Images of the Prophet

[Tao_Equus]

http://www.interfaith.org/2008/02/07/protest-about-images-of-prophet-on-wiki/
Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the main site:

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has created controversy over a biographical entry on the prophet Muhammad. To date, over 100,000 people have signed a petition asking Wiki to remove all depictions of the prophet from its English language entry.
The creator of the petition, based at The Petition Site, requests ‘all brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell Wikipedia to respect the religion and remove the illustrations’.
The Muslim opposition to the images are founded from one of the Ten Commandments, prohibiting graven images.
Paul M. Cobb, a Notre Dame history professor, told the New York Times that “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent. Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.”


My opinion is that Wikki should not cave in to this effort of suppression. Muslims themselves have every right not to keep, copy or produce images of Muhammad but they have no right to keep what is part of the human artistic legacy out of a site such as Wikki.

 

[iBrian]

It certainly looks as though Wikpedia has maintained the images, which is good to see. I think it remains a modern tragedy that the scientific and artistic jewels of Islamic culture have been so easily over-looked or simply ignored by mainstream Western academia.

 

[Avi]

My opinion is that Wikki should not cave in to this effort of suppression. Muslims themselves have every right not to keep, copy or produce images of Muhammad but they have no right to keep what is part of the human artistic legacy out of a site such as Wikki.

I think the issue is more complex that this, but it is an interesting one to consider further. If there are really 100,000 signatures requesting removal if these images, it is not some fringe group that has frivilous concerns. I think these concerns should be considered more deeply.

The issue goes to whom at wiki makes the decision about what is posted on the webpage and what is removed. I assume there is some sort of review process that the article goes through and these folks have decided that for scholarly reasons they will keep the images.

It seems to me that at least the other side of the story should be explained in the wiki article. Or the controversy should be linked to another part of wiki which describes these editorial policies and how they are arrived at, I do not see that in the current article (may be I missed it).

 

[wil]

If I had a vote I'd ask wiki to honor the request.

Maybe someone can tell me why a non muslim has a desire for an image of the prophet?

 

[Tao_Equus]

As Brian alludes to these images are a part of humanities treasures and are representative of a rich era in the expression of middle eastern art. Under no circumstances should a bunch of stupefyingly obtuse religious zealots, whether they number 1 or 1 million, prevent anybody from viewing them. The kind of mentality that leads to such a call is the same that led to the destruction of Bamiyan Buddha in Afghanistan under the Taliban. This clip displays the kind of mindset of the idiots who support such actions.

YouTube - Destruction of Buddha's in Afghanistan

Now Wil, with your apparent passion for collecting different religious symbolic images from around the world I thought you would see these people as the narrow minded and selfish fools that they appear to me. How do you think it is justified to remove these images that are uncontroversial to the vast majority of the world on the say so of hardline zealots?

 

[wil]

I know about the destruction of the Buddhas and was/am extremely upset at this lunacy.

Narrow minded selfish fools? Tao, this is where you lose me. In reading your posts you are seem an intelligent literate bloke. That is right up until you feel that school yard name calling proves some kind of point and tell the world that you've decided to lower your IQ.

Why, why do you have to go there and dilute what is so often valuable discussion.

Back to the subject at hand. I have a piece of art in my house that I think fabulous. Now I as the owner, or the artist as the owner, or whoever the owner bequeaths this art to as far as I am concerned has the right to destroy it....or demand it not be seen.

So while I think the taliban wrong in destroying the Buddhas, they were not theirs to destroy (some may make another argument as they ran the country at the time) but as for Islamic Art and their beliefs...I'll tend toward honoring them.

BTW it is my understanding that the symbols on my wall, the star and crescent do not represent Islam, and I tell everyone this that look at my interfaith banners...that it is action that represents a Muslim and Islam, not a symbol.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi Wil,

If I had a vote I'd ask wiki to honor the request.

It is unclear on what basis the request wold be honored. It seems it would not necessarily be in the spirit of Islam to suppress images of the Prophet:

(T)here is disagreement about visual depictions.

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.

Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Most Shi'a scholars accept respectful depictions and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past. However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.
​

Depictions of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wil]

Namaste NN,

I'll agree with that, and leave the discussion for them to settle as I am not Muslim and it is not upto me to determine what their book says.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I know about the destruction of the Buddhas and was/am extremely upset at this lunacy.

Narrow minded selfish fools? Tao, this is where you lose me. In reading your posts you are seem an intelligent literate bloke. That is right up until you feel that school yard name calling proves some kind of point and tell the world that you've decided to lower your IQ.

Why, why do you have to go there and dilute what is so often valuable discussion.

Because those that would ban or destroy the human legacy are narrow minded selfish fools. There is no religious nor political justification for outlawing or destroying any art or literature and indeed it is this seeming predisposition within religions to do just that that, in part, forces me to my strident opposition to such establishments. I am no good at conflict management and do not set myself up in that role, I'll leave that to better people than I. Rather I maintain my focus on spotting where those better predisposed than I to offering solutions should be stepping in. But the capitulation you propose that would deny the rights of the vast majority to view what is absolutely uncontentious to all but the most diseased minds is no solution at all. It is nothing but a pandering to petty, insular and selfish reasoning that in the end only leads to more conflict.

Last night I happened to catch a program on the poet John Milton and his epic work Paradise Lost. During this I learned of a pamphlet he had written after Charles 1st had banned the publication of pamphlets defending not the authors but the identity of the pamphlets themselves. A piece of art or literature, he argued, has the same rights or more as a person. I am in agreement with that. Once complete art or words are indeed entities in their own right and need defended against those that are generally incapable of thinking beyond their own narrow agenda. Art and literature are often and necessarily in the polemic and while everyone has the right to make a critique no-one and no group has the right of censorship. I detest and am repulsed by much art and literature but I would defend till my last breath the right of such works to exist and resist every move to have them destroyed. True freedom means accepting that with which you do not agree with has a right to exist. You know my view of Islam is highly disparaging yet here I am defending the rights of Islamic art just to exist. That is what freedom demands of me.

 

[Muslimwoman]

as have Sunnis at various points in the past.
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

I have searched and searched and have yet to find a single image of the Prophet created by a Sunni ... please let me know if you are aware of any.

Must admit this thread got me thinking, I'm a lover of history and old books make me giddy with excitement so I would hate to see them destroyed but I can also see the point about idol worship .. how many people pray to statues of the Virgin Mary (pbuh) now?

We see it at graves of Muslim scholars and the family of the Prophet, it seems some people need to have something tangible to worship but that leads us away from our faith, the worship of Allah (swt) alone.

The petition had almost half a million signatures before it was closed, that suggests a degree of people opposed to the public display of such images and nobody I know has ever heard of the issue or the petition.

Personally I am against images that offend, here I am thinking of the cartoons of the Prophet from Denmark or the cartoons of Jews drawn by the Nazi's or the "jungle bunny" cartoons of black Africans .. they are intended to offend so should not be allowed in public circulation.

This is another matter, I don't believe there was ever intention to offend but surely once you become aware that a billion people would be horrorfied at seeing them there is no reason why they can't be "show on request" images or simply removed.

I really don't think it is pandering to extremists, your average moderate Sunni Muslim would be offended by those images.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I went to the wiki page and looked at the images. On my 22" LCD monitor you can't even see what's depicted. Which one is him? Can't tell without clicking to enlarge the image. Perhaps this isn't the case on an older style CRT monitor with lower resolution, I don't know.

Chris

 

[iBrian]

I'm curious - how many people are now worshipping the images of Mohammed on the Wikipedia page?

 

[Netti-Netti]

It seems Sunni Muslims wanted to highlight the Prophet's ascension and made a point of calling attention to it with visual imagery. This was for both devotional and evangelistic purposes in the s0-called "Books of Ascension" genre:

The first illustrated Miraj-nama that has come down to us seems to have functioned as a Sunni illustrated prayer manual for a Persian-speaking audience, probably within the ruler’s immediate entourage, thereby suggesting a religious impetus behind this genre of illustrated manuscripts.
​

ME?R?J ii. Illustrations

From the same souce:

Textual and pictorial details in the Timurid Miraj-nama suggest that the manuscript was utilized at court by Šahro to promote Sunni Islam
​

Christiane Jacqueline Gruber devoted an entire book to the analysis of "texts and images of Muhammad’s ascension in the medieval Persian world, underscoring how the theme of the mi’raj could be used for procedures of conversion to Sunni Islam during the Ilkhanid period." The aforementioned book follows a volume that deals with the Timurid Mi raj-nama.

It's quite possible that if we did a Google Image search of > Muhammad’s ascension < or > mi’raj < we'd get images that derive mainly from the Sunni illustrated books genre.

Not all images of the Prophet appear in religious context. They're also found in the Jami'al-Tawarikh, which is an extensive history of Islam written by a Sunni convert, Rashid al- Din.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Well I had to ask hubby about this because he's a born Muslim and dead set against the images being displayed.

He says it isn't about worshipping those images yet, it's just the slippery slope syndrome. He has two points he wants to express:

1. During the life of Mary and Jesus (pbut) people would not have carried around statues or pictures of them .. they also wouldn't have done it for some years after their deaths. Over time people kept the images and statues as a mark of respect and love. As time progressed people began to pray to the pictures and statues for intercession .. we see that in some Catholic countries where they have parades to carry a statue around and make offerings to it.

His point is that because Sunni's have not allowed such images or statues Muslims have not followed the same path. If we now say non-Muslims want to have such images how long will it be before this process starts?

2. I asked him about the images of Jesus (pbuh) .. why aren't Muslims insisting they are removed. He answered that Isa (pbuh) is also a Christian Prophet and we must respect that they want to create images of him but Mohammed (pbuh) is only accepted as a Prophet by Muslims so the images mean little or nothing to people outside our faith .. they should therefore respect our faith's belief that it is wrong to create or display such images.

As an aside, I remember a couple of years ago posting on this forum about my concerns that when I wanted to buy a keyring with the name of Allah (swt) on it I had to go to 7 different shops because all I could find were ones with the name of the Prophet.

In a way it is an example of what hubby is talking about.

 

[Muslimwoman]

It seems Sunni Muslims wanted to highlight the Prophet's ascension and made a point of calling attention to it with visual imagery. This was for both devotional and evangelistic purposes in the s0-called "Books of Ascension" genre:

Thank you very much Netti, I shall go do some studying, will be very interesting to see how far back this goes and if/when it changed.

 

[bob x]

As an aside, I remember a couple of years ago posting on this forum about my concerns that when I wanted to buy a keyring with the name of Allah (swt) on it I had to go to 7 different shops because all I could find were ones with the name of the Prophet.

How would you feel about someone who thought you should not be allowed to have such a thing?

 

[Dondi]

During the life of Mary and Jesus (pbut) people would not have carried around statues or pictures of them .. they also wouldn't have done it for some years after their deaths. Over time people kept the images and statues as a mark of respect and love. As time progressed people began to pray to the pictures and statues for intercession .. we see that in some Catholic countries where they have parades to carry a statue around and make offerings to it.

The difference is that the Catholics are specifically told to pray to Mary in accordance to official Church doctrine. I don't see any parallels happening in the world of Islam. The Qur'an is explicit in its condemnation of the worship of anyone but Allah.

[3:79] Never would a human being whom GOD blessed with the scripture and prophethood say to the people, "Idolize me beside GOD." Instead, (he would say), "Devote yourselves absolutely to your Lord alone," according to the scripture you preach and the teachings you learn.

Insofar as the pictures of Mohammed, I don't see how anyone could err in this light.

Even so, on a technical standpoint, couldn't Wiki make a written reference or description to link to the enlarged image rather than displaying the smaller image?

 

[Muslimwoman]

How would you feel about someone who thought you should not be allowed to have such a thing?

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

I did ask hubby if he would have a picture of a cow .. given that a certain religion believes cows are sacred. He said he would as long as it wasn't intended to depict a sacred cow, ie if they drew their cows with a garland on their heads he would not have a picture of a cow with a garland.

The difference is that the Catholics are specifically told to pray to Mary in accordance to official Church doctrine. I don't see any parallels happening in the world of Islam. The Qur'an is explicit in its condemnation of the worship of anyone but Allah.

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.

To Sunni Muslims their very existence is a danger to our faith, not an immediate one but we are trying to learn by what we perceive to be a mistake made by Christians.

To show how sensitive an issue it is for Muslims just google images of the Prophets grave .. the only real ones (according to what I can find) are the doors of the room his grave is in and some Muslims sound quite shocked that anyone was able to even take these pictures.

Apparently security guards secure the grave constantly and nobody is allowed to take photo's of it. Some people go to the grave and face the doors with their hands up in supplication .. the security guards will actually stop these people and tell them to turn to face Mecca and pray.

Insofar as the pictures of Mohammed, I don't see how anyone could err in this light.

We already see it Dondi, despite how clear that instruction is.

In my husbands village there is a grave of an imam in a seperate room of the mosque (which in itself is forbidden). Nobody can even remember if he was a good man or if he did anything special for society, though he did pay for the building of the mosque but my husband has witnessed people going into the room and walking around the grave 7 times (as we do with the kabba in Mecca) and praying for the Imam to grant their prayers .. it's a very dangerous slippery slope and one Sunni Muslims must protect ourselves from.

On a much larger scale some Muslims do the same with the graves of the Prophets family and the 4 Imams.

Even so, on a technical standpoint, couldn't Wiki make a written reference or description to link to the enlarged image rather than displaying the smaller image?

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

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?

 

[wil]

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.

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

 

[Netti-Netti]

It appears many were made by Muslims seemingly unaware of this restriction.

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?

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