Maybe I should have said it's also one of the most broadly interpreted...
Adam Maas wrote:
>That's only images of religious significance. Islam has no actual ban on
>images.
>
>Now I'm aware that at least one strain of Orthodox Judaism does have
>such a ban, there was a court case over it a while back, where the
>subject of a street photograph in NYC sued the photographer based on his
>religious principles forbidding images of him.
>
>-Adam
>
>
>P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>>The prohibition against photography goes back to the prohibition against
>>graven images. It seems to be the most violated taboo ever.
>>
>>Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Vic Mortelmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>One of the women directly signaled me that she opposed
>>>>to have a picture taken. I know that this is forbidden by the islam religon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Where does Islam prevent people from having their picture taken? If so,
>>>what about all those portraits of Chomeini on every house wall in Iran?
>>>What about the portraits of religious and political leaders, "martyrs"
>>>and other people, carried along in every self-respecting muslim protest
>>>rallye?
>>>
>>>Besides, the problem is by no way restricted to particular ethnic
>>>groups. The number of buggers from all cultures and walks of life who're
>>>almost waiting to see someone point a camera in their general direction
>>>so they can take offense and make a lot of fuzz about it appears to be
>>>on a steep increase, lately. Let's be happy we've still known those
>>>days when people would perceive a photographer as a positive character
>>>rather than as a threat to their "privacy".
>>>
>>>Pity, really.
>>>
>>>Ralf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
