Posted on 02/14/2006 3:02:54 PM PST by Sam Hill
Don't look now, but the United State Supreme Court features the Prophet Mohammad in a marble frieze which adorns the north wall of its courtroom:
The North Frieze (designed by Adolph Weinman) depicts a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon.
This is certainly a graven image of the Prophet. And it is certainly meant to encourage us to idolize Mohammad as a heroic law-giver. (It's always good to know just how many times one should beat ones wife.)
But of course the perpetually offended Moslems have already raised a stink about this.
Here's one example, from the oxymoronic site, Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights:
Supreme Court Frieze Controversy
KARAMAH was contacted by a number of Muslim organizations, which were concerned about reports of a sculptured representation of the Prophet Muhammad in the historical frieze on the north wall of the Supreme Courtroom. KARAMAH was also asked by these organizations to contact the Supreme Court administrators and discuss the matter.
A KARAMAH delegation visited the Supreme Courtroom yesterday and looked at the frieze, one of several honoring a broad spectrum of leading figures in the law, including the Prophet Moses, Napoleon, and the fourth Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall. Contrary to early information, the frieze does not contain an inscription referring to the Prophet Muhammad as "the founder of Islam." That statement appears in a caption prepared by the museum in connection with a miniature replica of the frieze on display there. The statement is repeated in brochures distributed to visitors.
KARAMAH explained to the administrators that for Muslims, the Prophet is not the "founder" of Islam. As an Abrahamic religion, Islam is considered by Muslims as a later revelation of the same message revealed to Moses and Jesus. Supreme Court administrators showed great sensitivity and understanding of the matter. It was readily agreed that the caption would be revised to describe Prophet Muhammad as the "Prophet" of Islam. It will also be revised to refer briefly to the concerns discussed below.
Furthermore, the sculptured figure purportedly of the Prophet carries what appears to be a Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other. Some Muslims expressed their concern to us that the sword would reinforce the current stereotype about Muslims as violent. In fact, KARAMAH discovered that throughout the friezes in the Supreme Courtroom and at the entrance of the Supreme Court itself (statue on the Authority of the Law, lamppost on west entrance, base of Plaza flag poles), swords are repeatedly used as a symbol for the protection of law and justice. Based on these facts, KARAMAH has concluded that there is no reason to assume a contrary intention in the case of the Prophet Muhammad.
A more complex issue remained namely that of the sculptured representation of the Prophet in the frieze. Muslims have generally refrained from such representation as a strong expression of their commitment to monotheism. Islam was revealed initially to a population of idol worshippers. Fearing a return to these old practices, jurists early on discouraged any sculptured or even pictorial representation of the Prophet. That tradition has generally continued throughout Muslim history, although some Muslim cultures, such as the Turkish and Persian ones did produce throughout history art, which represented the Prophet pictorially.
While KARAMAH fully identifies with the Islamic aversion to such representation of the Prophet, we are very pleased that Islamic contributions to law are recognized in the highest court of our land. We see that attempt in a tolerant light similar to that in which earlier Muslims saw Turkish and Persian art. It is well intentioned. While it is not what we would have chosen to represent Islam, we do appreciate this early attempt at recognizing Islamic contributions to American jurisprudence and we do not believe it is necessary to destroy it. In reaching this position, we have consulted with many Muslim leaders and relied upon the reasoned opinion of Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) Council of North America.
And of course at the slightest prospect of giving offense, the Supreme Court caved as best it could. The depiction is now described in its Information Sheet (pdf) thusly:
Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.
And the Danish cartoons do resemble Mohammad?
I don't care how much the SCOTUS crawfish, I'm offended and am immediately ordering up a fatwa.
Quick, somebody burn down a KFC!
Jihad! ping.
Translation: Please don't behead us. We're just harmless, multicultural government employees.
So... the ACLU won't want it removed?
"Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet."
PING
"So... the ACLU won't want it removed?"
They probably will sue to have Mohammad removed from the frieze.
At the same time they will probably also sue to have him added to the pediment on the front of the Supreme Court building, which features Solon, Moses and Confucius, but no Mohammad.
That sounds like something they would do!
No, I think it was the beheadings and suicide bombings that did that (and did it quite well, by the way).
Me, I kind of like it. Sort of a 'hidden cartoon' of our own. *LOL*
"What is worse is that the sculptor innocently portrayed Muhammed holding the Koran in his LEFT hand - the one that Muzzies traditionally use to wipe their **ses with - this is even more of a point of outrage (this is NOT a joke)."
Good eye!
He also put Charlemagne right next to him. The guy who kicked the Moslems butts.
Of course the frieze ought to be changed - IMMEDIATELY!
The prophet mohamMAD (mhrih) should not be carrying a sword. That shuold be replaced with an AK-47. He should be fitted with the latest style suicide strap-on and in his other hand he should be leading his 10-year old wife.
What were we thinking?
(see tag line)
excellent point!
Angry is not way to type.
And not one Wookie Lawgiver in the bunch... This means war!
The agents of Islamonazism would be likely to target the Supreme Court building as they did the thousand year old Buddhist statues.
This isn't about Israel or cartoons. This is about a supremacist culture laying waste to all that offends them.
You're absolutely right. And they don't make any bones about it.
From Ask The Imam:
Ask-Imam.com > Islamic Politics > Question 2492 from Canada
Was it wrong of the talibans to destroy the buddha’s statues? Islam teaches tolerance and I don’t see how this action on theirs can be justafied. What are you views on this?
Answer 2492
It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable.
Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests…
Firstly, let us not be fooled by the term “freedom of religion”. There is no absolute “freedom of religion”. There is not a single state on earth that grants it’s citizens absolute freedom of religion. Even though such clauses appear in the constitutions of many States, it is a relative term. Should anyone’s personal religious convictions and practices conflict with the interests of the state, then such religious practices will be outlawed.
So just as every other state on earth gives preference to its own interests over the religious convictions of any citizen, similarly too does the Islamic state give preference to its own objectives.
An Islamic state is established with the sole purpose of establishing the Deen of Allah Ta’ala on Allah’s earth. The prime object is to entrench Islam in the land. Should any individual’s personal interests be in conflict with this objective, preference will obviously be given to the Deen. The Islamic State is established for the Deen, and not for any particular individual or group. This will apply to even Muslim citizens. Should their personal ideals be in conflict with that of Islam, the ideals of Islam would reign superior...
The reason for these conditions is that the purpose of Daarul Islam is to entrench Islam on the earth. Thus the salient features in religion must only be that of Islam. No features of other religions may be observable in public.
It is only when Muslims firmly enforced such laws that Islam reigned superior on earth. Thus the object for which Daarul Islam was established had been achieved…
The cross is a religious symbol, and not an idol or image. Yet since it is a salient feature of the Christians, they were not allowed to publicly display it in Daarul Islam. All publicly displayed crosses were to be demolished, as has been established from the decree of Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah).
When this is the position of symbol, then to a far greater degree should this apply to statues which are intended to be images of and represent false gods, and which have become objects of worship within themselves.
Thus, to a far greater degree should their display be outlawed. Is it within reasoning to claim that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) would forbid the display of the Cross but condone the display of idols? The stupidity of such a claim is self-evident…
On the other hand the demolishing of idols displayed in Daarul Islam is a religious duty. Unlike swearing the mushrikeen, it has a purpose, which is to ensure that the atmosphere in Daarul Islam is only that of Islam. Thus it is a necessary duty. In carrying out our Islamic duties we fear not the rebuke of anyone….
In brief, we thus conclude that the destruction of idols displayed in Daarul Islam is an incumbent duty of the Islamic government, and doubts on this issue are founded on baseless arguments.
Moulana Imraan Vawda
Assistant Mufti - Madrasah In’aamiyyah, Camperdown
Let’s Ask The Imam! | Sweetness & Light
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/ask-the-imam/
They are supremacists and never forget it. The only co-existence is with them on top of the pile (their laws, their 3 tiered hierarchy with muslims at the top).
I call it Islamonazism, not Islamofascism.
How magnanimous of you. We are so pleased.
And they probably only deigned to say that after they were sugared off with some huge govenment grant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.