Unacceptable Targets: Difference between revisions

Culturally, attacking [[Muhammad]] is one of the big no-nos in Islam, like the case with Ataturk in Turkey. Even displaying an image of him is pretty taboo,<ref>Some people didn't get the memo stating 'political cartoon =/= idolatry' in the West - or did get it and considered it a case of [[Values Dissonance]].</ref> since it also runs into the general creed on not depicting people or even animals in some parts of Muslim faith. Notably, however, this doesn't extend to most of the Western world, which has precipitated a load of conflicts recently and usually ends up with the artist in question being threatened with a fatwa proclaiming their death.<ref>Or actual arson.</ref> Opinions are divided over whether to portray Muhammad or not is acceptable however, even between Muslims. Some, namely Shia Muslims, are fine with artistic depictions of Muhammad so as long as said depiction does not venture into idolatry or are done in bad faith. As a matter of fact, many of the paintings and illustrations depicting Muhammad were made by ''Muslims for Muslims'', who certainly drew them in good faith and with reverence to their Prophet. Others, particularly the Sunni denomination who take up an overwhelming majority, take umbrage and virulently oppose such practices, preferring to leave the Prophet [[The Faceless|faceless]]. Thereand are alsodismissing those, notablywho thedrew SunniMuhammad sect,as having committed a sin. And there are also those who take the latterno-idols rule [[Up to Eleven|to the extreme]] and ''declare any and all artwork of humans and animals as idolatry'' and thus forbidden, case in point the Taliban who notoriously banned television and other forms of media during their regime, under the belief that it promoted idolatry according to their ideology.