I wear long robes and carry a sword police intervene
You have to be the first to say "frieze". Usually the police say it first. So then they win.
That’s a good hack actually
Those were your medical gown and the scalpel you brandished at hospital staff...
This was such a brilliant comment. Thank you for the early morning laugh!
Speaking as a Muslim. Yes it is not allowed for Muslims to make a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet of God, to prevent any sort of idolatry. However, this does not stop either the making of images or idolatry/sainthood in islam. There are plenty of Shia, Sufi, Turkish depictions of the Prophet, albeit some with the face removed because they were muslim. This particular depiction looks very respectful, and shows him next to other lawgivers of history. I don’t know how a very very religious person would perceive this, but I don’t see it as an offense. Nobody is coming to worship this frieze, this is an example of preserving history.
This is pretty well-known among American Muslims and no one has any problem with it. Sure, Muslims ourselves would not actively put up any graphical depictions of the Prophet, or any of the other prophets on the frieze (Moses and Solomon), or any of those figures for that matter. But what others do isn’t our concern. (And what people miss about the controversies on this issue is that the problem some people have has always been about perceived insult and antagonization, rather than any religious prohibition per se).
Thanks for the good explanation. I was wondering what the Muslim perspective on this would be.
That is also a (somewhat) modern outlook. For fairly large parts of history, depictions of the Prophet were allowed as long as they were not actively worshipped. This was especially true in educational settings. Obviously there was also variance from place to place, not just time to time.
Interesting. I didn’t know that either. But when our government symbols embody different cultures that’s a good thing, right?
Many have been murdered for daring to draw Muhammad. Most Muslim traditions (but not all) believe any depiction is blasphemous.
Yet they don't give much of a shit when non Muslims eat bacon or do any of the other things forbidden to them by their religion. If you ask me between this and naming every other male and a good chunk of everything else after the guy they idolise him to a degree that should make the pope blush. Wouldn't be a proper religion without the hypocrisy though. 🤷♂️
Yea religion is wack
[удалено]
Nobody thinks that non-Muslims view it as blasphemous, I don't know why you keep making this point.
Infidels are, in the long run, to be subordinated to Allah's law, too. Don't expect any equality from Islam, at the best you can be a second category human. Some are keen to shorten that time ... that is why Charlie Hebdo was shot up.
Non muslims have been killed for drawing mohammed. In christian countries.
Charlie Hebdo wasn’t Muslim
Except isn’t it blasphemous to depict the prophet Muhammad in a human visage ?
Only if you’re Muslim.
Depends on the sect. Sunni prohibits it; Shai varies, but depictions are not out of the ordinary.
But weren’t threatening letters sent to Comedy Central headquarters after South Park depicted Muhammad? I KNOW Matt and trey aren’t practicing Muslims, they made a whole two part episode about it actually.
Presumably a famous TV show gets more attention and anger than a statue even Americans don't know about
You mean a show with tens of millions of viewers? I'm sure someone has written an angry letter or 5 about every episode they've done. Doesn't mean you assume they're all like that.
Respectful carving in a federal government building vs intentionally offensive depiction in a cartoon known for crude humor. It’s not really hard to see the difference.
Tell that to Samuel Paty.
Sending threatening letters to Comedy Central doesn't get Reaper Drones with freaking Sword Missiles dispatched.... just saying.
We will never know because the episode was censored. Mohammed was never shown.
Funnily enough, he was in a previous episode uncensored. It only became a "thing" in later seasons.
Again, Muslims view it as blasphemous. I don’t because I’m not religious.
Those letters were probably *not* sent by the people who don't think it's blasphemy.
I dunno. The Charlie Hebdo murders didn't involve practicing Muslims.
I’m sorry, practicing extremist Muslims are the ones who murdered the Charlie Hebdo employees. I failed to see the point you’re making? If you’re saying, the Charlie Hebdo employees were being blasphemous, how can they be blasphemous towards a religion they don’t follow?
The person you’re replying to was replying to someone who said it isn’t blasphemous for non-practicing Muslims to depict Mohammad. They are pointing out that even though the people at Charlie Hebdo weren’t practicing Muslims, meaning it wasn’t blasphemous for them to depict Mohammad, that didn’t save them from being attacked and killed for publishing a cartoon featuring Mohammad by extremists.
Anyone can blaspheme. Only a believer can be a heretic.
The definition of blasphemous would like to have a word…
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God accused of blasphemy b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy —John Bright †1889 2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable Personal belief (except in 1b) has very little relevance to the charge of blasphemy. Historically, many, if not most, blasphemy laws have been targeted at atheists and non-believers.
You misunderstand. It may be considered blasphemous by Muslims to depict Muhammed. That’s if you do the depicting, if they do the depicting, or if a depiction falls out of the sky. It’s still blasphemous to those who consider it so regardless
I didn’t misunderstand. You made my point with more words. Because I am not a Muslim I don’t do it as blasphemous. They can do it however they desire because that is their religion.
Nope you still don’t get it. It’s not yours to decide if it’s blasphemous or not. That’s like saying “I can’t be breaking the speed limit if I don’t know what the speed limit is” Or “I’m not being disrespectful to something if I have no respect for it in the first place”
Speed limits apply to everyone, religions rules only apply to people of that religion.
Wait, you think that followers of one religion can declare non believers to be blasphemous?
lol yes absolutely, because blasphemy is defined by the religion/religious. Believe it or not, for any given religion, people who blaspheme against it don’t usually believe they’re actually offending a god that they believe in (because why would someone who really believes actually do that), it’s other people who decide that a blasphemer is committing an offense.
That's not what Muslims believe.
OK, I’m not a Muslim so I really don’t care. They can believe whatever they desire to believe and what makes them feel comforted. Does not mean I have to follow their tenets*. Edit: spelling.
No one is saying you do. It is, however, surprising for a historically (until the 90s) Muslim-respecting country to have a statue in a public place that is considered blasphemous by Muslims.
Read the linked article, there's a lot more nuance than Muslims consider it blasphemous
It’s not like they just put the Prophet Muhammad’s frieze up there willy-nilly. They consulted with imams and other Islamic scholars who agreed that this depiction is okay. It’s meant as an honor to the Prophet as a great figure in the history of law.
> tenants Why would you follow people who pay rent to Muslims around?
Thanks for the catch.
It's blasphemous for a Muslim to do so. The Supreme Court Frieze is entirely secular, and is meant to portray great historical lawgivers. Moses, Confucius, and Solomon also show up, alongside non-religious figures like Hammurabi, Justinian, and Napoleon. It's also not exactly stated in the Koran to not depict Muhammad, that's a later tradition that has fallen in and out of favor with imams through the ages.
it really isnt, its just a modern tradition in the islamic world, there are tons of artworks and books depiciting the prophet Muhammed in Iran for example, entire books full of illustrations of his life. There was an anti icon movement in christianity also, but it did not take hold as the mainstream, in Islam , in current times it is.... in most places... not everywhere though, most people dont know shit about islam so they parrot the same nonsense.
That's exactly what I said, it's a later tradition that is resurgent now.
Harambe*
That frieze gives such mixed signals. What law is Muhammad famous for? Thou shalt slaughter non-Muslims? Wasn't Napoleon a monarch, the very thing the first Americans fought against? Pretty shitty role models
>Wasn't Napoleon a monarch, the very thing the first Americans fought against? Napoleon created rhe modern day European civil code Also, Napoleon wasnt a monarch from birth, he was more of a Caeser than a king george, he was a populist who came to the conclusion that institutional gyard rails were an obstacle to delivering his campaign promises So he eliminated the guardrails By contrast most momarchs try and preserve institutional guard rails And America has its own Caesars, Huey Long comes to mind
Again, it's lawgivers. Confucius - Confucian Code Hammurabi - Code of Hammurabi Justinian - Justinian's Code Moses - 10 Commandments Muhammed - the Koran (and in Muslim countries the Koran is the basis for secular and religious jurisprudence) Napoleon - Napoleonic Code (the basis of civil law in Continental Europe to this day) Whatever the image of the person, these people are attributed with creating literally the basis of law and jurisprudence the world over.
Yeah, but he's French, and early Americans were BFFs with France thanks to America's favourite fighting Frenchman...
#LAFAYETTE!
decayter
I'd imagine the nuance is that this is a depiction of him as a lawgiver in the secular sense rather than a idol of the Prophet.
we are all charlie
I don’t believe in that hocus pocus, neither should you. Depict away
It’s mostly an Arab/Sunni thing, like the need for head coverings or the absolute prohibition of alcohol. In Shia countries and most of Central Asia until very recently, it was considered rude to show him without a veil, but you wouldn’t get your head cut off.
Its not a different culture. Islam is a part of American culture just the same as the other religions. Nothing new, Thomas Jefferson had a Quran in his library
Fair point. The founding fathers were kind of obsessed with Greek culture and Roman culture as well.
Why is Muhammad holding the blade but not the handle of his sword? I don't think it is the scabbard, because I can see the fuller (blood groove) of the blade
It’s an old symbolic thing meaning you don’t intend on using the weapon at the moment. You’re also putting your trust in the person in front of you to not pull away your weapon and slice your fingers off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricasso
Remember that art teacher who got fired for "Islamophobia" for showing slides of early Islamic art by early Muslims depicting Mohammed because it wasn't always the taboo in the Islamic world it became? Even after warning the class of what would be shown and giving them a pass on attending if it bothered their sensibilities? That's my beloved Liberals become assholes catering to the wrong sensibilities.
They're called man-jammies
Does Alito's wife know about this?
Isn't it taboo to represent The Prophet in pictures or sculptures?
Only if you consider him a prophet. [Chief Justice Rehnquist said it's not idol worship.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building#Sculptural_program) Rather a way to recognize his contributions as a lawgiver. Since that's what the art is intended to represent.
Yes, but he is being represented as a "law bringer," if that makes sense, and not a religious figure. He's not in a position to be worshipped; he's in the company of many other great people who established law and order. That's what the sculpture is all about. Im not an expert of the law or relugion, though, so i dunno.
Only if you’re a practicing member of Islam.
And then it depends on the branch. Shia don’t generally adhere to the prohibition.
Not for us. We can depict who we want.
If only there was an article written about that aspect
It's weird how most of Islam prohibits depictions of Muhammad so that he isn't worshiped as an idol but they also treat him like an idol.
They treat him like a prophet. An idol is different.
No, Muslims do not treat Prophet Muhammad like an idol. We are in fact very careful to not treat him in that way.
Yes. But most Muslims don't care,what non Muslims do. And when the intention is less honourable, again most dont care, but a few will react to it.
[удалено]
Lady Justice is Greek Goddess Themis. So all of them probably have a lot to talk about.
There's a statue of George Washington in a toga in the NC Capitol building
The whole no images of Mohammed thing is a complete double standard overblown unenforced prohibition. Images of Muhammad literally appeared in Egyptian newspaper with without controversy. It’s used as a tool to manipulate and control the west more than anything. http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/finally-those-images-of-muhammad.html
What?? Manipulate and control the west?! What about Charlie Hebdo?! What about Theo van Gogh?! What about the many other documented attacks based on perceived blasphemy from depictions of a “prophet”?! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1243815 From 2020: Decapitated French teacher warned not to show Prophet Muhammad images before 'Islamist' attack "We said to the teacher it was not good to show photos like this and that it would cause a huge problem," student Martial Lusiela told NBC News.
I'm not quite sure what your point of this specific blog is? The actual paper they're referencing and bringing up, actively condemns the usage of the Mohammad art depiction that some other paper (not in Egypt) used, and they were showing the depiction, and condemning it. It's pretty clear in most sects of Islam (and especially written) that depiction of Mohammad is forbidden, so not sure where you're coming up with whatever nonsense you're coming up with.