A cat legend

Kreisleriana wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:14:49 -0400, Singh
yodeled:



Seanette Blaylock wrote:

Takayuki had some very interesting things to
say about A cat legend:

This reminds me how once I was telling a friend how it's interesting
that you never see any sculptures or paintings of Mohammed, and how
that makes his legends somewhat more difficult to visualize. I
thought it would be a great idea if someone could start a business
specializing in likenesses of Mohammed, but he thought that was a dumb
idea.

I may be wrong, not being an expert on Islam, but ISTR that images of
actual people are highly frowned on in that religion.

Not so much the representing of people. Having pictures of your loved ones
in your wallet or on your dresser is one thing. What's forbidden is
representing holy men or angels for icons or idols to worship, or trying to
make an image of God--Streng Verboten in the Quran as much as in the Bible.

I'm afraid that we Westerners have become jaded in one such area: we have
become conditioned to believe that God sounds like Charlton Heston.

No, that's Moses. :P

I thought Chuckles did a dual role! Maybe it's just that I haven't heard that
distinctly Western voice from above? I should look maybe for John Wayne?

Boy, do I need sleep...

Blessed be!
Baha

Kreisleriana wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:14:49 -0400, Singh
yodeled:



Seanette Blaylock wrote:

Takayuki had some very interesting things to
say about A cat legend:

This reminds me how once I was telling a friend how it's interesting
that you never see any sculptures or paintings of Mohammed, and how
that makes his legends somewhat more difficult to visualize. I
thought it would be a great idea if someone could start a business
specializing in likenesses of Mohammed, but he thought that was a dumb
idea.

I may be wrong, not being an expert on Islam, but ISTR that images of
actual people are highly frowned on in that religion.

Not so much the representing of people. Having pictures of your loved ones
in your wallet or on your dresser is one thing. What's forbidden is
representing holy men or angels for icons or idols to worship, or trying to
make an image of God--Streng Verboten in the Quran as much as in the Bible.

I'm afraid that we Westerners have become jaded in one such area: we have
become conditioned to believe that God sounds like Charlton Heston.

No, that's Moses. :P

I thought Chuckles did a dual role! Maybe it's just that I haven't heard that
distinctly Western voice from above? I should look maybe for John Wayne?

Boy, do I need sleep...

Blessed be!
Baha

Goddess bless us, everyone!!!

Baha

Victor Martinez wrote:

Kreisleriana wrote:
God sounds like John Huston.

And soon will sound like Ellen Degeneres!

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

Goddess bless us, everyone!!!

Baha

Victor Martinez wrote:

Kreisleriana wrote:
God sounds like John Huston.

And soon will sound like Ellen Degeneres!

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

Goddess bless us, everyone!!!

Baha

Victor Martinez wrote:

Kreisleriana wrote:
God sounds like John Huston.

And soon will sound like Ellen Degeneres!

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam he
Email me he

While I don't practice Crhistianinty any longer, I understand this. It does
seem like having the icons is like having your Mom's picture in your wallet, to
remind you of one who loves you. That may be a little simple--forgive me
please, for while i was raised Catholic I am not familiar with Eastern Orthodox
practices--but I hope it is an acceptible example.

We Sikhs tend to have pictures of our 10 Gurus in our homes, but like Muslims
we are heavily forbidden to give the pictures veneration. They are there to
remind us of the spiritual qualities of our first prophets, and for
inspiration; but we do not make offerings of candles or incense, nor pray to
them. Sikhism is a young faith, barely 500 years old, give or take a few. We
know what our masters look like as many have commissioned portraits during
their lifetimes. Having my picture of the last Guru, Gobind Singh, who lost all
his family and lived alone and in hiding from those who wanted his head,
inspires me to keep going and remember that nothing can hurt me, no matter
what; one of the Tenth Master's promises was that he would inspire "the sparrow
to hunt the hawk, and one man to fight a legion." My middle name, Bahadur,
comes from Guru Gobind Singh's father Guru Tegh Bahadur, and means brave. The
Ninth Master died fighting for the rights of the Hindus, a people not his own,
to freely practice their religion. And the founder, Guru Nanak, was in my mind
the world's first political feminist. I may not make offerings to their
portraits, but I like to have them. They remind me to stand up for myself and
others, be proud, and remember I'm a Singhni, a Lioness. We kick @$$!

Blessed be,
Baha
and please forgive my tangent!!!

Bridget wrote:

wrote:

Takayuki wrote:

This reminds me how once I was telling a friend how it's interesting
that you never see any sculptures or paintings of Mohammed, and how
that makes his legends somewhat more difficult to visualize. I
thought it would be a great idea if someone could start a business
specializing in likenesses of Mohammed, but he thought that was a dumb
idea.

If Islam is like Judaism (from which it sprang), then they wouldn't
allow images to be worshipped. There is a prohibition in Judaism against
"idolatry" - the worship of statues, pictures, etc, representing a
deity or other being. So, for example, you don't see images of Moses
or Abraham or any other figure important in Judaism, when you're in a
temple, or even in a Jewish home. Christianity broke from that tradition,
of course, but I don't know enough about Islam to say whether that's true
for that religion as well. Maybe someone here does know?

Joyce

I don't know about Islam, but I do know why Christianity broke from that
tradition. I have learned all kinds of interesting things in joining
the Eastern Orthodox Church. Early in Christianity, we knew what the
major players looked like. We had painted pictures of the Apostles, and
probably Jesus, although none survive to this day. People would put
them up in the Churches. When saints were declared, so were pictures
painted of them and also put up in homes and in Churches. And because
of the beliefs of early Christians (and Orthodox Christians still) they
believed that those who had reposed (no one dies in the Orthodox Church
- you repose and go somewhere else - don't ask me too many questions on
this as I don't have it down yet) still had the power to pray for those
who are living. So they pray to them - as do the Catholics. They also
venerate them - not worship them - it is an important distinction
because you only worship God. But you hold in high esteem these Saints
and Apostles and Martyrs. There was a special Ecumenical Council
because some believed it was idolotry and others didn't and the outcome
of the council (like back before 1000 AD) was that venerating a picture
by kissing it and making the sign of a cross in front of it was showing
great respect for the saint but it was not worshipping the way we would
God. So it was okay and not idolatry.

And it became okay to make images of Jesus (even though we haven't a
clue as to what he looked like) because mankind actually got to see
Jesus. That wasn't true before Jesus. Before the Christians had Jesus
we had burning bushes and large voices and symbols. So we weren't
allowed to make an image for God - until He made one for Himself.

I hope all this makes sense

BRIDGET

While I don't practice Crhistianinty any longer, I understand this. It does
seem like having the icons is like having your Mom's picture in your wallet, to
remind you of one who loves you. That may be a little simple--forgive me
please, for while i was raised Catholic I am not familiar with Eastern Orthodox
practices--but I hope it is an acceptible example.

We Sikhs tend to have pictures of our 10 Gurus in our homes, but like Muslims
we are heavily forbidden to give the pictures veneration. They are there to
remind us of the spiritual qualities of our first prophets, and for
inspiration; but we do not make offerings of candles or incense, nor pray to
them. Sikhism is a young faith, barely 500 years old, give or take a few. We
know what our masters look like as many have commissioned portraits during
their lifetimes. Having my picture of the last Guru, Gobind Singh, who lost all
his family and lived alone and in hiding from those who wanted his head,
inspires me to keep going and remember that nothing can hurt me, no matter
what; one of the Tenth Master's promises was that he would inspire "the sparrow
to hunt the hawk, and one man to fight a legion." My middle name, Bahadur,
comes from Guru Gobind Singh's father Guru Tegh Bahadur, and means brave. The
Ninth Master died fighting for the rights of the Hindus, a people not his own,
to freely practice their religion. And the founder, Guru Nanak, was in my mind
the world's first political feminist. I may not make offerings to their
portraits, but I like to have them. They remind me to stand up for myself and
others, be proud, and remember I'm a Singhni, a Lioness. We kick @$$!

Blessed be,
Baha
and please forgive my tangent!!!

Bridget wrote:

wrote:

Takayuki wrote:

This reminds me how once I was telling a friend how it's interesting
that you never see any sculptures or paintings of Mohammed, and how
that makes his legends somewhat more difficult to visualize. I
thought it would be a great idea if someone could start a business
specializing in likenesses of Mohammed, but he thought that was a dumb
idea.

If Islam is like Judaism (from which it sprang), then they wouldn't
allow images to be worshipped. There is a prohibition in Judaism against
"idolatry" - the worship of statues, pictures, etc, representing a
deity or other being. So, for example, you don't see images of Moses
or Abraham or any other figure important in Judaism, when you're in a
temple, or even in a Jewish home. Christianity broke from that tradition,
of course, but I don't know enough about Islam to say whether that's true
for that religion as well. Maybe someone here does know?

Joyce

I don't know about Islam, but I do know why Christianity broke from that
tradition. I have learned all kinds of interesting things in joining
the Eastern Orthodox Church. Early in Christianity, we knew what the
major players looked like. We had painted pictures of the Apostles, and
probably Jesus, although none survive to this day. People would put
them up in the Churches. When saints were declared, so were pictures
painted of them and also put up in homes and in Churches. And because
of the beliefs of early Christians (and Orthodox Christians still) they
believed that those who had reposed (no one dies in the Orthodox Church
- you repose and go somewhere else - don't ask me too many questions on
this as I don't have it down yet) still had the power to pray for those
who are living. So they pray to them - as do the Catholics. They also
venerate them - not worship them - it is an important distinction
because you only worship God. But you hold in high esteem these Saints
and Apostles and Martyrs. There was a special Ecumenical Council
because some believed it was idolotry and others didn't and the outcome
of the council (like back before 1000 AD) was that venerating a picture
by kissing it and making the sign of a cross in front of it was showing
great respect for the saint but it was not worshipping the way we would
God. So it was okay and not idolatry.

And it became okay to make images of Jesus (even though we haven't a
clue as to what he looked like) because mankind actually got to see
Jesus. That wasn't true before Jesus. Before the Christians had Jesus
we had burning bushes and large voices and symbols. So we weren't
allowed to make an image for God - until He made one for Himself.

I hope all this makes sense

BRIDGET

While I don't practice Crhistianinty any longer, I understand this. It does
seem like having the icons is like having your Mom's picture in your wallet, to
remind you of one who loves you. That may be a little simple--forgive me
please, for while i was raised Catholic I am not familiar with Eastern Orthodox
practices--but I hope it is an acceptible example.

We Sikhs tend to have pictures of our 10 Gurus in our homes, but like Muslims
we are heavily forbidden to give the pictures veneration. They are there to
remind us of the spiritual qualities of our first prophets, and for
inspiration; but we do not make offerings of candles or incense, nor pray to
them. Sikhism is a young faith, barely 500 years old, give or take a few. We
know what our masters look like as many have commissioned portraits during
their lifetimes. Having my picture of the last Guru, Gobind Singh, who lost all
his family and lived alone and in hiding from those who wanted his head,
inspires me to keep going and remember that nothing can hurt me, no matter
what; one of the Tenth Master's promises was that he would inspire "the sparrow
to hunt the hawk, and one man to fight a legion." My middle name, Bahadur,
comes from Guru Gobind Singh's father Guru Tegh Bahadur, and means brave. The
Ninth Master died fighting for the rights of the Hindus, a people not his own,
to freely practice their religion. And the founder, Guru Nanak, was in my mind
the world's first political feminist. I may not make offerings to their
portraits, but I like to have them. They remind me to stand up for myself and
others, be proud, and remember I'm a Singhni, a Lioness. We kick @$$!

Blessed be,
Baha
and please forgive my tangent!!!

Bridget wrote:

wrote:

Takayuki wrote:

This reminds me how once I was telling a friend how it's interesting
that you never see any sculptures or paintings of Mohammed, and how
that makes his legends somewhat more difficult to visualize. I
thought it would be a great idea if someone could start a business
specializing in likenesses of Mohammed, but he thought that was a dumb
idea.

If Islam is like Judaism (from which it sprang), then they wouldn't
allow images to be worshipped. There is a prohibition in Judaism against
"idolatry" - the worship of statues, pictures, etc, representing a
deity or other being. So, for example, you don't see images of Moses
or Abraham or any other figure important in Judaism, when you're in a
temple, or even in a Jewish home. Christianity broke from that tradition,
of course, but I don't know enough about Islam to say whether that's true
for that religion as well. Maybe someone here does know?

Joyce

I don't know about Islam, but I do know why Christianity broke from that
tradition. I have learned all kinds of interesting things in joining
the Eastern Orthodox Church. Early in Christianity, we knew what the
major players looked like. We had painted pictures of the Apostles, and
probably Jesus, although none survive to this day. People would put
them up in the Churches. When saints were declared, so were pictures
painted of them and also put up in homes and in Churches. And because
of the beliefs of early Christians (and Orthodox Christians still) they
believed that those who had reposed (no one dies in the Orthodox Church
- you repose and go somewhere else - don't ask me too many questions on
this as I don't have it down yet) still had the power to pray for those
who are living. So they pray to them - as do the Catholics. They also
venerate them - not worship them - it is an important distinction
because you only worship God. But you hold in high esteem these Saints
and Apostles and Martyrs. There was a special Ecumenical Council
because some believed it was idolotry and others didn't and the outcome
of the council (like back before 1000 AD) was that venerating a picture
by kissing it and making the sign of a cross in front of it was showing
great respect for the saint but it was not worshipping the way we would
God. So it was okay and not idolatry.

And it became okay to make images of Jesus (even though we haven't a
clue as to what he looked like) because mankind actually got to see
Jesus. That wasn't true before Jesus. Before the Christians had Jesus
we had burning bushes and large voices and symbols. So we weren't
allowed to make an image for God - until He made one for Himself.

I hope all this makes sense

BRIDGET

Klinger wrote:

(Klinger) wrote in message . com...
Singh wrote in message ...
Have you ever looked at a tabby cat's face and noticed the mark above
the eyes that looks like an M? There is a legend about this that some
call the Mark of Mohammed, and was probably brought into Europe by
merchants who traded with Arabs and the Arabic-speaking peoples of North
Africa.

It is said that as the Prophet Mohammed was studying scripture, a kitten
crawled into the sleeve of his robe. In peace with the Prophet and the
quiet atmosphere of spiritual study, the kitty curled up and slept in
the sleeve; and Mohammed, very touched by this gesture, cut the sleeve
from the robe rather than awaken the kitten. And then, as a sign of
favor, the Prophet set his initial on the kitty's forehead for her and
her descendants to carry forever.

I told my husband and he joked with me that it should have been the
Arabic M-letter, but I figured that this legend came into Europe through
Spain, via the Moors and traders who dealt with Muslim merchants.

Your husband's reaction was the first thing that came to my mind
reading the story, which I'd never heard before. I mean,
hello?-Mohammed lived in sixth/seventh century *Arabia*-the odds are
overwhelming that he never even laid eyes on the letter "M". (plus,
the conventional wisdom is that he was illiterate, but most
non-muslims probably wouldn't know that). Frankly, the story seems to
reflect an ignorance of history and a kind of cultural
self-centeredness that can only be described as staggering. Sort of
like a story about how Confucious got peeved because people kept
calling him "Confused".

Just to be clear, let me say that my reaction to the story isn't meant
in any way to be a reflection on the OP. The story is cute; but as I
said my immediate reaction was that even allowing for the suspension
of belief it doesn't make sense historically.

All legends have a basis in fact; and, like all stories that have been passed orally for a few
generations, it probably did get either embellished, or thrown into a stewpot with the Virgin Mary and a
Chinese lover. My opinion is that the Islamic/Arabic variant originated in North Africa, probably
Morocco, and came through Spain. My husband does agree with it coming into contact with the Mary variant,
and says that, owing to the form of the Latin M, was further Christianized.

But it's neither here nor there. It's a nice, charming story. I think of it as reading King Arthur or
Robin Hood stories. I think those have non-Christain roots too, and were changed much from generations of
oral storytelling and sanitizing by the monks who finally wrote them. But that fact does not deny me the
pleasure of the story.

Blessed be,
Baha

Klinger wrote:

(Klinger) wrote in message . com...
Singh wrote in message ...
Have you ever looked at a tabby cat's face and noticed the mark above
the eyes that looks like an M? There is a legend about this that some
call the Mark of Mohammed, and was probably brought into Europe by
merchants who traded with Arabs and the Arabic-speaking peoples of North
Africa.

It is said that as the Prophet Mohammed was studying scripture, a kitten
crawled into the sleeve of his robe. In peace with the Prophet and the
quiet atmosphere of spiritual study, the kitty curled up and slept in
the sleeve; and Mohammed, very touched by this gesture, cut the sleeve
from the robe rather than awaken the kitten. And then, as a sign of
favor, the Prophet set his initial on the kitty's forehead for her and
her descendants to carry forever.

I told my husband and he joked with me that it should have been the
Arabic M-letter, but I figured that this legend came into Europe through
Spain, via the Moors and traders who dealt with Muslim merchants.

Your husband's reaction was the first thing that came to my mind
reading the story, which I'd never heard before. I mean,
hello?-Mohammed lived in sixth/seventh century *Arabia*-the odds are
overwhelming that he never even laid eyes on the letter "M". (plus,
the conventional wisdom is that he was illiterate, but most
non-muslims probably wouldn't know that). Frankly, the story seems to
reflect an ignorance of history and a kind of cultural
self-centeredness that can only be described as staggering. Sort of
like a story about how Confucious got peeved because people kept
calling him "Confused".

Just to be clear, let me say that my reaction to the story isn't meant
in any way to be a reflection on the OP. The story is cute; but as I
said my immediate reaction was that even allowing for the suspension
of belief it doesn't make sense historically.

All legends have a basis in fact; and, like all stories that have been passed orally for a few
generations, it probably did get either embellished, or thrown into a stewpot with the Virgin Mary and a
Chinese lover. My opinion is that the Islamic/Arabic variant originated in North Africa, probably
Morocco, and came through Spain. My husband does agree with it coming into contact with the Mary variant,
and says that, owing to the form of the Latin M, was further Christianized.

But it's neither here nor there. It's a nice, charming story. I think of it as reading King Arthur or
Robin Hood stories. I think those have non-Christain roots too, and were changed much from generations of
oral storytelling and sanitizing by the monks who finally wrote them. But that fact does not deny me the
pleasure of the story.

Blessed be,
Baha