Dubai to Build Museum Honoring Prophet Mohammad
Upon hearing of it I suspected this was, in part, Dubai's response to the ongoing Danish cartoons issue simmering throughout the Muslim world. And if it is, I think it's the better response than flag burning, threats of violence and economic boycotts.
Then today this article came in the GulfNews. Sure enough, there is a vague but not so subtle reference to the cartoons uproar."This is a well-timed and gratuitous gesture from Shaikh Mohammad who has surprised us ... it has come to heal us [Islam and Muslims] from the sufferings we have sustained due to blasphemous campaigns against Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in the West.
It's also interesting that the Sheikh Dr. Kubaisi notes that Sheikh Mohammad has "surprised " them. Kind of makes you think they didn't expect help from Sheikh Mohammad on these kinds of religious issues.
Interesting.
UPDATE: Someone in the comments asked about the picture of Mohammad on a journey in this post. Read more about it here.
11 comments:
I have an issue with the statement you quoted....why must the Muslims always blame the West for their own problems? Having lived in Saudi my entire life, I know not everything can be blamed on the West, for a lot of the ills and social problems in Muslim countries stems from their own inability to confront the issue directly and choose to find a remedy for it.
This attitude of blaming the West will not help the Muslims progress. They need to learn how to look inwards, acknowledge the problems, and deal with it.
Oh, I also wonder if the museum will touch upon all aspects of his life, like him marrying a 9 year old (or was it 6?) and his militant nature, or will the museum play it safe by only showing the nice side of his nature only?
The picture posted, is that Muhammad? Where did you get it from?
M
Hey M, thanks for the comments. The illustration of the Prophet on a journey is shown here in more detail:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isla/ho_57.51.9.htm
Looks like its from Herat, Afghanistan originally.
Also, I spoke with a professional the other day here in Dubai. There was to be a delegation of Danish students here to tour his organization's premises. He said he had issues with these Danes and wanted to speak to them about the cartoons published and that he no longer bought Danish products. He is someone who has lived in the West for an extended period of time.
I'm not really sure what people like this man expect Western governments to do with newspapers like the ones who published the cartoons. The freedom to speak openly, even insultingly (which is highly subjective) about others, is included a right in our societies. This will never change in the West. I personally would argue for the right of those who might even insult me or my Lord Jesus. I think it's a necessary part of a free society. Jesus can take care of himself and if people insult him they will have to deal with him one day on that. He doesn't need me to defend his honor.
Jesus himself is my example. 1 Peter 2:23 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
Dear Brian,
I found it strange that you would argue for the rights of people that blaspheme the other's faith.
I find it to be morally corrupt for a person to defend someone else who would come up to me and insult my mother. A person who defends immorality is to me, an immoral act in and of itself.
So how about when someone insults something more sacred and dear to the person, such as his Lord?
Muslims wouldn't agree with Christians that we just stand back and allow the Lord's name to be degraded. Intellect does not work with these kind of people.
Also, there is no 'absolute freedom' of speech. We all know that are we restricted from speaking freely about certain things.
Could an American citizen for example 'be free' to sell top secret documents to another country? Why not you might ask? Because it could be threat to the citizens of the people? They might be physically harmed in the process?
Well, why stop something that could cause physical scars, but not emotional scars?
I guess it appears that there is a clash of ideologies between secular governments and Islam.
One is lacking in establishing moral guidelines for their people to abide by, while the other isn't.
You make a point that it seems like the West won't change this policy, so Muslims basically just 'gotta deal with it'.
But i do take issue with your defending it.
We have to differentiate between freedom to critique and freedom to mock and blaspheme, so don't think that I am demanding that other people restrict their views to themselves. You want to critique Islam then be my guest. But there are certain ways of doing it.
"Muslims wouldn't agree with Christians that we just stand back and allow the Lord's name to be degraded."
As a Christian, I am very offended when someone degrades Jesus. I am not the kind to stand back and let others mock and degarde His name. I am highly annoyed when Jesus' name is taken in vain in movies and tv shows. I am very annoyed when people use swear words in the same breath with Jesus. I am offended when pop stars and celebrities (even non-Westerners) wear the Christian cross as a fashion statement. I am very offended when a Muslim comes up to me and tells me that the Bible is corrputed! But these very people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Who am I stop them?
M
Bassam, I hope this doesn't this mean no more dinner together at Chili's anymore :( Seriously though, we've got to talk about this in person... it would be much better.
Your friend,
Brian
Dear M
At the end of my post, I said that we must differentiate between critiquing and blaspheming and mockery.
I said, that you can critique Islam. But the method is what i am taking issue with.
If a Muslim critiques the Bible, well what is wrong with that?
If he curses, mocks, and blasphemes your faith then he is committing sin.
So please understand the difference.
I don't want to get in too much detail but I do believe that mockery is necessary sometimes (mock someone's faith back in retaliation so that he can stop mocking yours, etc.) but I am not going to get into that now.
Feel free to email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com if you would like to take this discussion any further.
Regards,
Bassam
www.call-to-monotheism.com
I didn't mean to single out Muslims. I am annoyed when people like Madonna or other celebrities wear crosses. Sometimes even wayward Christians don't always represent their faith so well, just like any other people in other releigions.
I realize what you were trying to get at. I apologize if I implied something else in my post. I meant well.
I have no problems with Muslims debating with me, mocking my faith, calling me "infidel" because I know people will do that to me. Mocking another's faith in retaliation may be something you do, but for me personally, the important thing is that I react the way Jesus would want me to: with love. That's what I do, and almost always, the very same Muslims realize they have offended me and apologize. :-)
Thanks Bassam for your offer. I will try to email me if and when I have the time. I appreciate your gesture. I've been a Christian for almost 11 years now, and was once a Muslim growing up in Saudi Arabia.
M
Quoting Bassam:
"Muslims wouldn't agree with Christians that we just stand back and allow the Lord's name to be degraded. Intellect does not work with these kind of people."
So, if "intellect does not work" as you say, do you turn to force? If so, where do you draw the line, beating? Imprisonment? Killing? Just wondering.
Or do you have some other way of dealing with these people that does not involve intellect?
Judging by your above statement, if you met a blasphemer, you would:
a) Not stand back
b) Not use intellect
That's interesting. If you're not going to stand back and not going to use intellect, what would you do? If a man's unbelief is seen by you as blasphemous (and I will show how unbelief implies blasphemy, according to your terms), is he safe to have a dialogue with you.
One more question is raised by your above statement. Intellect surely implies rationality. If one chooses to not use intellect (cognitive thought / reason) surely one is abandoning rationality? So, in Islamic theology, is rationality / reason something which, at certain times, needs to be abandoned? if so, how does one know when to abandon rationality? Is it only when encountering blasphemy, or are there other occasions?
Quoting Bassam:
"If a Muslim critiques the Bible, well what is wrong with that?
If he curses, mocks, and blasphemes your faith then he is committing sin."
Bassam, in the Christian view, the Muslim is committing sin simply by disbelieving, even if he doesn't go as far as mocking. Even thinking in a manner which denies Chirist is, to the Christian, deeply offensive to God.
So, should the Christian punish him for that? Beat him up, or use force to silence him? Or do we leave it to God?
BTW, maybe the same applies to the Christian - in Muslim eyes, he is committing sin simply by rejecting the revelation of your Prophet. Is he not?
Maybe we should quit splitting hairs over "disbelief" vs "sin", and accept that to each religion, the other religion is sinning by rejecting the true God.
And once we can accept that scenario without resorting to violence, secure in the fact that God is the ultimate judge & the rigorous executor of His own judgement, we can dialogue (& critique) in fear of God, but without fear of one another.
Quoting Bassam:
"At the end of my post, I said that we must differentiate between critiquing and blaspheming and mockery.
I said, that you can critique Islam. But the method is what i am taking issue with."
Bassam, let's take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say I am not a Muslim, but I am practicing another religion. Sounds harmless?
The problem is that, by definition, I would therefore consider Islamic theology to be not true (because I am following a different theology). Therefore, by definition, I would consider the Qur'an to be false. Therefore, by definition, I would be calling your Prophet a false Prophet. In other words, a liar.
Now, where does the "crtique" end and the "blasphemy / mocking" begin? Can you see how, according to your definitions, mere disbelief follows a very rapid logical train into blasphemy?
Your attempt to differentiate between "critique" and "blasphemy" (in any belief system) is therefore very naive. The moment a belief-system is denied, there is a logical consequence of calling that belief-system's revelation a lie. There is no way to avoid this fact.
So then, what should I do with people who believe in systems other than mine, who are (by definition) implying that my revelation a lie? Do I use force to subdue them? Until, by the sword, the world follows my belief-system? Is that the most pleasing to God? Or not?
And if we punish unbelievers for their unbelief (for their calling our revelation a lie and denying the true God) are we not being blasphemous by usurping God's own prerogative to judge and punish? Just wondering.
Post a Comment