OK, so I've got a question about "graven images."

[unschooler]

Is it just attempts to make "graven images" of God that are forbidden, or are all "graven images" (the soccer team, Grandma, political leaders) out too?

Somewhere I read that ANY drawing of "The Prophet" would be offensive to Muslims as it would break the ban on "graven images" and that this is a factor in some people's reaction to the Danish cartoons.

True?

[PsychoDad]

1. Depends upon the Muslims you ask.

To some, all "images", (paintings, drawings, sculpture, etc.) of people or animals are to be avoided, that includes photographs, although to most, these are ok.

Images of God are out, as God cannot be depicted in any form, as God has no form conceivable by man, and thus creating an image of God, any image of God, real or mental, subtracts from the worship of the trueness of God... a being inconceivable by man, beyond what has been revealed of itself to man.

Images of the prophets are out by most, This includes Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Why, you ask? Historically, from the viewpoint of Islam, Images of the Prophets have promoted idolatry, as people begin to worship the image; ie: Jesus, Mary, etc. Remember in Islam there is no God but Allah(God), thus, we do not worship Muhammad (peace be upon him) nor do we wish to promote the worship of Muhammad or any other person.

There are some exceptions to the above, the Shia and Persian artists often depicted Muhammad in body, but covered his face, whereas to many Saudi Sunni even this would be bordering upon the undesirable.

Hope this helps.
Peace.

[unschooler]

2. Thanks for the info. So, is the mere depiction of Muhammed in

the famous cartoons offensive for some people, separate from any satire or criticism they may have contained?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Yes,

I think that you could safely say that. My brother has done an excellent job explaining why images are considered forbidden, and which images are forbidden.

[unschooler]

4. I think that point is being missed. I'd be pretty surprised if that would

have occurred to anybody in Europe or elsewhere in the west.

At least now I know (of course, my terrible drawing is offensive regardless of what I try to draw!). :dunce:

[PsychoDad]

5. Yes,

They might find the mere depiction of the Prophet(saw) offensive, but the mere portrayal in a historical or illustrative sense would have never sparked such a reaction as we have seen. There are plenty of such examples of the prophet being illustrated.

It's my opinion that it was not only known by the publishers that the portrayal of Muhammad as the quintessential Muslim Terrorist boggyman of the west would be offensive, but was meant to be, and I think that's how the majority of Muslims worldwide view them.

It's also important to remember that violent reactions are the exception and not the rule. Most Muslims around the world are engaged in peaceful protest, boycott, letter writing and other non-violent expression of outrage toward these cartoons. It's a small fact that seems to have been lost on some.

Peace.