U.S. Supreme Court depicts Muhammad

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Posted: February 7, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


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."

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."

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.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I knew you guys would sneak into all this somehow...
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
I was aware of some historical figures on the frieze at the US Supreme Court, I had no idea this guy was on it. We're f*cked. :roll:
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Simple solution. He wasn't Muhammad, founder of Islam.
Just say he was some other Muslim showing respect and honour to Islam in the Supreme court. Problem solved! ;)
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
if one of Islams followers draws a picture of M, against their laws, then they might decide to censure that guy, as a follower.

Some compassion - M wasn't as big on that as J was - would allow the offender to promise not to continue doing it.

BUT if one of those who does not follow Islamic laws, is not a Muslim, if he draws the picture of M, then he isn't breaking any laws that apply to him/

Moslums should not be offended because Allah isn't offened that his prophet's picture was drawn by a non-Muslim. Is Allah offended at outsiders actions? Does the Islamic religion call for the abolishment of all who are not of Islam? NO!! - only come radicals make that stuff up.
 

Virtual Burlesque

Nominee Member
Feb 19, 2005
55
0
6
Ontario
The frieze in the Supreme Court was a well-intentioned blunder that was probably made through ignorance of Islamic law.

The images published by Jyllands-Posten were neither well-intentioned, nor done in ignorance of how Muslims would view such illustrations.

When Chief Justice William Rehnquist made his reasoned explanation, it was to a reasonable body attempting to reduce friction between two cultures.

Jyllands-Posten’s error must be mediated in the world press, with less scrupulous men using it as a goad to move their followers according to the dictates of their own agendas.


Just as a matter of interest, here is how CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) addressed this incident:


http://tinyurl.com/dk5yw
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
This really stinks of orginized religion trying to work it's way back into our lives. It's fine is a Muslim doesn't wish to draw or sculpt Muhammad (The prophet peace be abone him) just like how your supposed to say that whenever you mention him, who says I want to. Hell maybe I'll just make a statue in my back yard of Muhammad, pray to him and what not just like you not supposed to. But this is Canada and freedom of religion, press and speech are fundimental. Perhaps drawing muhammad is my own personal religous belief, what can anyone say to denounce that. *shrugs*.

I'm sick of the intolance in the Eastern word to enlightend thinking. If they had actually taken offence to this they should have said nothing. This story would have been a blurb for one day and very few ppl would have seen said cartoon. Now who hasn't seen this. Not only do I think some musim leaders are using this as an excuse to attack enlightend liberal idea's but I do not even believe they are following there own traditions properly.

Gawd I can't stand orginized religion. takes all of the religion out of religion!