# The Fallen Blogger and the Spectre of Secularism **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 28, 2015, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827 "2015-02-28T03:21:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 39
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/761 "2015-05-07T18:56:00Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > **A’isha** , I was going to send you a PM about this but what the hell, it might as well be said public : not only is your counter-trolling form just about perfect, I’m genuinely grateful for the book suggestions and reviews. I’ll be sure to work some of them into the pipe (_Lives of Muhammad_ in particular seems fascinating) Thank you! :o Kecia Ali is one of my favorite scholars. Every single one of her books is brilliant, and she’s well worth following on Twitter, too. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/762 "2015-05-07T19:02:51Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](#): > > The hadith contains strict prohibitions against depicting Muhammed in any form. Hell, I’m no scholar on Islam by any stretch of the imagination and even I can field that one : “strict” and “hadith” is pretty much an oxymoron. What the Quran says is one thing, and cannot be touched (…to some extent. I know there are some Muslim scholars at least who made the case that Uthman fucked with the text for political reasons) ; but the hadiths seem like they’re more of a free-for-all. Which hadith is dubious, which is fo’ sho’ wholly made up, what this or that bit of a hadith _really_ entails if you squint just right, whether hadiths should even be a thing to begin with (Muhammad himself was dead set against them… according to some hadiths 😃 ; and there have been a number of _sola scriptura_ Muslim sects over the centuries)… From what precious little I know that’s \*\*all \*\*subject to lots and lots and \*lots \*of debate, arguing and pulling of beards. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/763 "2015-05-07T19:07:42Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > [Iran bans ‘homosexual’ and ‘devil worshipping’ hairstyles](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/iran-bans-devil-worshipping-homosexual-hairstyles) From the linked article: > [@](#): > > Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, has spoken against such crackdowns, stating that the police’s duty is to implement the law and not enforce Islam. But hardliners have remained defiant. > > […] > > In controversial remarks last week, Rouhani told a group of senior Iranian officers: “Police do not have a duty to enforce Islam. No police officer can do something and say he did it because God commanded it, or the prophet had said so. It has nothing to do with the police.” > > He added: “The police only have one duty: to implement the law. That’s it.” But I’m sure that’s just _taqiya_ or some junk, right, **Haberdash?** Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia may be one of the only English-language books available that delves into the history and ideology of that group, but even if it weren’t it’d still be one of the best. It clearly lays out the origins of the group, where they derived their twisted version of Islam from, and how they achieved political power in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviets. This expanded 2nd Edition covers Osama Bin Laden’s rocky relationship with them and events after the US invasion, explaining why the group still plagues the country today even after being toppled from power. Afghanistan doesn’t get much attention these days, but it’s still a vital battleground in the fight against Islamic extremism, and this book does a phenomenal job of explaining the whos and whys of it. Oh, and speaking of Afghanistan, this just happened yesterday: A[fghan court sentences 4 to death for killing woman accused of burning Quran](http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/asia/afghanistan-woman-killed/). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/764 "2015-05-07T19:11:55Z")
[**Haberdash** is a douchebag:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18348107&postcount=764) > [@](#): > > **Haberdash** is a douchebag ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/765 "2015-05-07T19:13:45Z")
😃 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/766 "2015-05-07T19:16:42Z")
Going for suicide by Mod, is my take on it. And yeah, kudos to **A’isha** for the links. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/767 "2015-05-07T22:40:53Z")
[Mentally ill woman battered to death by angry mob for burning the Koran](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/afghanistan-mentally-ill-woman-battered-death-by-angry-mob-burning-koran-1492776) > [@](#): > > The 27-year-old victim, named only as ‘Farkhunda’ and who is believed to have been mentally ill, was lynched by a crowd of men near the Shah-e Doh Shamshira shrine and mosque after she was allegedly seen burning a copy of the Koran. > > The video of the attack shows the woman being battered, stamped on and beaten and struck with a piece of wood. One of the attackers hurls a brick at her as she lay on the ground, and others are seen kicking and punching her lifeless body. Her body was then taken to the Kabul river where it was burned. > > Several of the men in the video can bee seen filming the attack with their mobile phones. The footage later surfaced on social media websites. It was later revealed that she was neither mentally ill nor burning the Koran, and was in fact a teacher of the Koran. Extortion by threats of Koran-libel is common in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Pay me every week or I’ll tell the local lynch mob that you burned a Koran,” basically. It usually targets religious minorities, but as we see here, not always. The lynch mob is always available at a moment’s notice, of course. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/768 "2015-05-07T22:48:50Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > [Mentally ill woman battered to death by angry mob for burning the Koran](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/afghanistan-mentally-ill-woman-battered-death-by-angry-mob-burning-koran-1492776) > > It was later revealed that she was neither mentally ill nor burning the Koran, and was in fact a teacher of the Koran. > > Extortion by threats of Koran-libel is common in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Pay me every week or I’ll tell the local lynch mob that you burned a Koran,” basically. It usually targets religious minorities, but as we see here, not always. > > The lynch mob is always available at a moment’s notice, of course. And yet you stand by and continue to do nothing. Shameful. BTW, that’s the same case already mentioned by **A’isha** in post 763. You’re not even reading your own links, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/769 "2015-05-07T23:14:27Z")
[Indonesian Islamic parties seek alcohol ban](http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/asia/2015/04/14/Indonesian-lawmakers-propose-bill-to-ban-alcohol-consumption.html) > [@](#): > > Two Islamic parties have proposed legislation that would ban all consumption of alcoholic drinks and bring jail terms of up to two years for offenders in Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, the Jakarta Post said on Tuesday. > [@](#): > > “Under the bill, consuming alcoholic beverages could land a person in jail as it will be treated similarly to drug trafficking,” the daily quoted Muhammad Arwani Thomafi, a member of one of the two parties, as saying. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/770 "2015-05-08T00:05:12Z")
[18th Amendment to the US Constitution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) > [@](#): > > ``` > Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. > > Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > > Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here to the States by the Congress. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/771 "2015-05-08T00:19:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Hell, I’m no scholar on Islam by any stretch of the imagination and even I can field that one : “strict” and “hadith” is pretty much an oxymoron. > > What the Quran says is one thing, and cannot be touched (…to some extent. I know there are some Muslim scholars at least who made the case that Uthman fucked with the text for political reasons) ; but the hadiths seem like they’re more of a free-for-all. > Which hadith is dubious, which is fo’ sho’ wholly made up, what this or that bit of a hadith _really_ entails if you squint just right, whether hadiths should even be a thing to begin with (Muhammad himself was dead set against them… according to some hadiths 😃 ; and there have been a number of _sola scriptura_ Muslim sects over the centuries)… From what precious little I know that’s \*\*all \*\*subject to lots and lots and \*lots \*of debate, arguing and pulling of beards. It is of little practical value to make such a distinction: if a large group of followers believe a Hadith must be strictly adhered to, whether or not it is considered universally-accepted is rather irrelevant. For example, the concept of the 7 deadly sins is only taken with great sincerity among Catholics. If one of those sins was, for example, homosexuality, it would be foolish to dismiss that because it wasn’t universally accepted; a large number drawing from historical text is a large number drawing from historical text. Such text deserves scrutiny and cannot casually be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/772 "2015-05-08T00:19:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [18th Amendment to the US Constitution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Not to mention that there are _ **still** _ dry counties, cities, and towns in quite a few parts of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/773 "2015-05-08T00:21:13Z")
Okay, there’s a lot to catch up on so I’ll try to keep this brief. All [bracketed] clarifying edits are mine **Aisha,** if you don’t mind I’m going to address your points out of sequence, starting with this one: > [@me](#): > > The hadith contains strict prohibitions against depicting Muhammed in any form. > > > [@Aisha](#): > > > > Which hadith are these? I may have to do some back-peddling here. What I’ve read up until now seemed to indicate that there were hadith which explicitly forbade depictions of Muhammed. For instance, this [BBC](https://boards.straightdope.com/1/hi/world/middle_east/4674864.stm) article states: \*"Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions. More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative."\* There are other sources which say very similar things, and I fear now that I may have placed too much trust in them. When I searched for hadith which _explicitly_ stated that depictions _of Muhammed specifically_ were forbidden I couldn’t find any. The only hadith I could find were ones which forbade any form of figurative depiction at all. Obviously, this includes Muhammed, but I couldn’t find anything which said, essentially, that pictures of him were _especially_ forbidden. Nonetheless, there is, obviously, a strong cultural taboo against such depictions. While only a handful of muslims have killed cartoonists over them, tens of thousands rioted when the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were published, and opinion polls show that, even in secular countries like the UK, a clear majority of muslims oppose depictions of Muhammed. If, as I feel I must now concede, this taboo doesn’t arise from scripture, where does it come from? > [@me](#): > > This strain [of Islam to which those who respond to pictures of Muhammed with violence seem to adhere], more to the point, has solid scriptural foundations. > > > [@Aisha](#): > > > > The Iranians don’t seem to think so. True. Then again, it seems like the Saudis and other Sunni Islam states do. If their objections aren’t based on scripture, what are they based on? > [@me](#): > > We are all at perfect liberty to, for instance, burn a Koran, but no-one in their right mind would ever do it. > > > [@Aisha](#): > > > > Terry Jones, a deranged Christian pastor from Florida, gained quite a bit of notoriety for doing exactly that. Multiple times, in fact. Well…I _did_ say “no-one in their right mind”. I’m pretty sure that guy doesn’t qualify 🙂 Besides, there are other incidents which go the other way. When, in 2005, it was merely _rumoured_ that guards at Guantanamo Bay had defaced a Koran there were violent anti-American protests all over the middle east. > [@Aisha](#): > > There are some Muslims (mainly part of an existing terror network that has been mainly engaged in murdering other Muslims) who target certain individuals in well-publicized incidents, but the majority of Muslims don’t want to have anything to do with those violent assholes. I know. I never stated that the majority of muslims want to kill people who satirise Muhammed. I merely said (perhaps erroneously) that the scriptural justification existed for those who do. > [@Aisha](#): > > You just answered your own question. Take the Muslim humor site I linked you to before. I found the satire article about “Muslim Doctors Create Frankenhafiz” to be funny…but would you? Would you even understand what was being mocked? > > \ > > There are plenty of satires of the kinds of Muslim extremists who do things like carry out attacks on the people you list, though. Gyrate even linked you to some in the post you replied to! Firstly, you’re right. That satire article went completely over my head. However, that’s not the kind of satire/comedy I’m talking about. I’m talking about satirising Muhammed directly. _That_, undeniably, carries significant risk. And, contrary to what you and **Gyrate** are saying, it doesn’t require intimate knowledge of Islam or Muhammed to carry off. Let me give you an example. Have you ever seen ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera’? It’s actually quite a funny show, but there’s a particular scene where the character of Jesus (who, if memory serves, is wearing a diaper for some reason) is singing a duet with Satan that goes a little bit like this: Jesus: “I am Jesus and I love all mankind.” Chorus: “Jesus is gay! Jesus is gay!” Jesus: “Actually, I _am_ a little bit gay…” Now, I submit the following: 1. You don’t need to know anything whatsoever about Christianity to get that joke. 2. That joke would work equally well if, instead of Jesus, it was _Muhammed_ saying “Actually, I’m a little bit gay”. 3. Anyone who actually put on a show with Muhammed saying that (in a diaper, no less!) would run a serious risk of being gutted in the street like Theo Van Gogh. _Most_ religious satire is dumb and unsophisticated. This idea that, in order to be successful, or, at the very least, crowd-pleasing, a satire of Muhammed would need to be witty and nuanced is complete balderdash. It can be broad, ugly, unsophisticated, and downright dumb as hell and it would still work. And I retract my previous claim that such comedy wouldn’t be financially viable. The controversy alone would likely guarantee that any such satire would turn a prophet. The main reason it hasn’t been done is that it simply isn’t worth the risk. Of the links **Gyrate** provided the only one which I would count as satire of Muhammed is Jesus and Mo, and even that isn’t without risk. When, in defiance of the censorious impulses of some of his co-religionists, UK politician Maajid Nawaz tweeted a Jesus and Mo cartoon, he immediately started getting death threats. So that example really proves my point, not yours. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/774 "2015-05-08T00:43:35Z")
> [@me](#): > > The controversy alone would likely guarantee that any such satire would turn a prophet. Oh, fuck me! I _swear_ that was unintentional :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/775 "2015-05-08T01:10:00Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](#): > > Nonetheless, there is, obviously, a strong cultural taboo against such depictions. While only a handful of muslims have killed cartoonists over them, tens of thousands rioted when the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were published, and opinion polls show that, even in secular countries like the UK, a clear majority of muslims oppose depictions of Muhammed. If, as I feel I must now concede, this taboo doesn’t arise from scripture, where does it come from? I’m not qualified to speak to the scriptural element, but I think the reasons for the rioting and other violence around these sorts of cartoons doesn’t stem from violating a taboo against depicting Mohammed (as has been pointed out, something that’s common in many Muslim cultures) but are because these cartoons are intensely and deliberately insulting. They’re not rioting over a picture, per se, but over the fact that a bunch of Westerners, while taking a break from bombing their countries, have gone out of their way to say, “Fuck you, Muslims!” Not, obviously, that rioting (or worse) is an acceptable response to that, but I’m not aware of any riots over respectful or even neutral portrayals of Mohammed. Which you would expect, if the issue were only, “Don’t draw the Prophet.” > [@](#): > > Of the links **Gyrate** provided the only one which I would count as satire of Muhammed is Jesus and Mo, and even that isn’t without risk. When, in defiance of the censorious impulses of some of his co-religionists, UK politician Maajid Nawaz tweeted a Jesus and Mo cartoon, he immediately started getting death threats. So that example really proves my point, not yours. Westerners routinely send death threats to people for not liking a video game. True, none of them have ever carried through, which definitely gives them a leg up over radical Islam, but “Gets a lot of death threats on Twitter,” is pretty much what happens if you start a Twitter account. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/776 "2015-05-08T02:06:13Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > [Iran bans ‘homosexual’ and ‘devil worshipping’ hairstyles](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/05/iran-bans-devil-worshipping-homosexual-hairstyles) You give me Iran, I give you [Uganda](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/-sp-gay-ugandans-face-new-threat-from-anti-homosexuality-law). And [Russia](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/07/the-25-most-shocking-anti-gay-stories-from-russia-so-far/). And [Jamaica](http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/21/jamaica-unchecked-homophobic-violence). ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/777 "2015-05-08T03:37:19Z")
[Maldives enacts criminal code based on draft by law prof and students](http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/maldives_enacts_criminal_code_based_on_draft_by_law_prof_and_students) > [@](#): > > The Maldives has adopted a new criminal code based on the work of University of Pennsylvania law professor Paul Robinson and a group of law and Ph.D. students. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEc6UfeUsAA0b9w.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEc6UfeUsAA0b9w.jpg:large) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/778 "2015-05-08T04:41:12Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > [Maldives enacts criminal code based on draft by law prof and students](http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/maldives_enacts_criminal_code_based_on_draft_by_law_prof_and_students) > > [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEc6UfeUsAA0b9w.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEc6UfeUsAA0b9w.jpg:large) You’re really not even reading these any more, are you? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/779 "2015-05-08T05:22:31Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > [Maldives enacts criminal code based on draft by law prof and students](http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/maldives_enacts_criminal_code_based_on_draft_by_law_prof_and_students) > > [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEc6UfeUsAA0b9w.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEc6UfeUsAA0b9w.jpg:large) Pretty much run out of the good stuff, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827/780 "2015-05-08T07:47:15Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > It is of little practical value to make such a distinction: if a large group of followers believe a Hadith must be strictly adhered to, whether or not it is considered universally-accepted is rather irrelevant. It is when people assert that “a group of followers believe a hadith must be strictly adhered to” and “Muslims believe this hadith must be strictly adhered to” are equivalent statements. To give you a relatable example : a nonzero subset of American Protestants are dead set against homosexuality and point to a few specific lines of Leviticus to support their phobia (the fact that it’s the only bits of Leviticus they feel are relevant or worth strictly observing is left unspoken. GOD HATES SHELLFISH !). But there’s quite a large gap to bridge between this assertion of fact and the statement “Christians hate gays because Leviticus contains strict prohibitions against homosexuality”, dig ? > [@](#): > > For example, the concept of the 7 deadly sins is only taken with great sincerity among Catholics. Popular misconception. There’s a lot more than seven [mortal sins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin) in catholic theology. What is popularly known as “the seven deadly sins” are not sins per se, they’re the cardinal vices that \*lead to \*sinning or sinful behaviour in general. > [@](#): > > If one of those sins was, for example, homosexuality, it would be foolish to dismiss that because it wasn’t universally accepted; a large number drawing from historical text is a large number drawing from historical text. Such text deserves scrutiny and cannot casually be dismissed. I’m not saying hadith should be casually and universally dismissed. I’m saying that “this hadith says that” is a poor predictor of the behaviour of Muslims as a whole, or even just the larger denominations (sunni/shi’a). You have to zoom in a lot closer than that before specific hadith can become relevant. And that is especially true in the specific context of drawing Muhammad… because there actually \*\*are \*\*no such proscriptions, in the Quran \*or \*the hadith. A handful of hadith proscribe \*all \*figurative art (without stating what should be done about the makers of such art or the art itself, mind you), others say it’s OK but not to be encouraged, others specify that it’s not OK in the religious context but fine outside of it. From those, and among sunnis in particular, has been derived a whole art style and general prohibitions from drawing important guys (not just Muhammad), just to be on the safe side with the Big Man. Even so, Muslims (sunni and shia alike) have kept drawing Muhammad from time to time throughout the centuries. The more intransigent strain proscribing even non-Muslims from representing the prophet, for any reason, under pain of death, is a whole lot more recent, fringe, and not backed by any specific bit of scripture or hadith. A broader subset of Muslims protests not the mere drawing of the prophet, but insulting him or making light of him because he’s kind of an important dude to them, and blasphemy has more going for it in the way of islamic jurisprudence and scripture both. But there again, lots of variance between communities and legalistic traditions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fallen-blogger-and-the-spectre-of-secularism/713827.md?page=40)