• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m really confused about the “No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name” situation.

    Religions are kind of weird, aren’t they?

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Always has been. Religion is the single biggest reason to not believe in religion.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s a rule thing. Like not eating pork or shellfish, but less tangible and comprehensible than a dietary restriction.

      Not depicting people with representative art is a thing that isn’t universally embraced in Islam or by every Muslim. But similarly there’s going to be some person out there who feels as strongly about it as they would if someone intentionally snuck pork into their food.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Well, really fundamentalist whackdoodle strains of Islam actually go so far as to claim that no pictorial depiction of any living thing is allowed. They just get really extra touchy about old Mr. M.

      Jury’s out on how, exactly, that would stand up to things like television and photographs. But I’m not an imam and I don’t have the entirety of the hadiths in front of me so I don’t fuckin’ know. The whole thing is obviously wonky on its face.

    • ___qwertz___@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Fun fact: While pictures of Mohammed are a no-no for Sunnis (Arabic World), it’s a common thing for Shias (Iran mostly).