The Wikipedia Stance
I’m totally siding with Wikipedia. History doesn’t just belong to modern-day Muslims, especially if it is related to Islam as done by Muslims of other centuries. After all, modern-day Muslims are a very, very small part of all the Muslims in history, and these modern-day Muslims have absolutely no right to try to negate the history of Islam’s other Muslims.
Historical negation aside, these images were taken from Islamic manuscripts intended to actually SPREAD Islam by using images when most people in the world did not know how to write or read. That actually makes them a pretty lofty cause as far as Islam is concerned, because they did manage to convert some Berber, Persian, and East Asians to Islam.
So yeah, go Wikipedia. [link]
Abed Hamdan
February 18, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Wow.
The historical manuscript you claim says that Muslims used pictures of the prophet to “SPREAD” Islam. I still don’t understand how pictures of the prophet would be used to SPREAD Islam.
FYI, in Islam the sketching of human figures is forbidden. That was in Islam, a rule, since the dawn of Islam. “Modern Muslims” didn’t make it up, because Islam didn’t changed since then. Quran hasn’t been tampered with since then.
FYI, “SPREADING Islam” is not the actual duty of a Muslim, “explaining Islam” and “showing Islam” to other cultures IS the responsibility of Muslims. After having this right granted, “SHOWING ISLAM”, then it’s up to people to take it or not. And showing pictures will not spread Islam or any religion. Even if it does, then it’s not allowed in Islam.
So if Wikipedia is showing these pictures of the holy prophet, then it gives a false image about how Islam was “SPREAD”. Even if some “modern Muslims” find it convenient, this doesn’t change the Islamic law.
You know Islam spanned many countries, and many “bida3″ were into Islam, many people from different cultures become Muslims, so it’s highly possible that some people tried to sketch the prophet, but nevertheless this doesn’t change the rule of Islam that denies the right of sketching a portrait of the prophet.
I like Wikipedia, but as an honest Muslim it’s very obvious that this is not the correct view of Islam. Islam is different that Christianity in this sense, and to each hist own.
Abed Hamdan
February 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
eft many typos in my comment, reading blogs from work sucks
- sorry :S
Roba
February 18, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Well, I’d then recommend you read about the subject. I won’t give you any links from the internet although there are many, I would recommend a very good article called “”From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of Prophet Muhammad’s Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art”, written by Wijdan Ali, an Arab, a Muslim, a Jordanian, and a respected historian, who will give you historical background (link to article:http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf). Another book worth mentioning is “Arab Contribution to Islamic Art”, by the same author.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want. But to me, this isn’t about Islam, the teachings of Islam, or how Islam is different from other religions, it’s about historical facts that modern-day Muslims are trying to “delete” from history.
Roba
February 18, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
It’s ok about the typos, I didn’t even notice! :)
Abed Hamdan
February 18, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Thanks for the links, I will look at the articles Insha’Allah.
But as I wrote above, I told you Islam spanned my continents, and many cultures and “bida3″ have been added to Islam. I also agreed that some people could’ve actually used pictures and portraits. However this doesn’t change Islamic rules that prohibits the usage of such things. In Islam we have absolutes, which are the Quran and the Sunnah. If it’s denied in Quran and Sunnah, then having people from old times doing it doesn’t justify it.
If the pictures are part of a history, then they should be referred to as a history not as a part of Islam as a religion. Some Muslims could’ve used these images, but this is against Islamic rules. So for the sake of intellectual honesty, it must be removed from anything related to Islam, and must be put in context of mentioning those groups who used those images. There are many groups in Islam who claimed many things, like those who claimed that God is some Pakistani man, this doesn’t mean it’s part of Islam or its history, it’s part of “their” beliefs, not Islam’s.
If you have any doubt about the Islamic rule that forbids the usage of such images, I can bring some references.
The Sandmonkey
February 18, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Dear Ahmed, I find it hard to believe that the muslims of the 14th and 15th century were less islamic than their 21st century counterparts, to the degree that that they would commit such a “blasphemous act” as to picture the prophet in art, when we, the good muslims of the 21st century, like to burn embassies and kill people when others do that same thing. Here is what I believe though: There are those not very nice people called the wahabis and the salafist, and they spent too much time in the sun, and thus had their brains cooked really really well. They see women as vaginas, valentine days as satanist ploy and everything that adds almost anything to the value of life as forbidden, chief amongst them, naturally, any form of art (not just the prophet depicting kind). Unfortunately for us, they stumbled on a massive amount of oil in their lands, which has allowed them to spread their ideology far and wide in the muslim world, effectively making their brand of Islam the one that people like you seem to believe to be the correct type. That being said, they, and their ideology, can kiss my brown ass, because it’s tribal and retarded. I am not saying you are, cause I have no idea how much u subscribe to their line of thinking beyond the images of the prophet issue, and god knows many people – due to said brainwashing- will likely agree with you than with me, so don;t get me wrong.
Here is what I propose though: Wikipedia removed the pics from the arabic version, but are keeping them in the english one. Those pictures, whether you agree to them or don’t, belong to the human heritage at this point, and neither you, nor I, nor anyone, have the right to remove them just because we don’t like them anymore or they don’t fit in our current set of beliefs. And even if the entire world turns muslim and believes that those pictures should be removed, rest assured that me, or someone like me, will tell all of them that they can’t. Burning books, removing images, or destroying graven idols of other religions is the stuff of the dark ages. It’s a national shame that such thinking is allowed to exist till today, bas what can we do? Ady allah we ady 7ekmetoh.
Just saying..
Farah
February 18, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
i totally agree. The picture on wikipedia is from the 1500s whereas the banning of sketches wasnt practised till the 1600s. do we throw everything before that in the garbage? of course not! get over it already, and have an open-mind.
m7md
February 18, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
ppl already make fun of god all the time, so .. why to care that much about muhammad? he is just a mind washing guy (at least to them)
Abed Hamdan
February 18, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Dear Sandmonkey,
I’m Abed not Ahmad.
First of all, I’m neither concerned about salafis or wahabis idealogy nor about oil.
And, I didn’t say Muslims now are better than before. There are many Muslim groups throughout the centuries who had different beliefs. So as I said above, it’s very possible that some of them did those sketches. I’m not talking about whether the pics existed or not. And im not talking about heroic posting of the pictures either.
My point is, Islam as it always has been (now, 1450 yrs go, 2000 yrs from now), forbids sketching the prophet (I can prove this if you are interested). It’s one of Islam’s absolutes. It has nothing to do with timing or oil.
Now, we agree that those pictures are history and did exist. So what I’m suggesting is that those pictures be put in the correct context – with the people who believed in them and sketched them. Saying that this is part of Islam is simply not correct.
I’m Muslim, and I freely say that this has nothing to do with Islam, it’s something drawn by some people who believed in this and this is it. Don’t you think it’s better for historians and people to know facts as they are ? Well, this is not Islam, it’s something drawn by “people” who had certain beliefs that happened to contradict Islam.
So in my humble opinion, and for a better wikipedia, let’s put things in the correct context.
I hope my points are clear enough now.
Islamic history is very vast and spanned a huge amount of space and time, and there are many weird beliefs (like your salafi friends for example). But this is all can be mentioned for the sake of history and in the correct context. Islam is Islam, and Qur’an is Qur’an. Now how different groups and political fanatics interpret it is not our business.
Best Regards.
Abed Hamdan
February 18, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Farah,
I know how tempting and exciting it is to accuse any Islamic public movement or suggestion by being not Open minded so and so. And even came to believe that people actually think it’s “cool”.
From what I saw, I think people should be more open minded in understanding Islam to begin with. Understand Islam before attacking Muslims. Understand Islam before accusing Muslims with closed mindedness and retardedness.
Before claiming that those pictures are part of Islam, know Islam.\
It’s rather astounding how many verses in Qur’an ended with”
ان في ذلك لأيات لقوم يعقلون
إن في ذلك لأيات لقوم يتفكرون
إن في ذلك لأيات لأولى الألباب
Secret Agent X-9
February 18, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Abed,
Please enlighten me about Islam: Why can’t a non-muslim draw respectful pictures of the prophet? The ban on graven images is for muslims, not for non-muslims correct? Also, another question if I may: considering that idolatry is bad, what about such things as the way that Mullah Muhammed Omar of the Taliban shows (showed) off a supposed piece of the prophet’s robes? Is that not just another form of idolatry? Does the ban on “sketching of the human figure” apply to modern reproduction methods as well? If so, then aren’t a lot of people violating that tenet by appearing on television, having photo’s taken, etc? This is asked in all seriousness as these seeming inconsistencies are nagging.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 18, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Abed,
would you please extend the references versus the wikipedia claim?
A Western By Stander
February 18, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Why is there a prohibition against having pictures of the Prophet Mohamed?
From my reading of the Koran, it appears to me that Prophet Mohamed did not want be prayed to as an intermediary, as was a common practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church at the time with Christians Saints, Mary and Jesus. Since only God should be worshiped and prayed to, he was preempting the Icons and the practices associated with them.
The Prophet Mohamed stated he was not better than any other prophet such as Noah or Abraham. I felt he was saying – “it’s the message, not the messenger,” or in more colloquial terms “I’m like a telephone. You wouldn’t worship the telephone, would you?”
If this is the case, I think he would be horrified that someone would kill somebody for making a drawing of him, because that would be elevating him to a position that he was trying to avoid.
Farah
February 18, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Abed, firstly, rest assured that my opinion in no way originated from wanting to be “cool”. Secondly, i don’t think i was attacking Islam, im just saying when it comes to Islam, people tend to become overly-sensitive, do you not agree?
I think there are other issues that are more important that we need to tend to (in Islam), and i don’t think that having a sketch on wikipedia is the biggest problem right now. You have every right to be against it, but all you have to do is not open that page! There’s pornography all over the internet, how come you dont start a petition for each and every website? same principle.
brooklynjon
February 18, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Abed,
As a non-Muslim, I have no opinion as to whether Islam forbids artistic depiction of the Prophet or not, or whether it is an unsettled area of Islamic law. It’s not my problem, nor is it an area I can claim any expertise in.
However, I do have an opinion as to the imposition of Islamic law on non-Muslims, and this is it: You Can’t Do It. Islamic law applies to Muslims only. Period. Wikipedia can publish images that violate Islamic Law if they want because they’re not Muslims. And guess what. If it turns out that the people who run Wikipedia are, in fact, Muslim, then they still can publish it. If Allah finds it offensive, Allah can take care of them in whatever way He wants.
And if some cartoonist wants to draw a picture and label it “Mohammed”, guess what? He can! And if Allah gets angry, he can slay him with a thunderbolt. But based on the fact that none of the Danish cartoonists have suffered death by thunderbolt, I suppose that Allah has bigger fish to fry than a bunch of stupid cartoons, or, for that matter, some electrons that code for an image on a computer that may or may not resemble someone who lived a long, long time ago.
But if you want to abide by that particular tenet of Islamic Law, and not draw a picture of the Prophet, you have my blessing.
العبيط
February 18, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
dear all,
i didn’t read all the comments in here…. but
in theory, islam is a religion for every time and every place ( in theory)
but when it comes on how to implement islam, it varies according to the situation and circumstances around that implementation, Time and Place, in addition to the society culture plays a major role on how to implement islam,
and thats what makes islam so great,
that is the essence of islam,
as for wikipedia and the prophet pic.
noticing that the pics were drawn during the islamic golden age, indicates that drawing people is not forbidden in islam ( this is first)
second of all…
In islam, we warship Allah, and only Allah, Mohamad for us, is only a human being, who was a messenger from God, (nothing more, nothing less)
so that human being must have a face, how did he looked like… specially someone like our prophet to us, the early people must described him in a very detailed way, so the late people can imagine him, and the most important, know that he is only a human
now by forbidding drawing him, you are making him a mythical person, no one can imagine how does he looked like… now about the respect, drawing a person does not make our prophet less respectable… or not drawing him does not make him more respectable..
Rami M.
February 19, 2008 @ 1:43 am
To “The Sandmonkey” being open-minded and thinking logically does not mean you are right!
Thanks Abed, I agree with what you said.
These pictures should be moved from the section talking about Islam to a section talking about Art history at that time. Islam got nothing to do with it. Anyone can draw a picture now for the prophet and after 100 years they say that this is how they used to depict Prophet Mohammed in the year 2008.
Ahmad
February 19, 2008 @ 3:08 am
I am really surprised that we bother too much about cartoon while we have other problems more important. As Muslim, i would not see a picture for any prophets because my faith does not allow me to do that. But if a non-Muslim country want sot picture any prophet, it is his business. The problem is not about Islam not allowing picturing Prophet; it is kind of double standard in this world. There are taboo topics you can not discuss them such as Holocaust. That makes Muslims to wonder why world are taking us seriously. The funny side in the Danish cartoons that they were published in September and Muslims responded in February
I am sure prophet Muhammad will be angry on us not because of Pictures but how we suffer from lack of educations and technology .The dancers on Arab’s Tv are worst than few images.
Abed Hamdan
February 19, 2008 @ 8:35 am
soo many questions, I will answer them one by one, slowly though because I have work to do now.
Secret Agent X:
From Islamic perspective, sketching a human portrait is not allowed. If any non muslim did it, the it’s up to his religions or beliefs. Muslim’s duty is not to judge others, it’s God’s job, neither Muslim is concerned about other’s beliefs.
Now having a western sketching the prophet and then saying hey it’s part of Islam heritage is wrong since it has nothing to do with Islam, it’s even forbidden in Islam. So it’s fault. As we said and agreed above, some people could’ve sketched some pictures and claimed that this is the prophet (which we’re not sure of), so in this case the pictures must be associate with – and only with- those people (regardless if they call themselves Muslims or not, we sure it’s NOT part of Islam).
What must be pointed out , and for that matter removed from Wikipedia, is that these portraits have nothing to do with Islam.
According to Muslims specialists and Mullas, the usage of modern tools, such as photography, is allowed because it’s an exact copy of the human figure. But sketching them is forbidden because it’s not what God created. Now you may ask the “why”, and I will tell you it’s not that easy to know they “whys” of each Islamic rule because Islam is complete social system, the sum of its part will make sense as a whole. You can’t take one piece and analyze and judge accordingly, u have to have full understanding of the social, political, religious system of Islam, which is not easy at all, it’s a life time thing.
Now about Taliban’s thing, I’m not a Taliban expert, and in fact I neither know much about them nor I’m interested. I’m sure if what they have belonged really to the prophet, however I can tell you that early fellows of Muhammad like Khaled ibn el waleed used to put one of the prophets hairs in his cap. The prophet didn’t ask him to do so, but he didn’t disapprove of it either. See, if you love someone, you would like to carry anything that belonged to him/her. I don’t see anything out of normal here.
You will always face a seemingly endless inconsistencies with Islam, unless you dedicate yourself to “understand” Islam, and this have to be done from the ground up. If you want to study any kind of science you start with basics first, then you go up, the same applies to Islam. It’s a complete huge system, but is comprehensible.
Abed Hamdan
February 19, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Ahmad:
what references do you want ? you want a reference that it’s not allowed in Islam to sketch human portraits ? or you want references that the pics on Wikipedia are out or context and misleading ?
Abed Hamdan
February 19, 2008 @ 8:44 am
Farah,
I was not stereotyping YOU. I was talking about what I see here and there in general.
who said that the pics are our biggest problem ? we have occupation in palestine and iraq, this is more important.
sure, we can just not see the pics, or we can even see it , where’s the harm ??
I know people are sensitive, but I think I wasn’t talking about feelings, and im not even interested in anybody’s feeling. I thought I know something about religion Islam and it needs to be pointed out. And I’m also not interested in convincing people to be Muslims. It’s mentioned more than once in Qur’an:
ولا تزر وازرة ورز أخرى
do you know what this means ?? this means everybody will be judged ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for his own deeds. I don’t really care about those who published the pics or those who think it’s heroic, I think it’s stupid and it’s expected because there’s a general ignorance and misunderstanding of Islam ,unfortunately even by Arab born Muslims.
I found a blog post that says that those pics belong to early Muslims, and I think they don’t. They belong to defiant groups who claimed to be Muslims ( we have our Islamic absolutes to judge against), and I think it’s the duty of any honest intellectual to point this out. But why, it’s a lot easier to say that those Arab retards doesn’t have a clue.
Abed Hamdan
February 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Western by Stander:
I don’t think you get the point of anything said here so far. But don’t worry, nobody will kill you for pics, and killing is not allowed in Islam. But what do you know about Islam anyway.
Abed Hamdan
February 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
sorry too many comments!!
Ahmad
February 19, 2008 @ 11:14 am
The links below are lectures given by a scholar called Ahmed Deedat. He was talking about
Satanic verses In these lectures ,he was not against Muslims demonstrating in the street But he had got different opinion for dealing with problem.
http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sheikh Ahmed Deedat-How Rushdie Fooled the West&search_type=
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q61xZX3xxUE&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZpsPXhtWLQ&feature=related
Abed Hamdan
(what references do you want ? you want a reference that it’s not allowed in Islam to sketch human portraits ? or you want references that the pics on Wikipedia are out or context and misleading ? ))
I need to ask a question here: Islam forbids drinking Alcohol or eating pork. If non- Muslim did that, he would not be labeled as a sinner from Islamic point of view. If you agree with me, we should not deal with the Danish cartoons or images in wikipdia .from this angle by saying this is allowed or not in islam. They do not understand this language . However, if they are free for attacking Islam , we are free for taking different actions against publisher by using peaceful methods After you listen to Ahmed Deedat’speechm you understand what I mean.
Abed Hamdan
February 19, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Ahmad,
I love Ahmad deeta, Allah yer7amo.
Yes I agree if nonMuslims did Islamic sin then from our point of view that wasn’t their major sin, there’s another one – disbelieving in Islam.
Now, If you love your father and supposedly he is dead and I took his pictures and spat on them and stepped on them, you will definitely not be happy. Sure you may not kill me, but what I did will be considered wrong.
I’m really not interested in explaining Islamic rules of laws to the Danes, when they find a more civilized way to express their hatred to Islam, I’d be more interested in finding better ways to explain things for them. For the moment, they can kiss my butt.
But let’s be more subjective here and stick to the topic.
TRiPLEM
February 19, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
The image still there nothing changed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg
Secret Agent X-9
February 19, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
So let me understand this, if someone takes a photo it is ok because it is an “exact copy” but a sketch is not therefore it is sinful? No offense, but that’s a ruling of convenience, not theology. It ignores the possibilty that the photographic equipment could be damaged, distorted etc.
Ahmad
February 19, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
I am not saying it is not wrong. I remember a story of Prophet Muhammad when he was called bad names by infidels. He did not send his companions to kill infidels or burning their houses. In contrary, he stopped his daughter (ten years old) from throwing stones on them. We are a weak nation and can not impose a resolution to ban picturing or making fun of Prophets. I am with people who want to boycott Danish’s products but against who burning an embassy or using this matter for hidden agenda.
For wikipedia, they claim the image is for our Prophet, ok, it is their opinion. We should discuss with them based on genuine of image not to say it is not allowed to picture. They will say, we are not bothered. The editor of Danish newspaper said that ‘in our country people are allowed to walk naked in the street while it is not in Muslim country. This isour business and no noe force other on how to live if they are with law.’
Islamic rule are not welcomed in other culture, we shoud use other methode to face the probelm. Ahamed deedat responded on Satanic book by publishing abook to show how Satanic book iis based on lie. he distrinuted without money in UK’street. This is the best way to face dansih cartoon or anything like that.
Hamzeh N.
February 19, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
I’m totally not siding with either side! :D
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 20, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Abed,
I wanted the references that ban human drawing and sculpture in Islam.
muhammad arrabi
February 20, 2008 @ 12:11 am
Agreed Ruba. I think Wikipedia should remain an unbiased generic encyclopoedia. I encourage Muslims to create a separate Islamic Encyclopedia that caters to the religion’s points of view. I’m serious – I think we need an Encyclopedia where all the narrators of Hadith are included, and what books have talked about them, about each Hadith, about the different Islamic views on Economics – from Ibn Baz to Mahmoud AlGamal of Rice University (who, by the way, believes that Islamic Banks are essentially flawed).
I wish to see such an effort a reality…
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 20, 2008 @ 12:16 am
Abed,
I wanted the shari3a references.
k
February 20, 2008 @ 12:52 am
If a non – muslim is not forbidden to show her hair or eat pork or etc etc … why would a non muslim be forbidden to make an image? Islamic ‘rules’ are for muslims… not non-muslims- right?
Halalhippie /Denmark
February 20, 2008 @ 2:04 am
Ahmad: “I am with people who want to boycott Danish’s products” Why ? What has Arla cheese and Lego bricks got to do with a bunch of old men debating religion vs press freedom ? Why do you wish to punish a whole country for the doings of a handful ?
Is that very Islamic ?
Very recently 2 Tunesian men were arrested for plotting to kill the “bomb-in-turban” artist. Should I burn a Tunesian flag ? If you and I meet, should I be afraid ?
SamSeven
February 20, 2008 @ 6:49 am
BOTTOM LINE PEOPLE, ESP ROBA. YOUR QUOTING THAT MUSLIMS DREW THOSE PICTURES IS AT BEST PRECARIOUS, AS YOU HAVE NO PROOF THEY WERE MUSLIMS AND WERE GOD FEARING ONES AS ABED SAID. Hence to quote them as Muslims is a misquote. I agree that it is a fact that they very well could have existed, but to take it as face value, that at one point in time it was a strong contemporary Muslim tradition to spread Islam through photo-journalism is a very weak case at best. Frankly, it would be easier to go back to having the old worn out debate about Islam being spread by the fucking sword. ALL ABED WAS DOING IS STANDING UP FOR HIS RELIGION & MAY HE BE BLESSED FOR DOING SO.
FRANKLY IN MY OPINION, THE STATE OF ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION IN THIS DAY IN AGE IS PRETTY WRAGGED.
I was intrigued, as always by Sandmonkey’s comments, he should be called the disgruntled Michael Jackson of blogging. However having said that, as much as the ARAB- ISRAELI, MUSLIM-CHRSITIAN, COLD WAR-NWO, KOSOVO-SERBIA, ABSTINACE-ORGY, SYNONYM-ANTONYM thing is concerned with the inflamed passions that ensue. I am starting to see through the fact that it is precisely that, NOT FACT RELATED but just a statement, hence showing the ability to fringe on a new & unique characteristic of expression & freedom of choice.
People will worship hamburgers cuz they taste so damn good as well as there being people who worship the cow cuz they are Hindu. But lets not forget to respect other religions in the name of [out of mid evil ages] civil values.
Abed Hamdan
February 20, 2008 @ 7:49 am
Secret Agent:
It is a rule of theology. I will repeat; u may get the point of the rule, it’s unlikely because you simply don’t know Islam as a whole, go and learn Islam, then with all its aspect it will make sense.
Sure, the photograph could be corrupted, but when u take a picture of someone by camera then this is the exact person.
so ? you know the “what” but you will know the “why”, not this way, not this “skeptical” way.
T. Shahin
February 20, 2008 @ 8:06 am
An encyclopedia that does not show the full facts is not an encyclopedia. Period. With great bandwidth comes great responsibility.
Ahmad
February 20, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Halalhippie /Denmark
I beg you pardon. I think you are twisting my wards . Islam teaches us to not kill innocent people or destroy their houses…. In this world, we have adopted from your modern countries in Europe something called boycotting. It is a peaceful way to show that we are not happy from your government,
((Very recently 2 Tunesian men were arrested for plotting to kill the “bomb-in-turban” artist. Should I burn a Tunesian flag ? If you and I meet, should I be afraid ? ))
These criminals were trying to kill artists, that is not our fault. They should be jailed for long time not deporting them!!!!. After i wrote many articles HERE emphasizing on peaceful tools to protest against cartons, you saying ‘should I be afraid ‘. This is wrong because Muslims are afraid now from being accused BY YOU.
Abed Hamdan
February 20, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Ahmad el sholi:
since your name is Ahmad (of all the names in the world!), then ur muslim, so you go and ask any mofti you trust to give you that fatwa. ok ?
Ahmad:
I don’t know how many wars it takes you people to understand that certain people don’t want to have conversation. anyway, this is so irrelevant.
if anybody needs other answers, email me. I will not write more comment because I wrote too much already
bye
Jonathan Levy
February 20, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Abed Hamdan said:
Now, If you love your father and supposedly he is dead and I took his pictures and spat on them and stepped on them, you will definitely not be happy. Sure you may not kill me, but what I did will be considered wrong.
This example, of course, touches all of us, but it is not analogous to the Danish Cartoons incident, for two main reasons:
1) Muhammad promulgated certain ideas, and it is quite legitimate for a cartoon to criticise, mock, or even ridicule an idea.
2) Muhammad is upheld by many Muslims as a paragon of virtue, and worthy of imitation by all people. Because of this, it is quite legitimate for a cartoon to criticise, mock, or even ridicule his behavior.
To use your analogy:
1) If my grandfather published a book saying that 1 1=3, people are certainly allowed to ridicule that idea, even if it implies unpleasant things about my grandfather.
2) If I go around saying how wonderful my grandfather was, and that everyone should imitate him, then if someone points out in public the fact that, say, he was a wife-beater, this might be unpleasant for me, but I have no-one to blame but myself.
I believe that this is why the ‘kindly deceased grandfather’ analogy does not apply. You cannot promote someone’s ideas, and then take offense when they are criticized.
I see that I have joined this discussion rather late, but I hope I may still get a reply from you.
Jonathan Levy
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 20, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Abed hamdan,
No need to mock!
you said you can extend references, I am asking politely for it. what went wrong?? :))))
Fatima
February 20, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Well, I’m not really following this conversation really closely, and this isn’t exactly about Wikipedia’s stance, but since since the last post asked for the Islamic evidence that prohibits images, here are some:
1. “Those who make these images (suwar) will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, ‘Make alive what you have created’.” [Bukhari and Muslim]
2. Narrated Aisha, “Allah’s Messenger peace be upon him came back from a journey and I had screened my door with a curtain having (images) of winged horses on it. He (peace be upon him) commanded me (to remove it). So, I pulled it down.” [Bukhair and Muslim]
There are more ahadith as well, but that should do for this type of discussion.
Scholars HAVE different in there interpretation of these evidences, ranging from allowing anything that is not 3D (i.e. drawing pictures are ok, but not statues) to prohibiting even the images of cameras.
At that same time, I believe they are all absolutely in agreement that drawing images of ANY Prophet is blasphemous, WITHOUT dispute.
What Muslims (or “Muslims”) did or did not do in any one century is not evidence that something is allowed or prohibited in Islam in the least. If it were, then our century would prove that blowing up civilians and crashing airplanes into buildings was not only allowed, but virtuous.
Halalhippie /Denmark
February 20, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Ahmad : twisting your words ? maybe misunderstanding, I apologize.
“In this world, we have adopted[..] boycotting. It is a peaceful way to show that we are not happy from your government.”
Only fair, if you want to make a statement: by my government ? It wasn’t my government made these cartoons, it was an independent paper, and it certainly wasn’t me. (it wasn’t Arla or Lego either)
What I object to, is being collectively punished.
What am I accusing Muslims of ? One man may – or may not as one sees it – accuse some Muslims of abusing the teachings of the Prophet to justify violence.
ch1xx0r
February 21, 2008 @ 1:14 am
You know, technically, the illustration on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet constitutes the very first offensive cartoon of the prophet Mohammed. Maybe those protesters should go looking for the artist’s descendants. Or maybe there’s bigger issues out there that require our attention.
Abed Hamdan
February 22, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Ahmad el Sholi:
I think you’ve got reading problems. I have already said that if u have further questions email.
Yes I said I’d bring references, but not to Muslims who are seeking fatwa. but hey I will be more tolerant and I will explain one more verse of Qur’an to you, and if you fail to fathom, then it’s not my responsibility:
فاسالوا اهل الذكر ان كنتم لا تعلمون
I would rather expand the explanation of the self-explanatory verse:
the usuage of ف instead of و
فاسألو
instead of
واسألو
means
الرتبيت والسرعة
which means do it fast and ask your trusted mofti. In case you don’t know how the hierachical structre of fatwas and knowledge in Islam, then I’d suggest you go and find it.
or you better having me bringing you the opinion or saying of a certain 3alem that you probably haven’t heard of ?? Do it yourself brother, and take it as an opportunity to learn how fatwas are produced in Islam. no offense, but no matter what your age is, this is something you should’ve learn LONG ago.
It’s not my job to teach you first how to do addition and multiplication in order then to teach you how to solve a differential equation. And in case you don’t know, I’m a very busy man myself.
Abed Hamdan
February 22, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Jonathan Levy :
Well, since I firmly believe the discussion of the danish cartoons are out of scope, I’ll try to be as brief as I can:
Like all the discussions I had about Islam, a rather astonishing distorted view of Islam is the first thing I face.
1) Muslims don’t want people to imitate prophet Muhammad, because there’s no point in “imitating” someone you know nothing about nor believe.
2) Muslims will never object on the a book that tries to refute or discuss his ideas, we merely found it the amount of bitterness and hatred to our prophet to be amazing and of course a matter of contempt.
The grandfather/father analogy I used is just an attempt to explain Muslim’s rage, something you , oddly enough, see as incomprehinsible. I think it’s understandable now.
Now from out point of view, what you sketch about Islam reveals to us the amount of ignorance you have towards Islam. Seriously, you’ve got no clue whatsoever. Also it shows the amount of contempt that have been piling up all those centuries. Honestly, I can’t believe how some people hate Islam but hey it makes no difference, because Islam survived and will survive, simply because it’s true and is protected by the creator of the universe. You believing in it or not, makes no difference. The execution of the man who said that earth is not flat didn’t change anything. This is “OUR” point of view.
Violence is out of question to me, and I’m as harmless as a sheep, but I explained to you the “rage” you see on TV, now you know.
And personally I have no interest in your cartoons or you country, and I pitty those who eats themselves up hatred towards Islam.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 22, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
abed,
I congratulate you for winning the absolute prize for manners lacking. bare with my few lines since you are very busy in holding up decent conversations.
You said you could extend references, I did not see in any post that addressed me saying to contact you by email.
In addition, am not asking for a fatwa.. I am NOT coming to you to give me fatwa, I asked for the references that you offered to extend.
After bragging about deshivering the verse, and insulting me how to understand religion… It looks clear how you look down on people, how understanding you are, very busy, yet finds the time to talk about something other than the topic…
Before all that… try to understand the peace of Islam.
END
Abed Hamdan
February 22, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
Ahmad El Sholi:
believe me buddy, I’ve got nothing personal against you.
I wrote a separate comment that if anybody want to discuss anything with me, then email me. YOU are among “everybody”.
I said that I can extend reference (and in fact I will search for them because nothing with me right now), and of course by references I mean fatwas. How do you expect me to explain to any nonMuslim the word fatwa ? I used it with you because you are Muslim ? Those are the references I have, fatwas that I’m going to ask for.
And you have to understand that I’m irritated and I have the right to be both irritated and disappointed at a supposedly Muslim who asks for fatwas in such discussion.
“After bragging about deshivering the verse, and insulting me ”
so that you all you got from me ? that I was bragging and insulting you ? No I wasn’t, and I think now you know what I meant by references. Please go and for fatwa, those are the references, and instead of hating me and thinking I was insulting no, read other comments written here, you will see that many people have stated fatwas regarding this issue.
NO INSULT INTENDED, but this we learned early at school, and I think it’s quite obvious to the average Muslim.
This is why I was irritated and disappointed.
I hope I understand the true spirits and peace of Islam, and I hope that we both understand the “meaning” of the very first word Allah revealed to Muhammad in Qur’an.
Abed Hamdan
February 22, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Ahmad el sholi:
I re-read my comments, and I apologize for my tune. I didn’t intend anything personal to you, bas wallahi I was disappointed and frustrated because I thought a Muslim will understand and actually help in such discussion.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 22, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
Fatima,
I went through the hadith database, and could locate it in “muslim” only, and not for bukhari.
However, as you can see below.. the hadith itself (combines the two parts you mentioned) and added that she made cushions out of it. which I believe does not effect the material itself that the curtain was made of.
Book 024, Number 5261:
A’isha reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) visited me. and I had a shelf with a thin cloth curtain hangin. over it and on which there were portraits. No sooner did he see it than he tore it and the colour of his face underwent a change and he said: A’isha, the most grievous torment from the Hand of Allah on the Day of Resurrection would be for those who imitate (Allah) in the act of His creation. A’isha said: We tore it into pieces and made a cushion or two cushions out of that.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/024.smt.html#024.5256
Fatima
February 22, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Ahmad Al-Sholi, you’re quite right, I actually had truncated the references I had, because there is another version of the hadith in Bukhari which gave the same meaning (the wording was the wording of Muslim), and I thought I would make things simple. I’ll try to be more clear next time.
What you have mentioned (of turning the curtains into cushions) is part of the reason why scholars have disagreed on 2D images: are they not allowed in and of themselves, or is it that they were being hung up? Did turning the curtain into a cushion change the images (maybe the horses were very big and got distorted when they were cut) or did everything remain the same except for the use of the material?
When a scholar comes to a conclusion, they have to look through ALL of the resources and statements available. Again, I only mentioned two for simplicity, to show where the argument was coming from, because a blog (any blog) is usually not the most ideal place for a conversation like this. But here is another hadith that might help reconcile things a little:
Narrated Aisha may Allah be pleased with her: “I bought a cushion (numruqah) having images (tasaaweer) on it. When Allah’s Messenger peace be upon him saw it, he stopped at the door and did not enter. She noticed the signs of strong disapproval on his face. She said: O Allah’s Messenger! I turn to Allah and His Messenger in repentance. What sin have I committed? He said: What is this cushion for? I said: I bought it for you to sit on and recline. Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘The makers of these images (suwar) will be punished (severely) on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, “Make alive what you have created.”‘ He, peace be upon him, added: ‘Angels do not enter a house in which there are images (suwar).’” [Bukhari and Muslim]
Again, there is so much more involved in the matter in terms of fiqh and usool al-fiqh and usool al-hadith which goes beyond the scope of this conversation… but does that help answer your questions at all?
Ahmad
February 22, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Latest Featured Article
CULTURE CLASH
Bonfire of the Pieties
Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion.
by AMIR TAHERI
“The Muslim Fury,” one newspaper headline screamed. “The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe,” said another. “The clash of civilizations is coming,” warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly–though not exclusively–in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.
But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The “rage machine” was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood–a political, not a religious, organization–called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood’s rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party’s 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan–who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary–can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued “fatwas” against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments–which include a ban on depicting God–as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is “an absolute principle of Islam” is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.
The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:
A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M’eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet’s capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad’s miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, “Massacre of the Family of the Prophet,” showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk’s portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).
Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great “lawgivers” of mankind.
There has been other imagery: the Janissaries–the elite of the Ottoman army–carried a medallion stamped with the prophet’s head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet’s son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.
Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims “suicide martyrdom” as the highest goal for all true believers.
The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of “laughing at religion,” at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam’s literature know of Ubaid Zakani’s “Mush va Gorbeh” (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa’adi’s eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the “dry pious ones.” And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.
Islamic ethics is based on “limits and proportions,” which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.
Mr. Taheri is the author of “L’Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes” (Editions Complexe, 2002).
EMAIL THIS FORMAT FOR PRINTING RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE READ RESPONSES
BOOKMARK THIS SITE ARCHIVE
Return To Top
Subscribe Log In Take a Tour Contact Us Help Email Setup Customer Service: Online | Print
Privacy Policy Subscriber Agreement & Terms of Use Mobile Devices RSS Feeds
News Licensing Advertising About Dow Jones
Copyright © 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
imad
February 23, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Thanks ahmad for that article.
Due to how Islam is taught in most sunni Muslim locales, you have a have majority of people like Abed Hamdan who believe far too many things in Islam to be “absolutes”. The historical reality (which is rarely taught in the Muslim world) is that far fewer things are “Absolutes” in Islam. Forbidding images is one of those things that aren’t absolutes except if you are modern-day sunni (like Abed) who thinks the Sunna (includes the hadith) is the correct form of Islam that the Prophet had intended for, 1400 years ago.
The Sunna, and all of us sunnis follow a corrupted form of Islam since around 900 AD. In fact there were no Sunni’s during the Prophet’s time, nor in the next few generations after his death. Nor were the Hadith written down nor properly preserved (as the Qur’an has been) during his time or the time of his “rightly-guided caliphs”.
Abed it is not your fault for what you believe, but if you would waste as much time reading non-polemical Islamic history as you do responding redundantly on this blog you may benefit and open your eyes to the history of Islam, and then you may understand that your version (Sunnism) is not what our great forefathers who spread Islam actually practiced.
Ruba thanks for your post, and for citing wijdan’s scholarship on the subject.
Ahmad
February 23, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Imad
I disagree with you when you said that’ In fact there were no Sunni’s during the Prophet’s time, nor in the next few generations after his death’. In our holy book, there is a verse ordering Muslims to obey Allah, his Prophet, and who is in charge in government if he does not abuse the island. The Sunni means any things were done by prophet like ablution or praying or eating …etc. even prophet told his followers to pray as he did .This dismiss your statement in above
I quoted the previous article to not challenge Abed’s opinion because I am with him 85%. I wanted to show the Variety of views on the depicting prophet Muhammad.
Ahmad Al-Sholi
February 23, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Fatima,
Thanks for taking time to respond. However, all versions are covered within hadith without historical order to judge which supersedes the other, not to mention they both may have covered same incident.
In other words, it remains judgmental to which fiqih school the reader belongs to or to which “ifta2″ they may recite to.
In that sense, al azhar itself may have different views from disapproving the movie “al-risala” to allowing video games that glorifies Islam Era.
Yet, no conclusive opinion was reached based on fiqih as the most rigid views depended on the artist intention to imitate god creation. Where, many arts were intending to glorify god and the beauty of his creation.
The bottom line, is what have been agreed upon or most importantly proven in fiqih is the intention of the art. Thats even for the people following fiqih closely as a way of life.
imad
February 24, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Ahmad, a Sunni Muslim for the last millenium is someone who follows Sharia through both qur’an and HADITH, and mostly through the teachings of either the Hanbali, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence.
FYI. all those folks were born after 711 AD (the year we Muslims reached Spain), with the exception of Abu Hanifa who was 12 years old at the time. The Umayyad dynasty was in charge of Islam then, and if you read the extensive works of Al-Tabari for example, you will realize that while Muslims during that time thought highly of Muhammad, his actions and words were not as big a part of “shari’a” or law as it was after 900 AD. There are many reasons behind this I won’t go into because you’d better read them from a scholarly source.
Alif
February 25, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
Many insightful entries in this discussion.
For me, it’s interesting how later variations on the Judo-Muslim tradition of aniconism deal with the subject.
For example the Sikh religion, which has its roots in both the heavily iconic, natural Hindu religion and in Islam, advocates a formless, eternal, and unobserved god but does not dictate against the depiction of its founder[s], whom are considered to be strictly humans. Sikhism was born in the fifteenth century CE in northern India which was under [Muslim] Mughol rule and in a culture were drawing and painting was an established art-form in everyday life among Muslims of that place and time.
The Bahai faith, which has its roots in Shi’i Islam, prescribes strict conditions for the handling and display of the photograph of it’s founder, who was contemporary to moderately developed photography technology, obviously out of respect and understandably as a precaution against abuse. But it doesn’t forbid it altogether.
Wikipedia has fairly unbiased articles about the Bahai faith; its history and founder, and where the factor of “international secret conspiracy against” is not present (they are the conspiracy after all, wouldn’t most Muslims say? :). Still, Wikipedia includes the photograph of Bahaullah against the preference of Bahai’, who’s beliefs would drive them to immediately turn-off the monitor right away or even unplug their PCs with little precaution if they lay sight on the photograph of the founders of their religion.
So yes, in my opinions encyclopedias shouldn’t be sensitive to the specific religious dictums of the faiths it articulate.
After all, where such depictions are included in encylopedias and books – we’ve had some at home for ages before this was a popular subject – they are mostly non-derogatory, and unlike what some hereabove believe were indeed drawn out of respect by Muslim individuals whose interpretations of Islam didn’t find this offensive.
Additionally, an encyclopedia won’t invent a derogatory image on purpose; and where a depiction that is considered by some to be offensive – like the ones of the Danish affair – is included in an encyclopedia, its out of articulating a historical event that had a great effect on so many people that covering-up on it is not acceptable. No?
Sparky O'Neal
February 26, 2008 @ 2:51 am
There’s an interesting site that has collected a huge assortment of images of the prophet mohammed, and it shows many made by muslims themselves throughout the centuries. Be forewarned, however, that some of the categories may raise your blood pressue if you’re easily offended.
Still, the historical images are worth taking a look at. If you’re likely to be offended by images of ridicule, avoid the category “extreme mohammed”.
It’s here – http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Again, if you can’t take it, don’t look.
Haya
March 10, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
:-)
it’s nice how Roba wages such a discussion and does not participate!!
Roba you seem to me a trouble maker like faisal al qasem…