Images of the Prophet

[bob x]

Would my having it be an insult or threat to their faith?

I'm sure that somebody could have some reason for thinking so: here you are carrying the sacred name of God in your grubby pocket? What if you drop your keys, and the sacred name is rubbed in the dirt? Blasphemy! It could call down the wrath of God on the whole neighborhood!
Now if you think that sounds very unreasonable, well so do all the special demands that Muslims make sound to us.

I believe someone suggested that the images could be "view on request" but this was rejected.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with that, since it does avoid "Muslims telling what they can see and can't", but I think Wiki is afraid of setting a precedent that they have to give in to this, that, or the other objection. Bear in mind that Wiki as a whole is strictly "view on request": you don't like Wiki's policies on displaying anything and everything, well then don't go there.

I also understand the issue of danger for Muslims

This is where you start to sound silly. No, seeing something you didn't want to see is not a "danger"; at worst it is an annoyance.

 

[Francis king]

wiki should say NO

 

[Muslimwoman]

All I know is when you make mountains out of mole hills you attract attention to that which was previously not an attractor. This discussion has caused me to succumb and take a look at the pictures of the prophet. It appears many were made by Muslims seemingly unaware of this restriction.

I've been busy all evening looking for info on Sunni artists that depicted the Prophet .. hubby will help me by looking in Arabic when he gets home so hopefully have some more info later .. although he'll throw a fit if he finds any

My question now is, what is this half horse half female he is shown to be riding?

That is al-Buraq, tradition says he was brought by Angel Gabriel from heaven for the Prophet to ride when he made the night journey.

After the Prophet performed the Evening Prayer (^Isha'), Jibril came to him with a white animal, slightly larger than a donkey yet smaller than a mule. This animal was the buraq,--one of the animals of Paradise. Jibril held the buraq by his ear and told the Prophet to mount it. When the buraq was mounted, the Prophet set forth.

The buraq is a very fast animal; the length of the buraq's stride is the farthest distance it's eye can see.

The night journey and the ascension of prophet Muhammad

Has the restriction actualy been spelled out or is it more a custom than a doctrinal issue? Does the Koran have anything on the subject?

No the Quran doesn't say it is haram, it all comes from the hadith and the question of shirk, venerating things other than Allah (swt).

To be honest it seems to be a bit of a minefield even in the Muslim community, with everyone arguing over the authenticity.

This is interesting because it talks about photography and how some scholars have changed their minds about it.

Fatwa on Photography - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Quite an interesting discussion here about it and the contradictory hadith.

Questions forbidding Sowar and Tamathilf (portraits, statues, drawing etc.) - Islamic Awakening Forums

This seems to be a very strict set of fatwas about it but there is a link to an alternative perspective at the bottom.

I'm still floating around in the middle to be honest.

Also, isn't it true that the Prophet allowed Christians to keep their images?

Yes this seems to be quite true but of course Muslims already believed that Christians worshipped idols in the form of placing partners with Allah (swt).

 

[Muslimwoman]

I'm sure that somebody could have some reason for thinking so: here you are carrying the sacred name of God in your grubby pocket? What if you drop your keys, and the sacred name is rubbed in the dirt? Blasphemy! It could call down the wrath of God on the whole neighborhood!

You are probably right and I shouldn't do it.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with that, since it does avoid "Muslims telling what they can see and can't", but I think Wiki is afraid of setting a precedent that they have to give in to this, that, or the other objection. Bear in mind that Wiki as a whole is strictly "view on request": you don't like Wiki's policies on displaying anything and everything, well then don't go there.

I agree, if you don't want to see them then don't go there but what if you are just googling something and that page comes up and you open it not knowing it will contain such images?

I agree it would set a rprecedent would also be a slippery slope so surely the view image on request would suit everyone?

This is where you start to sound silly. No, seeing something you didn't want to see is not a "danger"; at worst it is an annoyance.

I wasn't saying seeing the image is a danger, I was talking about the danger of first viewing out of interest, then respect, then veneration, then praying to. It has happened before and will happen again.

 

[Muslimwoman]

This is quite a fascinating topic, not one I have any particular interest in or opinion about but I never knew the Prophet is depicted on the Supreme Court Building in US .... I probably shouldn't say that because some silly sod will try to blow it up ... ho hum

File:Scotusnfrieze.jpeg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bob x]

You are probably right and I shouldn't do it.

Oh dear. I was intentionally making a silly line of argument, and you find it somewhat persuasive?

I agree, if you don't want to see them then don't go there but what if you are just googling something and that page comes up and you open it not knowing it will contain such images?

SO???
Then you close the page. I have clicked on links that turned out to show me hetero porn that I had no interest in and did not appreciate seeing; I have suffered no lasting trauma from it. If it did bother me a lot, then I would stop surfing the net altogether, or get one of the blocker thingies; it should be up to devout Muslims who want no risk of accidentally viewing Wiki to take the initiative to block Wiki from their own computers, or else to stop surfing the net.

I agree it would set a rprecedent would also be a slippery slope so surely the view image on request would suit everyone?

What I meant was that granting the "view on request" demand would be setting the precedent that they have to listen to everybody's demand for this that or the other. Best just to draw the line in the sand: No, we are in the business of displaying information, all kinds of information, period; if that's not what you want then stay away from us.

I wasn't saying seeing the image is a danger, I was talking about the danger of first viewing out of interest, then respect, then veneration, then praying to. It has happened before and will happen again.

That's not a "danger".

 

[Muslimwoman]

Oh dear. I was intentionally making a silly line of argument, and you find it somewhat persuasive?

Not in the slightest, I just couldn't be bothered to fight with you about something that doesn't particularly bother or interest me.

it should be up to devout Muslims who want no risk of accidentally viewing Wiki to take the initiative to block Wiki from their own computers, or else to stop surfing the net.

What percentage of people surfing the net for terms like Prophet Mohammed or the Night Assention do you think are Muslim?

What I meant was that granting the "view on request" demand would be setting the precedent that they have to listen to everybody's demand for this that or the other. Best just to draw the line in the sand: No, we are in the business of displaying information, all kinds of information, period; if that's not what you want then stay away from us.

What if they wanted to display something you found offensive? What about images of Jewish twins having their eyes cut out by the Nazi's? ... I know I would want them to remove it and yet the pictures exist as historical records, the medical research from those documents was used by all the allied countries but does that it make it OK to offend the Jewish nation?

Please don't say I am comparing such images to paintings of the Prophet .. it's after 4am and I'm way too tired to fight about it, it was just something I thought of that would be (I hope) universally rejected as appropriate material to display on Wiki.

That's not a "danger".

In your opinion but it seems millions and millions of Muslims disagree with you and as the Prophet is a vital part of their daily lives and nothing more than a chap that lived some time ago and invented a religion to you, is their opinion not more valid to them than yours?

 

[bob x]

What percentage of people surfing the net for terms like Prophet Mohammed or the Night Assention do you think are Muslim?

No idea. I would think it would more likely be non-Muslims who know little or nothing who would make broad, vague search requests, while Muslims would be more likely to have a preferred source of information already; but that is just a guess.

The point is: any Muslim who searches the web ought to know that the web contains ALL kinds of things, that a search for "stories about Aisha" might very easily turn up Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses at or near the top. If this hypothetical Muslim's beliefs are so fragile that he is in "danger" of losing them at the merest sight of something not in accord with his beliefs, then he really ought not indulge in web-surfing.

What if they wanted to display something you found offensive?

MANY things that I find offensive are on display. For example, looking for information about homosexuals in the concentration camps turned up before-and-after pictures of castrations that I would rather not have seen. If you don't want to look at such things either, then don't search for that kind of thing. If you unexpectedly find such a thing, the red X in the upper right corner of your browser window makes it go away quickly.

What about images of Jewish twins having their eyes cut out by the Nazi's?

I bet they're out there.

... I know I would want them to remove it

And I would be on their side if they refused.

it was just something I thought of that would be (I hope) universally rejected as appropriate material to display on Wiki.

You have a strange notion of what is "universal". On the net, censorship of any kind is highly disfavored.

In your opinion but it seems millions and millions of Muslims disagree with you and as the Prophet is a vital part of their daily lives and nothing more than a chap that lived some time ago and invented a religion to you, is their opinion not more valid to them than yours?

It is not more valid to me; to me it seems that millions of Muslims are being silly. "Danger" to me means things like your boss asking you to put your hands inside a press to remove an obstruction. Viewing or hearing things that I don't like or go against my beliefs is not a "danger", because my beliefs are not so fragile as to be overturned by an accidental glimpse of something. If you are seriously arguing that Muslims are in "danger" of losing their Islam if they accidentally see a picture, it comes across as saying that Islam is really weak and can't withstand examination.

The world is getting very crowded nowadays, and we are all bumping into each other. Can Islam co-exist with non-Muslims, or does it have to die? That is really the question. Are you saying "sure we can co-exist, as long as everybody gives way whenever we have a problem"?

 

[Netti-Netti]

On the net, censorship of any kind is highly disfavored.

Depends on where you live. Europe has laws that regulate Internet content. This is why many hate sites end up being hosted in the US.

 

[bob x]

Yeah, well I guess my own notions of what attitudes are "universal" or near-so are equally skewed by where I come from. I'm here in California (where it's 9ish; Sally I should hope has gone to bed) and we expect all kinds of people to be saying and doing all kinds of things, many of them offensive to many of the others, all the time.

 

[wil]

That is al-Buraq, tradition says he was brought by Angel Gabriel from heaven for the Prophet to ride when he made the night journey.

After the Prophet performed the Evening Prayer (^Isha'), Jibril came to him with a white animal, slightly larger than a donkey yet smaller than a mule. This animal was the buraq,--one of the animals of Paradise. Jibril held the buraq by his ear and told the Prophet to mount it. When the buraq was mounted, the Prophet set forth.

The buraq is a very fast animal; the length of the buraq's stride is the farthest distance it's eye can see.

Where does Islam stand on this, is this fact? truth? allegory? metaphor? myth?

 

[Dondi]

That is my point Dondi, we respect that Catholic Christians believe they should create these images and do not ask for them to be removed, even though to us it is a form of idol worship (not to suggest the Taliban would let you take one to Afghanistan but thats a topic for the politics board) but we also ask that people respect our faith which specifically tells us, as you have demonstrated, not to create or display such images.

No, you don't get my point. I am of the opinion that Catholics are wrong to bow down to statues of Mary and other saints. The bible is explicitly clear on the issue, even in the Ten Commandments:

"I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." - Exodus 20-2-6

But Catholics are not the only Christians around. A majority of the Protestant groups do not bow down to such images, and we are familiar with and have seen these statutes of Mary and such. Yet that has never compelled us to bow down to them. It has not weakened our conviction in the slighted. In fact, these icons and images only reinforce those convictions for we see how wrong it is to do so.

Is it offensive to me? Yes, I suppose it bothers me that they do not see the err of this. But I'm not going to go knocking down statues of every icon they hold dear. I'd rather present them the truth and let them form their own convictions. Let God be their judge.

If images of Muhammed are such that will cause a Muslim to slip in his faith, then he doesn't have a strong enough faith to begin with. Or he was misinformed.

The same goes for Christians.

I can understand people don't want Muslims telling what they can see and can't and as a lover of history I would not like to see the pictures destroyed but I also understand the issue of danger for Muslims and don't think it would be a big issue to make the images view on request or as you suggest a link to them so we can avoid them .. not that that would suit everyone but surely a respectful compromise?

I'd have to agree with bob x on this one. If Muslims don't want to chance on coming upon an image of Muhammed, then they need to stay off the internet. Go to the library instead.

ETA: I happen to have a painting of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethemene on my living room wall. When I look at it, I am reminded of the anguish and suffering that He was about to embark on. And reminded about the close relationship He had with God the Father. However, I do not worship the image. I don't bow down to it. I do not make it my God. It's just a painting. No more, no less.

 

[wil]

If Muslims don't want to chance on coming upon an image of Muhammed, then they need to stay off the internet. Go to the library instead.

Makes me contemplate what is an image of Muhammed?

There are all those with his face blank, turned or vieled...are they ok?

I remember watching a special about the Taliban destroying all works of art with any human form in them. Only landscapes, seascapes and still life allowed, no bodies...and painters painting over the people in the picture and leaving them in the museum and after they left going back and removing the new paint...(spose they'll never get away with that again).

But back to what is Muhammed, could you see Picasso or a Cubist or a minimalist creating a picture and that is verboten? Or a child...

Or is it just the title? This is Muhammed...therefor it is, therefor it is wrong.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Where does Islam stand on this, is this fact? truth? allegory? metaphor? myth?

Lots of different answers Wil, some believe it was literal, others it was just his soul that trascended to heaven, others a dream state but the images were from Allah (swt), others a metaphor .. very much depends who you talk to.

No, you don't get my point. I am of the opinion that Catholics are wrong to bow down to statues of Mary and other saints. The bible is explicitly clear on the issue, even in the Ten Commandments:

Is it offensive to me? Yes, I suppose it bothers me that they do not see the err of this. But I'm not going to go knocking down statues of every icon they hold dear. I'd rather present them the truth and let them form their own convictions. Let God be their judge.

Sorry for misunderstanding you Dondi.

As I said most Muslims don't feel that Christians having such images is their business (other than the radicals that like knocking age old statues down and burning books), like you, we would simply try to bring them to the right path and away from idol worship.

If images of Muhammed are such that will cause a Muslim to slip in his faith, then he doesn't have a strong enough faith to begin with. Or he was misinformed.

I'm obviously not explaining myself very well, it's about generations. Let's try it this way:

I see the images on Wiki and because I respect and love the Prophet I print one off to keep in my Quran ... of course I don't pray to it.

My children and grandchildren see how much I love this picture so after my death they frame it and hang it on the wall .. they also don't pray to it.

Their children and grandchildren see how the image is revered, so when they inherit it they put it in a glass box for safe keeping and put it in a prominent place .. they don't pray to it but face it when they pray simply to show respect to the Prophet.

Their kids and grandkids see how it is revered and how people treat the picture so take it to the local mosque so everyone can enjoy it ... and on it goes.

By simply not allowing such images there is simply no danger of this ever happening .. as we believe it did with some Christian sects.

Does that help you understand?

There are all those with his face blank, turned or vieled...are they ok?

Forbidden, for the reason I give above.

But back to what is Muhammed, could you see Picasso or a Cubist or a minimalist creating a picture and that is verboten? Or a child...

Verboten, at any age. It's about intention (as with so many Islamic issues), the artist intended to depict the Prophet.

Or is it just the title? This is Muhammed...therefor it is, therefor it is wrong.

Gosh no there are some magnificent Islamic books with titles like Mohamet, His Life and they beautifully illustrated .. just not with people lol.

 

[wil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil
Or is it just the title? This is Muhammed...therefor it is, therefor it is wrong.

Gosh no there are some magnificent Islamic books with titles like Mohamet, His Life and they beautifully illustrated .. just not with people lol.

What I was wondering if this... is wrong.

A depiction of Moses, Jesus and Mohamet standing together, raising arms in Unity greeting the world...(Mohamet is on the right) Does my indication that the stick figure on the right is Mohamet make it wrong?

.. 0 / \ 0 / \ 0
. /|.....|......|\....
. /|..../ \.....|\.......

 

[Tao_Equus]

If you are seriously arguing that Muslims are in "danger" of losing their Islam if they accidentally see a picture, it comes across as saying that Islam is really weak and can't withstand examination.

Which is exactly the case. Remove all the ritual reinforcements, replace them with plain old common sense and Islam is nothing more than a tedious book of feudal law. It relies on the indoctrination of children and the ignorance/ lack of secular education to instil these life long rituals. It is as petty, shallow and narrow minded as its original authors and compilers who's only concern was governance of their fiefdoms.
Muslims say they do not like images yet they will say "Muhammad (PBUH)". The PBUH is an image of idolatry because it is ritualised and a sign of praise and worship. But those of faith are commonly ignorant to the glaring hypocrisies any neutral observer see's in stark relief.

 

[lunamoth]

I think motivation and intent matter in these situations. I have not looked at the wiki article, but I would assume that the intent is to inform and preserve information, not to insult. I think wiki should keep the picture.

I don't think it is good to be hyper-sensitive about other cultures/people breaking taboos they don't share.

One criticism anti-theists have of religions is that they try to resist scrutiny and public criticism, and cases like this lend credence to that charge. I think public actions taken in the name of religion need to be open for scrutiny to the same extent I want to see public policy and the direction of scientific endeavor held up for scrutiny.

On the other hand, I also think that part of civilized discourse is to have respect for the mores of other cultures and religions when they have no impact on the lives of others. I think putting images of the Prophet on display to intentionally ridicule or jab at Muslims is dishonorable, even if I would not see it outlawed.

 

[Dondi]

I'm obviously not explaining myself very well, it's about generations. Let's try it this way:

I see the images on Wiki and because I respect and love the Prophet I print one off to keep in my Quran ... of course I don't pray to it.

My children and grandchildren see how much I love this picture so after my death they frame it and hang it on the wall .. they also don't pray to it.

Their children and grandchildren see how the image is revered, so when they inherit it they put it in a glass box for safe keeping and put it in a prominent place .. they don't pray to it but face it when they pray simply to show respect to the Prophet.

Their kids and grandkids see how it is revered and how people treat the picture so take it to the local mosque so everyone can enjoy it ... and on it goes.

By simply not allowing such images there is simply no danger of this ever happening .. as we believe it did with some Christian sects.

Does that help you understand?

MW, I understand your point. But the adoration of icons in Christianity came as a result Constantine's adaptation of many pagan practice of idol worship into Christian venerations with the adoption of Christianity as the state religion. Given the political/religious atmosphere of Rome, it's easy to see why it developed thus.

I see no such parallels in the case of Islam. There are no precedents for Mulims to adapt. Unless you have a high imam state that it's ok to worship and image of Mohammed, I don't think any grassroots attempt is going to be successful. No sooner than you try to post an image of Mohommed in a mosque then you will be met with immediate scrutinious destain, judging from the recent Dutch cartoons. I should think Islam has sufficient is safeguards from idolatry, even generations down the road.

 

[lunamoth]

But the adoration of icons in Christianity came as a result Constantine's adaptation of many pagan practice of idol worship into Christian venerations with the adoption of Christianity as the state religion.

Hi Dondi,

Do you have a reference source for this point?

It seems kind of easy to blame everything we disagree with on Constantine. I agree that Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official religion brought all kinds of problems, even if it meant that Christians were no longer being oppressed and killed, but it seems like he is becoming the whipping boy.

One person's icon, a window or lens through which to direct our communion with God, is another person's idol.

In this pluralistic world I think we should give each other the benefit of the doubt and believe each other when we say that our aids to meditation and worship are not idols to us.

2 c

 

[Dondi]

Hi Dondi,

Do you have a reference source for this point?

Sure, no problem.

From Wiki: Icon

After Christianity was legalized by the emperor Constantine within the Roman Empire in 313, huge numbers of pagans became converts. This created the necessity for the transfer of allegiance and practice from the old gods and heroes to the new religion, and for the gradual adaptation of the old system of image making and veneration to a Christian context, in the process of Christianization. Robin Lane Fox states[5] "By the early fifth century, we know of the ownership of private icons of saints; by c. 480-500, we can be sure that the inside of a saint's shrine would be adorned with images and votive portraits, a practice which had probably begun earlier".

It seems kind of easy to blame everything we disagree with on Constantine. I agree that Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official religion brought all kinds of problems, even if it meant that Christians were no longer being oppressed and killed, but it seems like he is becoming the whipping boy.

I didn't intend to paint Constantine as a whipping boy, rather that the legitimization of Christianity in this pagan environment was the catalyst for the widespread introduction of these pagan adaptations that would lead to the adorations and venetrations of objects.

On the contrary, without Constantine, the Christian movement might very well have died out.

One person's icon, a window or lens through which to direct our communion with God, is another person's idol.

In this pluralistic world I think we should give each other the benefit of the doubt and believe each other when we say that our aids to meditation and worship are not idols to us.

To each his own, I guess, as long as you know the difference.