My question is, if it is supposedly abominable to show a picture of Mohamed, thus there are no extant pictures of him, how does the claim that any particular doodle of a guy in a turban with a beard actually is a depiction of Mohamed stand up to logical scrutiny? (That was a rhetorical question. I know my error was actually in including the word “logic.”)
You can’t prove it’s actually him. This could just be the Continuing Adventures of Captain Bomb Hat, an individual completely unrelated.
That’s why it’s very silly. You can literally go around with a label maker and put “This is officially a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad” on any random thing.
My question is, if it is supposedly abominable to show a picture of Mohamed, thus there are no extant pictures of him, how does the claim that any particular doodle of a guy in a turban with a beard actually is a depiction of Mohamed stand up to logical scrutiny? (That was a rhetorical question. I know my error was actually in including the word “logic.”)
You can’t prove it’s actually him. This could just be the Continuing Adventures of Captain Bomb Hat, an individual completely unrelated.
You’ll KNOW it’s a drawing of Muhammad because the artist will be killed by a Muslim.
Truly the prophet of a thousand faces
That’s why it’s very silly. You can literally go around with a label maker and put “This is officially a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad” on any random thing.
Context of the intention.
Here I go;
0>-<
^ That’s him there ^
A jihad upon you