Images of the Prophet

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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]

Originally Posted by bob x

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.

Originally Posted by Dondi

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.

Originally Posted by Dondi

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.

Originally Posted by Dondi

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]

Originally Posted by wil

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?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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

I'm sure that somebody could have some reason for thinking so: here you are carrying the sacred name of God in your grubby pocket? What if you drop your keys, and the sacred name is rubbed in the dirt? Blasphemy! It could call down the wrath of God on the whole neighborhood!
Now if you think that sounds very unreasonable, well so do all the special demands that Muslims make sound to us.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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

I wouldn't have much of a problem with that, since it does avoid "Muslims telling what they can see and can't", but I think Wiki is afraid of setting a precedent that they have to give in to this, that, or the other objection. Bear in mind that Wiki as a whole is strictly "view on request": you don't like Wiki's policies on displaying anything and everything, well then don't go there.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I also understand the issue of danger for Muslims

This is where you start to sound silly. No, seeing something you didn't want to see is not a "danger"; at worst it is an annoyance.

[Francis king]

wiki should say NO

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've been busy all evening looking for info on Sunni artists that depicted the Prophet .. hubby will help me by looking in Arabic when he gets home so hopefully have some more info later .. although he'll throw a fit if he finds any

Originally Posted by wil

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

That is al-Buraq, tradition says he was brought by Angel Gabriel from heaven for the Prophet to ride when he made the night journey.

After the Prophet performed the Evening Prayer (^Isha'), Jibril came to him with a white animal, slightly larger than a donkey yet smaller than a mule. This animal was the buraq,--one of the animals of Paradise. Jibril held the buraq by his ear and told the Prophet to mount it. When the buraq was mounted, the Prophet set forth.

The buraq is a very fast animal; the length of the buraq's stride is the farthest distance it's eye can see.

The night journey and the ascension of prophet Muhammad

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

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?

No the Quran doesn't say it is haram, it all comes from the hadith and the question of shirk, venerating things other than Allah (swt).

To be honest it seems to be a bit of a minefield even in the Muslim community, with everyone arguing over the authenticity.

This is interesting because it talks about photography and how some scholars have changed their minds about it.

Fatwa on Photography - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Quite an interesting discussion here about it and the contradictory hadith.

Questions forbidding Sowar and Tamathilf (portraits, statues, drawing etc.) - Islamic Awakening Forums

This seems to be a very strict set of fatwas about it but there is a link to an alternative perspective at the bottom.

I'm still floating around in the middle to be honest.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

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

Yes this seems to be quite true but of course Muslims already believed that Christians worshipped idols in the form of placing partners with Allah (swt).

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

I'm sure that somebody could have some reason for thinking so: here you are carrying the sacred name of God in your grubby pocket? What if you drop your keys, and the sacred name is rubbed in the dirt? Blasphemy! It could call down the wrath of God on the whole neighborhood!

You are probably right and I shouldn't do it.

Originally Posted by bob x

I wouldn't have much of a problem with that, since it does avoid "Muslims telling what they can see and can't", but I think Wiki is afraid of setting a precedent that they have to give in to this, that, or the other objection. Bear in mind that Wiki as a whole is strictly "view on request": you don't like Wiki's policies on displaying anything and everything, well then don't go there.

I agree, if you don't want to see them then don't go there but what if you are just googling something and that page comes up and you open it not knowing it will contain such images?

I agree it would set a rprecedent would also be a slippery slope so surely the view image on request would suit everyone?

Originally Posted by bob x

This is where you start to sound silly. No, seeing something you didn't want to see is not a "danger"; at worst it is an annoyance.

I wasn't saying seeing the image is a danger, I was talking about the danger of first viewing out of interest, then respect, then veneration, then praying to. It has happened before and will happen again.

[Muslimwoman]

This is quite a fascinating topic, not one I have any particular interest in or opinion about but I never knew the Prophet is depicted on the Supreme Court Building in US .... I probably shouldn't say that because some silly sod will try to blow it up ... ho hum

File:Scotusnfrieze.jpeg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

You are probably right and I shouldn't do it.

Oh dear. I was intentionally making a silly line of argument, and you find it somewhat persuasive?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I agree, if you don't want to see them then don't go there but what if you are just googling something and that page comes up and you open it not knowing it will contain such images?

SO???
Then you close the page. I have clicked on links that turned out to show me hetero porn that I had no interest in and did not appreciate seeing; I have suffered no lasting trauma from it. If it did bother me a lot, then I would stop surfing the net altogether, or get one of the blocker thingies; it should be up to devout Muslims who want no risk of accidentally viewing Wiki to take the initiative to block Wiki from their own computers, or else to stop surfing the net.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I agree it would set a rprecedent would also be a slippery slope so surely the view image on request would suit everyone?

What I meant was that granting the "view on request" demand would be setting the precedent that they have to listen to everybody's demand for this that or the other. Best just to draw the line in the sand: No, we are in the business of displaying information, all kinds of information, period; if that's not what you want then stay away from us.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I wasn't saying seeing the image is a danger, I was talking about the danger of first viewing out of interest, then respect, then veneration, then praying to. It has happened before and will happen again.

That's not a "danger".

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Oh dear. I was intentionally making a silly line of argument, and you find it somewhat persuasive?

Not in the slightest, I just couldn't be bothered to fight with you about something that doesn't particularly bother or interest me.

Originally Posted by bob x

it should be up to devout Muslims who want no risk of accidentally viewing Wiki to take the initiative to block Wiki from their own computers, or else to stop surfing the net.

What percentage of people surfing the net for terms like Prophet Mohammed or the Night Assention do you think are Muslim?

Originally Posted by bob x

What I meant was that granting the "view on request" demand would be setting the precedent that they have to listen to everybody's demand for this that or the other. Best just to draw the line in the sand: No, we are in the business of displaying information, all kinds of information, period; if that's not what you want then stay away from us.

What if they wanted to display something you found offensive? What about images of Jewish twins having their eyes cut out by the Nazi's? ... I know I would want them to remove it and yet the pictures exist as historical records, the medical research from those documents was used by all the allied countries but does that it make it OK to offend the Jewish nation?

Please don't say I am comparing such images to paintings of the Prophet .. it's after 4am and I'm way too tired to fight about it, it was just something I thought of that would be (I hope) universally rejected as appropriate material to display on Wiki.

Originally Posted by bob x

That's not a "danger".

In your opinion but it seems millions and millions of Muslims disagree with you and as the Prophet is a vital part of their daily lives and nothing more than a chap that lived some time ago and invented a religion to you, is their opinion not more valid to them than yours?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What percentage of people surfing the net for terms like Prophet Mohammed or the Night Assention do you think are Muslim?

No idea. I would think it would more likely be non-Muslims who know little or nothing who would make broad, vague search requests, while Muslims would be more likely to have a preferred source of information already; but that is just a guess.

The point is: any Muslim who searches the web ought to know that the web contains ALL kinds of things, that a search for "stories about Aisha" might very easily turn up Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses at or near the top. If this hypothetical Muslim's beliefs are so fragile that he is in "danger" of losing them at the merest sight of something not in accord with his beliefs, then he really ought not indulge in web-surfing.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What if they wanted to display something you found offensive?

MANY things that I find offensive are on display. For example, looking for information about homosexuals in the concentration camps turned up before-and-after pictures of castrations that I would rather not have seen. If you don't want to look at such things either, then don't search for that kind of thing. If you unexpectedly find such a thing, the red X in the upper right corner of your browser window makes it go away quickly.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What about images of Jewish twins having their eyes cut out by the Nazi's?

I bet they're out there.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

... I know I would want them to remove it

And I would be on their side if they refused.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

it was just something I thought of that would be (I hope) universally rejected as appropriate material to display on Wiki.

You have a strange notion of what is "universal". On the net, censorship of any kind is highly disfavored.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

In your opinion but it seems millions and millions of Muslims disagree with you and as the Prophet is a vital part of their daily lives and nothing more than a chap that lived some time ago and invented a religion to you, is their opinion not more valid to them than yours?

It is not more valid to me; to me it seems that millions of Muslims are being silly. "Danger" to me means things like your boss asking you to put your hands inside a press to remove an obstruction. Viewing or hearing things that I don't like or go against my beliefs is not a "danger", because my beliefs are not so fragile as to be overturned by an accidental glimpse of something. If you are seriously arguing that Muslims are in "danger" of losing their Islam if they accidentally see a picture, it comes across as saying that Islam is really weak and can't withstand examination.

The world is getting very crowded nowadays, and we are all bumping into each other. Can Islam co-exist with non-Muslims, or does it have to die? That is really the question. Are you saying "sure we can co-exist, as long as everybody gives way whenever we have a problem"?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by bob x

On the net, censorship of any kind is highly disfavored.

Depends on where you live. Europe has laws that regulate Internet content. This is why many hate sites end up being hosted in the US.

[bob x]

Yeah, well I guess my own notions of what attitudes are "universal" or near-so are equally skewed by where I come from. I'm here in California (where it's 9ish; Sally I should hope has gone to bed) and we expect all kinds of people to be saying and doing all kinds of things, many of them offensive to many of the others, all the time.