The Koran Does Not Forbid Images of the Prophet

[cbayer]

http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298

BY CHRISTIANE GRUBER 1/9/15 AT 4:43 PM


The Charlie Hebdo killers were operating under a misapprehension. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY

In the wake of the massacre that took place in the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, I have been called upon as a scholar specializing in Islamic paintings of the Prophet to explain whether images of Muhammad are banned in Islam.

The short and simple answer is no. The Koran does not prohibit figural imagery. Rather, it castigates the worship of idols, which are understood as concrete embodiments of the polytheistic beliefs that Islam supplanted when it emerged as a purely monotheistic faith in the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century.

Moreover, the Hadith, or Sayings of the Prophet, present us with an ambiguous picture at best: At turns we read of artists dared to breathe life into their figures and, at others, of pillows ornamented with figural imagery.

If we turn to Islamic law, there does not exist a single legal decree, or fatwa, in the historical corpus that explicitly and decisively prohibits figural imagery, including images of the Prophet. While more recent online fatwas can surely be found, the decree that comes closest to articulating this type of ban was published online in 2001 by the Taliban, as they set out to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

more at link

[A Round Tuit]

1. Allah and the burning bush...

Allah appeared to Anwar Al-awaki and told him to fatwa anyone that did a picture of his prophet.
He also gave him 10 golden tablets with which to purchase grenades and AK-47's.
This was in tales of Abraham. Or something.
Why do we speak of "Islamic Law", when Christianity has it's own silliness? Most of the western world's laws are based upon the edicts from the bible.
The Koran is as muddled as the bible and when anyone takes either of them in a literal fashion, somebody is gonna die in the name of God, er, uh, Allah...whoever.
The only difference I can see is that, so far, no one has been beheaded by a preacher from the Old Church down in the Wildwood, who was pissed off at something someone said about Jesus.
I's really, really sick of this crap.

(And by the way, I predict someone, SOMEONE, will come along and show you the part of the koran where it says to the effect: "Thou shalt travel to the French office of Charlie Hebdo and slew he who has drawn the cartoon of the Prophet.&quot

[cbayer]

2. Hello, A Round Tuit and welcome to the religious group.

I think there is general consensus here that using religion, any religion, as the basis for government or law is a bad idea and should be challenged at every opportunity.

Stick around. You will see all kinds of stories of heinous acts perpetrated by psychotic people in the name of christianity. The critical part is being able to distinguish the responsibility of the individual (or their illness) from the responsibility of the religion.

[Igel]

3. Because it's the nature of a conversation.

Esp. one as structured as a discussion board like this.

It's topic and comment.

The topic is the OP. It sets the topic for the comments. Those who insist on rewriting the topic to suit their interests are usually viewed as hijacking a thread. That's typically boorish, whether on the Internet or butting into a conversation and insisting on taking control. Better to find an article or topic that suits you and post that.

Topics vary but are typically topical. If it's a fundamentalist Xian abortion bomber that's just taken over the headlines, or a Kahanist Jew killing Muslims in a mosque that's all the outrage, you get discussion of fundamentalist Xians or Kahanist Jews. The most recent topic are two small groups of Muslims who, apparently in the name of Allah, decided to kill those who insulted the Prophet and to kill Jews. A more cogent point isn't just that Muhammed was shown; that's the point of the OP. A more cogent point is that Muhammed was insulted. That we see resulting in lynchings in a variety of Muslim countries; that the insult was pictorial is a nice digression, an additional outrage to some who worship their outrage but not the main point to others.

If you don't like a topic, you don't have to participate. If you think an OP offends your sensibilities too much, you can hide the thread. Or you can debate the point. I personally think finding an equally topical thread is a good idea. The problem is that if there isn't one and one has to trawl long and hard to find one in the internets nobody answers.

[A Round Tuit]

4. Oh. OK.

I guess.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Sharia law prescribes death for blasphemy.

So this particular line of apology to excuse Islam from any role in the Paris massacre is nonsense.

[Major Nikon]

10. Not universally

There's nothing in the Koran which prescribes death for blasphemy (unlike the bible). Certainly some jurisdictions have prescribed the death penalty for blasphemy, but claiming Islam as a whole is responsible is a bit of a stretch.

[trotsky]

11. Interpretations differ of course.

The grotesque punishments in Islam stem more from Sharia law and the Hadiths, which do have lots of support - large majorities in many areas.

This Pew survey is an interesting read.

[Major Nikon]

12. The actual problem is the entanglement of religion and government, not any specific religion

Many Christian nations had a long history of applying the death penalty for blasphemy. It was only during the Enlightenment when people started throwing off the yoke of religion that things started to change.

[trotsky]

13. Yet the teaching and/or tradition is there.

Even though it's nice many followers of religions with those features disregard them now, it's disconcerting to still have them around. (They're still available for the fundies to follow.)

[Starboard Tack]

18. You got the Sharia Law book, Warren?

Care to show us the quote?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Google broken on the boat?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy

Start there. Not all interpretations of sharia have the death penalty, but some do. You might recall a certain Iranian author who was notoriously under a fatwa authorizing his execution for blasphemy. All in accordance with Islamic law.

[Starboard Tack]

21. key word being "interpretation"

I already knew there was no book. You just made that shit up.
I see you've bought the party line and think Paris was about Islam. I guess you think WW2 was about Judaism and Christianity and Vietnam was about freedom versus communism. Nothing like feeding on headlines for building perspective.

[unrepentant progress]

6. As early as the 9th century Sunnis were interpreting those haddiths strictly though

And Islam today is generally aniconic. It should be noted too that there were aniconic tendencies in early Christianity as well. It's interesting to me that Christianity evolved a much more relaxed attitude toward iconography than Islam. It didn't have to be that way. For instance, Protestants during the Reformation were rather big on destroying icons.

[kwassa]

7. This is not the belief in Islam. This article is wrong.

There are not only no images of Mohammed, but there are no images of any people in any Islamic religious structure anywhere. Because of this, the art of geometric design, and calligraphy of Koranic verses, remain the source of decoration in all these structures, and many are quite beautiful. Think Taj Mahal.

The belief is strongest in the Sunni Arabs. Most images of any people including Mohammed are found in Persian miniatures, the beautiful artistic product of a completely different culture.

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

Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[3] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[4] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry.[5] In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions.[4][6] Still, 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.[7]

The question of whether images in Islamic art, including those depicting Muhammad, can be considered as religious art remains a matter of contention among scholars.[8] They appear in illustrated books that are normally works of history or poetry, including those with religious subjects; the Qu'ran is never illustrated: "context and intent are essential to understanding Islamic pictorial art. The Muslim artists creating images of Muhammad, and the public who beheld them, understood that the images were not objects of worship. Nor were the objects so decorated used as part of religious worship".[9]

However, scholars concede that such images have "a spiritual element", and were also sometimes used in informal religious devotions celebrating the day of the Mi'raj.[10] Many visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from before about 1500, show his face.[11][12][13] With the notable exception of modern-day Iran,[14] depictions of Muhammad were rare, never numerous in any community or era throughout Islamic history,[15][16] and appeared almost exclusively in the private medium of Persian and other miniature book illustration.[17][18] The key medium of public religious art in Islam was and is calligraphy.[16][17]

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The article neglects to make clear that there were ottoman and persian traditions

that interpreted Islam to allow for images while the arab tradition did not.

[trotsky]

9. Well then, that just settles it, huh?

Cool. Glad to know that no one will continue to believe drawing Mohammed is offensive. Someone needs to correct all the other people who are wrong about their religious beliefs - can't believe it was this easy all along!

[Starboard Tack]

19. Insulting people for their beliefs is offensive trotsky, not drawing pictures.

You should know that better than most.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. I may be misguided, but this seems like a question for a couple of Imams to wrestle with.

For those of us outside of the Islamic faith, why is it even pertient? Certainly, it's a question with different answers, depending on who you ask.

[cbayer]

15. As with so much, it seems to be a matter of interpretation.

She is claiming that some have misinterpreted it, but there are those here who think she is wrong.

Another irresolvable issue.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. I heard an Islamic woman argue that Mohammed had great respect for women.

It can be a struggle to make your religion fit your worldview sometimes.

[cbayer]

17. One of the things I like about religion is it's adaptability.

While this doesn't always suit my purposes, sometimes it does.