تم صيانة المنتدي*** لا تغير فى سياسه من سياسات المنتدى اكتب ما تريد لان هذا حقك فى الكتابه عبر عن نفسك هذه ارائك الشخصيه ونحن هنا لاظهارها
جارى تحميل صندوق البحث لمنتدى الاقباط

العودة   منتدي منظمة أقباط الولايات المتحدة > English Forum > Religious Dialogue Lobby
التّسجيل الأسئلة الشائعة التقويم جعل جميع المنتديات مقروءة

Religious Dialogue Lobby This lobby is used for Religious Dialogue

المشاركة في الموضوع
 
خيارات الموضوع طريقة العرض
  #1  
قديم 09-04-2008
الصورة الرمزية لـ Ibrahim Al Copti
Ibrahim Al Copti Ibrahim Al Copti غير متصل
Moderator
 
تاريخ التّسجيل: May 2005
المشاركات: 2,143
Ibrahim Al Copti is on a distinguished road
flower Destroying Sculptures of Muhammad


By Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5487

This month, Denmark's police foiled a terrorist plot to murder Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who drew the strongest of the Muhammad pictures, prompting most of the country's newspapers to reprint his cartoon as an act of solidarity and a signal to Islamists that their threats and violence will not succeed.


This incident points to the Islamists' mixed success in curbing Western freedom of speech about Muhammad – think of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or the Deutsche Oper's production of Mozart's Idomeneo. If threats of violence sometimes do work, they as often provoke, anger, and inspire resistance. A polite demarche can achieve more. Illustrating this, note two parallel efforts, dating from 1955 and 1997, to remove nearly-identical American courthouse sculptures of Muhammad.

In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that part of a 1930s frieze in the main chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. be sandblasted into oblivion, on the grounds that Islam prohibits representations of its prophet. The seven-foot high marble relief by Adolph Weinman depicts Muhammad as one of 18 historic lawgivers. His left hand holds the Koran in book form (a jarring historical inaccuracy from the Muslim point of view) and his right holds a sword.

The Supreme Court frieze depiction of Muhammad. Official court information points out that "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."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, however, rejected CAIR's pressure, finding that the depiction "was intended only to recognize [Muhammad] … as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship." Rehnquist only conceded that court literature should mention that the representation offends Muslim sensibilities. His decision met with riots and injuries in India.

In contrast, back in 1955, a campaign to censor a representation of Muhammad in another American court building did succeed. That would be the New York City-based courthouse of the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York State Supreme Court. Built in 1902, it featured on its roof balustrade an eight-foot marble statue of "Mohammed" by Charles Albert Lopez as one of ten historic lawgivers. This Muhammad statue also held a Koran in his left hand and a scimitar in the right.

Though visible from the street, the identities of the lawgivers high atop the building were difficult to discern. Only with a general overhaul of the building in February 1953, including its statues, did the public become aware of their identities. The Egyptian, Indonesian, and Pakistani ambassadors to the United Nations responded by asking the U.S. Department of State to use its influence to have the Muhammad statue not renovated but removed.

Characteristically, the State Department dispatched two employees to convince New York City's public works commissioner, Frederick H. Zurmuhlen, to accommodate the ambassadors. The court, Chief Clerk George T. Campbell, reported, "also got a number of letters from Mohammedans about that time, all asking the court to get rid of the statue." All seven appellate justices recommended to Zurmuhlen that he take down the statue.

Even though, as Time magazine put it, "the danger that any large number of New Yorkers would take to worshiping the statue was, admittedly, minimal," the ambassadors got their way. Zurmuhlen had the offending statue carted off to a storehouse in Newark, New Jersey. As Zurmuhlen figured out what to do with it, the Times reported in 1955, the statue "has lain on its back in a crate for several months." Its ultimate disposition is unknown.

Then, rather than replace the empty pedestal on the court building roof, Zurmuhlen had the nine remaining statues shifted around to disguise the empty space, with Zoroaster replacing Muhammad at the westerly corner spot. Over a half-century later, that is where matters remain at the courthouse.

Recalling these events of 1955 suggests several points. First, pressure by Muslims on the West to conform to Islamic customs predates the current Islamist era. Second, even when minimal numbers of Muslims lived in the West, such pressures could succeed. Finally, contrasting the parallel 1955 and 1997 episodes suggests that the earlier approach of ambassadors making polite representations – not high-handed demands backed up by angry mobs, much less terrorist plots – can be the more effective route.

This conclusion confirms my more general point – and the premise of the Islamist Watch project – that Islamists working quietly within the system achieve more than ferocity and bellicosity. Ultimately, soft Islamism presents dangers as great as does violent Islamism.

__________________
اَلَّذِي لَمْ يُشْفِقْ عَلَى ابْنِهِ بَلْ بَذَلَهُ لأَجْلِنَا أَجْمَعِينَ كَيْفَ لاَ يَهَبُنَا أَيْضاً مَعَهُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ؟ (رومية 8: 32)

مسيحيو الشرق لأجل المسيح
مسيحيو الشرق لأجل المسيح (2)
الرد مع إقتباس
  #2  
قديم 08-09-2008
Faith-Hope_Love Faith-Hope_Love غير متصل
Registered User
 
تاريخ التّسجيل: Jul 2008
المشاركات: 35
Faith-Hope_Love is on a distinguished road
مشاركة: Destroying Sculptures of Muhammad

Christopher Hitchens has two interesting things to say about this matter, I'll paraphrase them here.

1. The muslim prohibition on pictures/images of mohammad was originally a good idea, to prevent idolatry, but to get so angry about any picture or likeness of mohammad, is a form of idolatry in itself.

2. on the war on terrorism being fought 'over there' (foreign lands) as opposed to 'over here' (in america), this is a myth,for one thing it is 'over here' and it's censoring the washington post.
الرد مع إقتباس
المشاركة في الموضوع


عدد الأعضاء الذي يتصفحون هذا الموضوع : 1 (0 عضو و 1 ضيف)
 
خيارات الموضوع
طريقة العرض

قوانين المشاركة
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is متاح
كود [IMG] متاح
كود HTML غير متاح

الإنتقال السريع

مواضيع مشابهة
الموضوع كاتب الموضوع المنتدى الردود آخر مشاركة
Jesus Or Muhammad? Alfred Samuel Religious Dialogue Lobby 6 02-04-2006 06:14 AM
Muhammad Exposed jesus_4_us Religious Dialogue Lobby 15 03-03-2006 11:31 PM


جميع الأوقات بتوقيت امريكا. الساعة الآن » 12:13 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

تـعـريب » منتدي الاقباط