Images of the Prophet

[nativeastral]

christians have always venerated saints and the relics were hot property for private individuals until taken under the control of the church [once legitimized] long before constantine [eg in north africa in the donatist split]; the greek orthodox too l have always thought are similar to the hindus in their veneration/intercession of idols or murtis, its in the darshana or gaze between the devotee and symbol as a focusing device.

As muslimwoman explained once you allow these images it then become de rigor, like christianity, which exploded, and in fact [like science] actually developed the form of representational art to such a high degree there was no stopping it.

As far as l know images are allowed in shia and even sunnis go to sufi shrines for intercession; long ago it was the rich who commisioned pictures but for private use only.

the author of 'a very short intro to islam' m.ruthven, had to omit the picture of the prophet from edinburgh museum because the printers [in canada?] were getting emailed and the workers were obviously worried.

The fact that islam did not want to go down the same 'idolatrous' road enabled the flourishing and most beautiful and colourful mathematical art imaginable.

 

[lunamoth]

Sure, no problem.

From Wiki: Icon

Thank you for the wkik quote. I see where you are coming from, but that quote does not support the idea that Constantine himself introduced the use of pagan idols as icons. Just that he opened the doors of Christianity to pagans and thus enabled the introduction of pagan practices.

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.

That was not what you said, though, although perhaps I am being a little picky.

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

Do you know of anyone in any religion who would say, "Yes, idol worship is part of my practice?"

It is usually an accusation leveled from the the outside.

 

[iBrian]

It may be also worth noting that the issue of images vs idolatry was a huge issue for a long time in Constantinople, after the fall of Rome, and the rise of Islam.

There's some interesting coverage on the Wikipedia across the Abramic religions:
Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lunamoth]

Sure, no problem.

From Wiki: Icon

With respect to Robin L. Fox: (from: The Unauthorized Version Summary - Robin Lane Fox - Magill Book Reviews)

Robin Lane Fox is an eminent classical historian; his previous works include a much-praised life of Alexander the Great and, more recently, the massive PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS—a book in which the author’s sympathies are conspicuously with the pagans. In the preface to THE UNAUTHORIZED VERSION, Lane Fox describes his new book as “a historian’s view of the Bible. It is a book about evidence and historical truth, not about faith.” Nevertheless, as Lane Fox himself acknowledges, his arguments clearly pose a challenge to the vast body of Christians whose faith is grounded in the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Accordingly, hestates at the outset, “I write as an atheist.” Having said that, he unapologetically pursues historical truth, with no fashionable waffling about the impossibility of objectivity.

Underlined emphasis mine.

Just offering that for the perspective.

 

[Netti-Netti]

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.

Dondi, I can see why you are making these connection, but there's a few things...

1) It is hard to reconcile the suggestion that Constantine was prepared to inregrate Chrsiantity and Paganism and that he tried to make Christianity palatable to Pagans give that he destroyed or converted pagan temples and banned pagan practices. Maybe there were different phases in his career.

2) Part of the destruction of Pagan culture under Constantine involved the destruction of idols and the looting of pagan temples in order to take the gold off them, including the gold in the idols.

3) It seems early Christians well before Constantine continued to have idols, which explains Paul's concerns on the subject.

One makes sacrifices to idols which then become a focus for devotion. In contrast, religious images have potential value enhance religious sentiment. I see these things as being quite different.

I personaly think religious art as a high calling. However sincere the intent, much of it is not as sublime as it should be. One could almost argue against religious art on the grounds that it can't possibly be sublime enough. But the fact is, humans are inspired to keep trying.

I try to do religious art myself and I speak for myself when I say the impulse is not idolatrous. It's more like a respect for visual symbols of Divine Beauty.

 

[bob x]

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

ROFL! Surely you are a blasphemer and a heretic...

 

[Amica]

Salaam/peace to all--

I think there could be a solution that would please all sides. Whithout encouraging the sentiment of democracy's free speech=hate speech/blasphemy/etc., I think that something could be done to make it work for all. For instance, make a button next to the written information with explanation: "Here you may click for a representation of what Muhammad may have looked like. " It would be free speech in action and at the same time giving an option to Muslims to actually not view the image.

For many Muslims around the world, the whole 'free speech' claim sounds more like free 'lets-get-them-hate' speech. Plus, some of the free speech claims in the Western societies is hypocritical (spelling?) at times. Perhaps not so much as in the U.S. as in Europe. For instance, if one criticizes Israel or Jews he is immediately branded an anti-semite by some. Also, in Europe, some people are prevented from denying the Holocaust. While attacking Jewish people and denying the Holocaust is horrible and a true tragedy (in my personal point of view), there should be equal standards for all. If free speech means also hate speech, then hey, make it so for everyone. Do not pick and choose.