| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Haram
Move over Mickey Mouse. The original, and very lengthy, fatwa is here. Here are some of the pertinent excerpts as posted by the Jawa Report:
"Fatwa: Emoticons are Un-Islamic," from the Jawa Report, November 12 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):
"Emoticons are forbidden because of its imitation to Allah’s creatures whether it is original or mixture or even deformed one and since the picture is the face and the face is what makes the real picture then emoticons which represent faces that express emotions then all that add up to make them Haram."Another fatwa states the following:
"A woman should not use these images when speaking to a man who is not her mahram, because these faces are used to express how she is feeling, so it is as if she is smiling, laughing, acting shy and so on, and a woman should not do that with a non-mahram man.It is only permissible for a woman to speak to men in cases of necessity, so long as that is in a public chat room and not in private correspondence."
Posted by Raymond at November 13, 2008 1:55 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
No fun in Islam. Ha ha...may they should have Jihadi emoticons and burqa clad emoticons. Boy that sounds like fun. That just might unleash the Mohammedan psychotic behavior.
Posted by: savsiv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 13, 2008 2:10 PM
"A woman should not use these images when speaking to a man who is not her mahram, because these faces are used to express how she is feeling, so it is as if she is smiling, laughing, acting shy and so on, and a woman should not do that with a non-mahram man.
Could we not have a compromise and have emoticons wearing Burkahs? That way, the men would not lose control of their sexual urges.
Posted by: Celsius at November 13, 2008 2:12 PM
Infidels :-) Fatwas :-(
Posted by: Bigfoot at November 13, 2008 2:33 PM
,,!,
They can (_x_)
Issue a fatwa for them being (_?_)s
Lan astalem,
GoingThere
translations
1) the bird
2) kiss my xxx
3) issue a fatwa for them being dumb axxes
gt
at November 13, 2008 2:34 PM
Emoticons are forbidden...
...............
@>:-(##
The above is an emoticon of an angry, bearded Muslim in a turban issuing a fatwa against emoticons.
Posted by: gravenimage at November 13, 2008 2:35 PM
Islam is a caricature of itself.
Posted by: John C at November 13, 2008 2:36 PM
"Emoticons are Un-Islamic"
These guys think too much. We could always counter with "Oh, yea? Well, fatwas are un-Christian. Phffft..."
Posted by: Eastview at November 13, 2008 2:36 PM
Tom Cox, in an article about emoticons in The Sunday (London) Times for April 15, 2007, gives credit for the INITIAL idea of the emoticon to the creator of Humbert Humbert, Charles Kinbote, and the van Veens:
"As far back as 1969 Vladimir Nabokov suggested there should be a typographical sign for a smile, but the invention of the :-) and :-( symbols to respectively denote jokes and nonjokes is most widely credited to a computer boffin called Scott Fahlman in 1982."
Quaere: Who gets credit for creating the word "boffin"? For that matter, who gets credit for inventing Scott Fahlman, Vladimir Nabokov, Tom Cox and, come to think of it, you and me, dear reader?
Posted by: Hugh at November 13, 2008 2:38 PM
Oh my gosh, Hugh is in great form today!
"mahram"
He my man. He my maaahraaam.
Posted by: Hugh at November 13, 2008 2:28 PM
Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at November 13, 2008 2:39 PM
`~@>8-{|> turban bomb muhtoon emoticon
Porky says, dats all folks!
Porky hahaha...
Lan astalem,
GoingThere
Posted by: GoingThere at November 13, 2008 2:44 PM
Would a triangle with two dots in the middle (or one) for a NIQAB emoticon be halal?
Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at November 13, 2008 2:54 PM
Ayman bin khaled narrates:
"I shall divide this small article into four sections: ..."
And seven sections follow.
Snicker.
Posted by: jay at November 13, 2008 3:06 PM
Geez...
Now I have heard everything.
I am curious as to what would constitute 'necessity' in a public chat room.
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at November 13, 2008 3:25 PM
"Emoticons are forbidden because of its imitation to Allah’s creatures"...
but blowing Allah's creatures to pieces is permitted...
I bet there is a fatwa somewhere banning REASON
Unbelievable.
at November 13, 2008 3:41 PM
It should be compulsory to write the following sentence on the doors of the Islamic worship places -
"Islam will permanently cripple your brain, enter at your own risk!"
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at November 13, 2008 3:43 PM
"Emoticons are forbidden because of its imitation to Allah’s creatures"...
Are emoticons less imitative of "Allah's creatures" than, say, Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, or other adult-sized animals who appear on "The Children's Hour" and similar programs on "Palestinian" TV to whip up murderous hatred, in the youngest of viewers, against the Jews the hated "Yahudin"?
at November 13, 2008 4:01 PM
No fun in Islam.... :-
But murder & mayhem are OK -- just pick up any Qur'an and you will quickly realize that!
Allah approves this message.... :->
Posted by: champ at November 13, 2008 4:07 PM
Islam is for retards
Posted by: skydash at November 13, 2008 4:11 PM
;o)
Smiley me....and winking at all the watchers here.
Oh I am a bad girl.....
I think I'll just go trolling in the islamofacists chat rooms and use emoticons for everything now that I know it annoys them.
And what is the penalty for using emoticons? Death as usual?
Posted by: gymgal at November 13, 2008 4:32 PM
FINALLY, a fatwa I can get behind. Emoticons are for pre-schoolers.
Posted by: Bigshaker at November 13, 2008 4:45 PM
It is only permissible for a woman to speak to men in cases of necessity, so long as that is in a public chat room and not in private correspondence.
You can't make this stuff up!
"It is only permissible for a woman to speak to men in cases of necessity"
Muslim women put up with this?
It explains why marriages have to be arranged. No one gets to know one another before the nuptials.
Posted by: PMK at November 13, 2008 4:51 PM
I think I'll just go trolling in the islamofacists chat rooms and use emoticons for everything now that I know it annoys them.
Posted by: gymgal
LOL, good idea!
Do they like Kitties? >^..^
Maybe animals are haram too! :-)
Posted by: champ at November 13, 2008 5:01 PM
.....>^..^
Posted by: champ at November 13, 2008 5:11 PM
that's weird -- the wiskers on the right won't print out for me
Posted by: champ at November 13, 2008 5:12 PM
" It is only permissable for a woman to speak to a man in case of neccessity."
Since the reply would make no sense, what would be the point?
at November 13, 2008 5:16 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why using a computer is ok. Aren't they supposed to avoid all forms of modernity with the exception of cars, guns and explosives (cars for using as bombs only)?
The irony in islam makes me dizzy.
Posted by: walterc at November 13, 2008 5:26 PM
So emoticons are banned.
But mass slaughter against innocent civilians in Darfur is alright.
I get it now.
Posted by: S Perry at November 13, 2008 6:13 PM
What about M&M candies? They have faces too.
Posted by: Always On Watch at November 13, 2008 6:43 PM
I still regard the one about the goat with its tail pointing up in the air as a personal favourite though - and the female tomatoes of course.
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at November 13, 2008 6:50 PM
No depictions of faces in Islam allowed?
Posted by: yadayada at November 13, 2008 7:11 PM
These people are just total NUTTERS!!
These perverted men,, see sex in everything!
Their women, put up with this stupidity??
No wonder their countries are so backward and ignorant, with morons like these brainwashing the poor slobs.
Bill Warner,, has a new piece,, he has the RIGHT idea,, folks,,
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/you-only-need-to-kill-one/
solsticewitch13
"don't annoy the bikers
it's a islam free zone"
Posted by: solsticewitch13
at November 13, 2008 7:47 PM
Ummah Gummah,
Ha ha ha ha...good one man! Where you been? Good to see you back fighting the good fight.
Posted by: savsiv at November 13, 2008 8:28 PM
"What about M&M candies? They have faces too."
--- from a posting above at 6:43 p.m.
Asked and Answered, sir. Asked and Answered, at this site, long ago.
Oh when?
More than four years ago, on July 3, 2004, when a piece was put up about the Blind Sheik, Abdel Rahman, in which it was noted, in passing, that his favorite prison snack consisted of that quintessential American candy, M&Ms.
Here is a posting from the relevant thread:
"M&M's have iconic status as the favorite candy of American schoolchildren, who would, before eating them, carefully arrange them into piles according to color -- with oranges and reds being the rarest, and hence the most tasty, to be eaten last, while the brown ones were the commonest, and therefore were the least desirable, to be gobbled first.
Pudeur prevents one from alluding to the well-known advertisement for M&Ms in the innocent days of one's youth; but if one felt like it, no doubt some sleight of word might be performed with the double-entendre. However, the temptation should be resisted for many reasons, not least to show a strength of character superior to that of Sheikh Abdel Rahman, who apparently finds those M&Ms irresistible. We Infidels must not let down the side."
[Posted by: Hugh at July 3, 2004 12:04 AM]
at November 13, 2008 8:38 PM
I wonder if green M&M's are haram? Those are the tastiest :)
OK - what about putting a burqua over the smiley face? ... Maybe they could do something like this:
[ ## ] Love that mesh to see through ...
Posted by: blues4allah
at November 13, 2008 10:40 PM
From Bill Warner's article,
Is it impossible to kill 1.5 billion Muslims? It is a military possibility, but kafirs do not have the political will for such a task. Besides, it is not necessary to kill Muslims. You just need to kill Mohammed. In short, we need to launch an ideological war to respond to Islam's jihad doctrine.
An ideological war would include our schools, particularly state schools, teaching about the Koran and the Sunna. History courses that would include the Tears of Jihad, the killing of 270 million kafirs. Women's studies that would include Sharia law. Religion courses that would teach the death of Christianity in Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. Military history that would include the great battles of Islam. Courses on slavery that would go beyond the standard-issue West Africa/white man on wooden ships.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 13, 2008 11:21 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot my emoticon...
⊕
That's cross hairs for you.
at November 13, 2008 11:32 PM
And what is the penalty for using emoticons? Death as usual?
Posted by: gymgal [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2008 4:32 PM
Slow, excruciating, bloody death if allah's minions can hunt you down and eternal damnation in the fires of hell now or later, but guaranteed.
It would be too hilarious if somebody could make a burka-clad emoticon doing a belly dance! I would put them on everything and I know "Ask the Imam" would just love them.
Posted by: Susanp at November 14, 2008 12:02 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why using a computer is ok.
walterc,
No irony. Just like guns and explosives, the computer is a tool in the jihad. It enables the spread of Islam. It reaches more people than someone in the town square calling everyone to prayer.
Posted by: PMK at November 14, 2008 7:30 AM
So chatting online is adultery now? By that logic, and the emoticons-are-idolatry/too-human/allah's-creatures line of thinking, a man alone with a bottle of Aunt Jemima or a woman alone with a box of Uncle Ben's or a jar of Newman's Own spaghetti sauce would also be committing adultery. Oh, wait, the spaghetti sauce is un-Islamic anyway because it contains garlic and nullifies prayer and its proceeds go to help filthy kafir charities. Plus Aunt Jemima isn't wearing a burka (sexy bitch that she is!) and all human faces are idolatry. Plus Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Mr. Clean are black, so they're raisinheads who go to hell, and Paul Newman acted in movies (yet another form of idolatry) helped the kafirs through charity, and raced cars (more idolatry). Yet another list of good things Muslims are missing out on, but they'll somehow contrive an explanation as to how it's all halal anyway, just like the did the Internet, the ultimate in compromising cultish milieu control.
Posted by: jdamn at November 14, 2008 9:32 AM
Freedom of expression and speech
should be a right not a privilege...
Very sad!
at November 14, 2008 9:34 AM
I agree, emoticons are dangerous. Emoticons are unstable, morphing from one face to the next.
Almost anything can cause a happy emoticon to frown, or even scream...
Emoticons are puppets of human unstable emotional output.
This is clearly un-Islamic, and a huge fear.
Shariah is supposed to contain the unstable emotional output of Mohammadans, and steer them toward Allah.
Emoticons are stumbling blocks that get in the way, and have to be removed. Emoticons are the enemy of Shariah and Islam...
That's why the west needs to use more of them...
Emoticon wars...Better than bullets, safer than bombs...
There is a controversy as to who actually invented them, some say Iblis, some say Al-Gore.
I lean toward Al-Gore...
at November 14, 2008 10:23 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/salsabeela/2454002295/
Hijabi emoticons. >:(
I've also seen smiley face emoticons (the yellow ones like the illo. in the article, not the asci ones) wearing a hijab and a burka.
Blech.
Posted by: Sobekneferu at November 14, 2008 12:42 PM
Sobekneferu, is it any wonder that the FLICKR contributor suffers from "writer's block"?
It can't possibly be due to being trapped in a closed system, could it?
Posted by: Vee at November 14, 2008 3:06 PM
LOL, duh_swami! You crack me up!
Posted by: champ at November 14, 2008 7:21 PM
Sobekneferu: I love it! Halal emoticons!
champ: I think the right-side whiskers don't show up because the software thinks it's a starting HTML tag, and gets confused trying to find the matching right bracket.
Let's see if this works: <
(finally!!) type these 5 characters without spaces: & # 6 0 ; (the number 60)
So here's the (very un-halal) kitten: >^..^ <
For some reason, It doesn't like spaces between things that aren't words, or strings of spaces. It'll collapse them into one space. To move the kitty away from the semicolon, type the code for a "non-breaking space": & nbsp ; (without the spaces) wherever you want a space. If you want more than one space, you have to alternate between the "nbsp" code and a plain old spacebar space.
Hugh: The credit for "boffin" goes to the British of WW II. (See the Wiki article.) Giving credit to Nabokov is good, because, after all, the Russians inwented just about everything. And Peter the Great inwented the Russians.
And yeah, Scott Fahlman takes the credit for the first "smiley face" - though he does admit it may be an independent thing. The exact date of the post he made with it is Sept 19, 1982 (that would be a Sunday).
I vote for a National Holiday on Sept 19: Smiley Face Day (or Scott Fahlman Day, whichever you prefer).
Posted by: Mike Z at November 14, 2008 8:06 PM
Hey Mike -- thanks for the tip! >^..^
Posted by: champ at November 14, 2008 8:18 PM
Ahhhh! .....I tried!
Maybe kitty having a bad-wisker-day will work instead, lets try that one: #^..^#
Posted by: champ at November 14, 2008 8:20 PM
Try again.... >^..^
Posted by: champ at November 14, 2008 8:24 PM
Champ,
>^..^I know what the matter is--those diagonal brackets are used to enter HTML tags, and an initial bracket and that which follows it is read as a tag, not text, and thus not printed. Any closed pair of diagonal brackets, content enclosed or not, similarly don't print; they just disappear from the resultant printed text.
Posted by: John C at November 14, 2008 9:42 PM
Sorry; Mike already noted my point.
Posted by: John C at November 14, 2008 9:46 PM
Hey, John C --
I tried to follow Mike's instructions as he suggested, but I'm obviously doing something wrong. >^..^&dcf;
Posted by: champ at November 14, 2008 9:59 PM
...one final try >^..^<
Posted by: champ at November 14, 2008 10:10 PM
Finally! Thanks again, Mike!
at November 14, 2008 10:11 PM
I had an emoticon, you had an emoticon, we all have emoticons together, except Mohammadans, well they have them, but they are very small, and don't work very well. Usually they are dis-functional.
Kufr emoticans are much larger than Mohammad emoticons, and almost all kuffir emoticons function perfectly.
So I don't know about you folks, but I am going to keep using my emoticons when ever I get the urge, even if Mohammadans ban them...
at November 14, 2008 11:13 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)