Question on the bannage of pictures of Muhammad

the_syco

Hi,
I know that pictures of Muhammad before his conversion are allowed (a "young" Muhammad picture is allowed to be sold, but an "old" Muhammad picture isn't), but my question is why?

The christains have many diferent versions of the face of their god, and I was wondering if the Islamic people afraid that someone will paint an unworthy picture, and name it Muhammad, or what?

Cabaal

I'm always woundered this as well I have to say, I always imagined that not picture would be good enough or something

DinoBot

the_syco wrote:

Hi,
I know that pictures of Muhammad before his conversion are allowed (a "young" Muhammad picture is allowed to be sold, but an "old" Muhammad picture isn't), but my question is why?

The christains have many diferent versions of the face of their god, and I was wondering if the Islamic people afraid that someone will paint an unworthy picture, and name it Muhammad, or what?

From my understanding its to stop any confusion. Muslims worship Allah, not His messenger. I think its felt that if images are allowed of the prophet it could lead to people looking at this image and praying.
Its not only restricted to the Prophet, no images of any man, woman or animal is allowed in the Mosque. This is also the same in the Jewish faith. As it was true for christianity until it reached Rome.

the_syco

DinoBot wrote:

From my understanding its to stop any confusion. Muslims worship Allah, not His messenger. I think its felt that if images are allowed of the prophet it could lead to people looking at this image and praying.
Its not only restricted to the Prophet, no images of any man, woman or animal is allowed in the Mosque. This is also the same in the Jewish faith. As it was true for christianity until it reached Rome.

Gotcha. Are they allowed to draw pictures of Allah?

wes

We don't know what God looks like so we couldn't even draw a picture of him if we wanted. Also even if we did I don't think we would to prevent idolatary etc.

the_new_mr

Hi the_syco and Cabaal. Thanks for your question. Although you've already received some answers, I would like to expand on them a little if I may?

the_syco wrote:

Hi,
I know that pictures of Muhammad before his conversion are allowed (a "young" Muhammad picture is allowed to be sold, but an "old" Muhammad picture isn't), but my question is why?

Honestly, this is news to me. I must check on this to be sure but I doubt this is okay. Also, the word "conversion" here should be replaced with "first revelation" since Muslims believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) first received revelation at the age of 40 and did not "convert" as such.

the_syco wrote:

The christains have many diferent versions of the face of their god, and I was wondering if the Islamic people afraid that someone will paint an unworthy picture, and name it Muhammad, or what?

As DinoBot already mentioned, Muslims worship God (Allah in arabic) and not Mohamed (peace be upon him). We believe that he is a messenger of God like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah (peace be upon them all). Also, as DinoBot mentioned, it's to prevent false idolatry.

the_syco wrote:

Gotcha. Are they allowed to draw pictures of Allah?

As Wes said, we don't know what He looks like. God is beyond all comprehension.

Hope that this answers your question well guys.

By the way, that's a quality machine you've got there syco. Nice

the_syco

the_new_mr wrote:

Honestly, this is news to me. I must check on this to be sure but I doubt this is okay. Also, the word "conversion" here should be replaced with "first revelation" since Muslims believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) first received revelation at the age of 40 and did not "convert" as such.

I remember reading about it at the time of the cartoons. Someone sold a picture of the young Mohammad (spelt with an "o", rather than a "u", I think), and there was uproar, but then it was pointed out that the picture was before he has his revelation.

I think the technicality of it is that a picture of Mohammad is allowed, but a picture of the prophet Mohammad is banned. IIRC, the picture is still being sold.

the_new_mr

Well, like I said, it's the first time for me to hear about anything like that. Have to say, I personally don't see a difference between having a picture of a young Mohamed (peace be upon him) or an older one. God knows best.

RiderOnTheStorm

this is very interesting indeed. The more I learn of other religions, the more I think that they all have so much in common.....
In the strict Christian religion (not Catholisism) images of God or Jesus are still not permitted. Its not so much the idolotary, but drawing a pic of God (or making a statue) is to limit His appearance in 2 (or 3) dimensions. Having these pictures around will change how you think of God and make Him a more limited 'person'. This is outlawed by the 1st commandment in King James bible, but not in some other versions.

edit:
In the Jewish religion, isnt the name of God, or even the word 'God' not permitted to be written down? If it must be written down, then the paper beocmes a holy article, and when it has to be disposed of, it has to be ritually destoryed/burried.

Mick86

the_syco wrote:

Gotcha. Are they allowed to draw pictures of Allah?

http://www.zindagee.co.uk/religion/allah.htm

God is without form, so:

God is neither male nor female
God can neither be seen nor heard.
God does not resemble anything that he created
God shares few, if any, characteristics with human beings.
God has never been incarnate in any human being.

It is impossible to represent Allah in a drawing under these conditions.

RiderOnTheStorm

if God cannot be seen or heard, how did he communicate with Mohammad (peace be upon him)?

I have not read the Q'uran (and therein is prob the answer to my question) but I am familiar with the Christian Old Testament (and there are many simular accounts there and in Q'uran and Talmud), but didnt God walk with Adam in the beginning?

And if Allah cannt be represented in any form (including a picture...which I agree with), then no picture claiming to be Allah can be 'wrong'?

the_new_mr

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

this is very interesting indeed. The more I learn of other religions, the more I think that they all have so much in common.....

Absolutely.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

In the Jewish religion, isnt the name of God, or even the word 'God' not permitted to be written down? If it must be written down, then the paper beocmes a holy article, and when it has to be disposed of, it has to be ritually destoryed/burried.

Well, I can't speak for Judaism but in Islam, God in Arabic (Allah) is perfectly allowed to be written down and there's nothing wrong with that. As I understand, this does mean that the paper can't be just thrown away in the rubbish though and must also be burnt if it is to be disposed of. Sames goes for any verses of the Quran. Must do some research on this some time.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

if God cannot be seen or heard, how did he communicate with Mohammad (peace be upon him)?

Well, He can be heard if He so wishes as He did speak directly to Moses (peace be upon him). Mohamed (peace be upon him) received the revelation as God's literal word over a 23 year period through the angel Gabriel.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

I have not read the Q'uran (and therein is prob the answer to my question) but I am familiar with the Christian Old Testament (and there are many simular accounts there and in Q'uran and Talmud), but didnt God walk with Adam in the beginning?

No mention of this in the Quran as far as I know.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

And if Allah cannt be represented in any form (including a picture...which I agree with), then no picture claiming to be Allah can be 'wrong'?

As you said:

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

drawing a pic of God (or making a statue) is to limit His appearance in 2 (or 3) dimensions.

Drawing a picture of Him is to insult His greatness and He is above anything that we can imagine or create.

RiderOnTheStorm

Mick86 wrote:

God can neither be seen nor heard.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, He can be heard if He so wishes as He did speak directly to Moses (peace be upon him).

thats what I believe also. Thx new_mr for clearing that up.

the_new_mr wrote:

As I understand, this does mean that the paper can't be just thrown away in the rubbish though and must also be burnt if it is to be disposed of. Sames goes for any verses of the Quran.

yes, i remember something about this during one of the football world cups. McDonalds wanted to have burger wrappings with the flags of all the nations that were playing. There was objection to this as the flag of Saudi Arabia contains verses from Qu'ran and it would not have been right for people to throw this away as rubbish.

Mick86

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

thats what I believe also. Thx new_mr for clearing that up.

Moses heard a voice coming from a burning bush. That doesn't mean that God spoke to him directly. Being omnipotent, God can cause a voice to emanate from anything. God, according to the Koran has no form or corporeal entity. Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

if God cannot be seen or heard, how did he communicate with Mohammad (peace be upon him)?

Via the Angel Gabriel.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

I have not read the Q'uran (and therein is prob the answer to my question) but I am familiar with the Christian Old Testament (and there are many simular accounts there and in Q'uran and Talmud), but didnt God walk with Adam in the beginning?

I know nothing of the Talmud but the Bible and the Koran appear to contradict each other on the appearance of God since the Bible says God created man in his own image but the Koran says that God resembles nothing that he created.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

And if Allah cannt be represented in any form (including a picture...which I agree with), then no picture claiming to be Allah can be 'wrong'?

Allah resembles nothing in creation therefore a human being cannot make a representation of Allah.

Wibbs

Mick86 wrote:

Moses heard a voice coming from a burning bush. That doesn't mean that God spoke to him directly. Being omnipotent, God can cause a voice to emanate from anything. God, according to the Koran has no form or corporeal entity. Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak.

This is the bit I don't get. This would apply to most religions out there. They all seem to say God is omnipotent, but then seek to limit his power, which is a contradiction surely? If God is omnipotent surely He can do what He likes if he chooses to? Nothing is impossible corporeal or not. In that case he could be anything at all. Surely He could just walk up to you else on the street looking like everyone and go "how's yourself?" As for representing him in art, I'm not sure God would be best pleased with the whole old guy with big beard sitting on a cloud bit.:) Maybe the Muslim idea of just "portraying" him by means of beautiful caligraphy is the best way to go.

Mick86

Wibbs wrote:

This is the bit I don't get. This would apply to most religions out there. They all seem to say God is omnipotent, but then seek to limit his power, which is a contradiction surely? ...

The Muslim theory apparently is that God is omnipotent but by adopting any corporeal form he sets limits for himself. He would no longer be omnipotent and therefore no longer God. So he could do it but doesn't. And I know God is not a He or a She.:D

the_new_mr

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

thats what I believe also. Thx new_mr for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

Oriel

This post was kinda funny (though not that funny) but hardly appropriate.

Oriel

Aw no fair!

Hobbes

Sinecurea warned.

RiderOnTheStorm

Mick86 wrote:

Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak.

nothing is impossible for God

However, I do agree, in basic. God cannot be represended in a picture.

.......... But what if a kid draws a stick man and says 'that is Allah' or Michaelangelo paints an old white man on a celing and says 'thats God' .... we know that neither are true, but are either forbidden? and if they are, then why? Is it because (as I believe) to draw Him is to limit Him in your mind, and it may limit Him in the minds of others? The more pics there are of an old bearded men on a cloud (thx Wibbs) the more people think that thats what He is like and then he becomes a 'person' and subject to our laws of resason & physics & biology, etc

babyvaio

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

nothing is impossible for God

However, I do agree, in basic. God cannot be represended in a picture.

.......... But what if a kid draws a stick man and says 'that is Allah' or Michaelangelo paints an old white man on a celing and says 'thats God' .... we know that neither are true, but are either forbidden? and if they are, then why? Is it because (as I believe) to draw Him is to limit Him in your mind, and it may limit Him in the minds of others? The more pics there are of an old bearded men on a cloud (thx Wibbs) the more people think that thats what He is like and then he becomes a 'person' and subject to our laws of resason & physics & biology, etc

Just think about this reason - Michaelangelo paintings are - bottom line - ugly and disgusting, probably to a lot of people. It depends on the taste I suppose. Now don't you think God Almighty is above and beyond any such painting?
Also, would you not think that God Almighty is the most beautiful although He is not a creature, He is the Creator, and there is none besides Him.

And Muslims do not believe that God created man in His image. That's saying a lie on God...

PS Muslim kids are taught that they cannot draw God, so that can happen only in non-Muslim families or in those where parents never explained this to their kids.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

Just think about this reason - Michaelangelo paintings are - bottom line - ugly and disgusting, probably to a lot of people.

Huh? Are you serious? I mean, one may not like them, but to write off one of the greatest artists/sculptors in historys often sublime works as "ugly" and most especially "disgusting" is frankly unreal and boggles the mind. Is that the case for most artists works in your opinion?

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Huh? Are you serious? I mean, one may not like them, but to write off one of the greatest artists/sculptors in historys often sublime works as "ugly" and most especially "disgusting" is frankly unreal and boggles the mind. Is that the case for most artists works in your opinion?

1st ? N/A
2nd ? Yes I am. They're ugly and disgusting to me.
3rd ? I don't consider those who paint creatures with soul artists, do my answer would be irrelevant in that case. And especially not those who in their minds are painting the image of Creator - they are far astray.

Yes, I'm deadly serious. These are things that should not be taken as a joke. It's forbidden in Islam to paint/draw creatures with soul and also to make their statues. BTW, there are not statues of Almighty Allah anywhere - all those statues that people think represent Him are their own false invention and that has nothing to do with Almighty God - He is above and beyond all of that.

Schuhart

Mick86 wrote:

Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak......
Via the Angel Gabriel.

How did Angel Gabriel hear him? Has he both a corporeal and incorporeal aspect?

babyvaio wrote:

Also, would you not think that God Almighty is the most beautiful although He is not a creature, He is the Creator, and there is none besides Him.

If God’s beyond our comprehension, what does ‘beauty’ mean in this context?

More generally, I still find I’m puzzled at the general concept that people cannot choose whatever method of communicating their view of God. I take that Michealangelo or any other religious artist would agree they are not actually painting God, but would simply say this is their way of expressing something about the divine nature.

Can someone write a poem about God? Surely that poses the same problems – how do you frame words that catch the divine nature, if it is so much beyond us, without insulting the deity? If poems are not allowed, can someone write or speak a sermon describing what they think is God’s word? Does that not pose the same risk of divine offence?

Psychologists say most communication is non-verbal. Why would a deity place a limit on how the divine message can be spread?

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

2nd ? Yes I am. They're ugly and disgusting to me.

Mind boggling. Truly mind boggling.

3rd ? I don't consider those who paint creatures with soul artists, do my answer would be irrelevant in that case.

What about landscape painters? Do they fall into the same category? What about all the art throughout history. Would you hide or destroy it given the chance? In the world you seem to want there would be no music, no art, no dance, even poetry might be an issue. The only thing would be recitation of the Quran. Would I be right in that view? I'm honestly trying to guage yout view that is so removed from mine(and most peoples)

Yes, I'm deadly serious. These are things that should not be taken as a joke. It's forbidden in Islam to paint/draw creatures with soul and also to make their statues.

This is the kind of thinking that robbed the world of the Afghani Buddhas. Also Muslim artists were doing that knid of thing from early on(sometimes with cuts through the neck of the animal to show it wasn't alive. Very inventive)

He is above and beyond all of that.

Schuharts thoughts sum it up for me.

Can someone write a poem about God? Surely that poses the same problems – how do you frame words that catch the divine nature, if it is so much beyond us, without insulting the deity? If poems are not allowed, can someone write or speak a sermon describing what they think is God’s word? Does that not pose the same risk of divine offence?

Psychologists say most communication is non-verbal. Why would a deity place a limit on how the divine message can be spread?

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Mind boggling. Truly mind boggling.
What about landscape painters? Do they fall into the same category? What about all the art throughout history. Would you hide or destroy it given the chance? In the world you seem to want there would be no music, no art, no dance, even poetry might be an issue. The only thing would be recitation of the Quran. Would I be right in that view? I'm honestly trying to guage yout view that is so removed from mine(and most peoples)

This is the kind of thinking that robbed the world of the Afghani Buddhas. Also Muslim artists were doing that knid of thing from early on(sometimes with cuts through the neck of the animal to show it wasn't alive. Very inventive)
Schuharts thoughts sum it up for me.

About your so called artists.
I don't like that. You do. So why all of the sudden you have a problem with that? Do I have to like "art"? If so, why so? Would that not be pushing me into something I don't like?
Who mentioned world without "art", "music", etc.? You or did I? I think it was you. So again, your pushing something into my mouth. Correct? Yes.
In an annoying way BTW. Just because you're not happy with what you hear (read: read).

And BTW yes, you can write a poem about God, however it is a risky thing to do cos you might end up saying something about God which He has never said about Himself.

God revealed His Word to us, so we have the book of Revelation. He chose a form that would suit us. He also created that form for us. We didn't create a single language or paper or CD or DVD stuff, everything we create is actually His Creation, not ours.

Of course you "artist M" could not catch how God looks like. But since "artist M" did it and God never said that about Himself, "M" has a big problem, cos he produced something which is not how God described Himself.

So if I say "Allah is the Most Merciful" that is because (in translation into English) Allah had said this long before about Himself (although in Arabic language, for Aramaic or others I would not know). So He chose the way for us to understand some of His attributes in the way He did, but that does not mean that He limited Himself or that we are limiting Him by using our tongues and saying exactly what He said. Actually if one says in original language of Revelation "Allah is the Most Merciful" that is doing a good deed, that is also remembering Allah, cos you're using the exact way to describe Him as He described Himself.
But if you say (or better to say: use something to define Allah) something which Allah has never said/revealed about himself, then you're in big trouble, cos you're lying on Allah. Simple as that.
You don't have to start swimming in waters of deep thinking - a lot of them ended up going astray because they thought too much about Almighty God and not much about His creations. Of course our limited minds cannot really understand many things about God.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

About your so called artists.

No nothing to do with "my" so called artists. I'm talking of all art throughout history from all cultures that is not caligraphy. From the cave paintings through ancient India, including the incredible stuff from the ancient Arabic lands and indeed the sublime Quranic caligraphy, believe it or not.

I don't like that. You do. So why all of the sudden you have a problem with that?

I find it an unsually extreme position to describe art as disgusting. That's more than dislike.

Do I have to like "art"? If so, why so? Would that not be pushing me into something I don't like?

Hey there's much of art I may not like. I can appreciate it though.

Who mentioned world without "art", "music", etc.? You or did I? I think it was you. So again, your pushing something into my mouth. Correct? Yes.

Well on the art front at least if you come from the position of finding most if not all of it ugly and disgusting then it follows that in your perfect world it shouldn't have been created.

In an annoying way BTW. Just because you're not happy with what you hear (read: read).

Only annoying if you take such a defensive position. I merely asked of your further opinion. Re read the post.

me wrote:

Would I be right in that view? I'm honestly trying to guage yout view that is so removed from mine(and most peoples)

You see. It's a question, not a statement of what you think.

And BTW yes, you can write a poem about God, however it is a risky thing to do cos you might end up saying something about God which He has never said about Himself.

What about a poem about something other than God. Is that allowed as it's a representation in some way(though not visual). Genuine question.

everything we create is actually His Creation, not ours.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does that include the bad stuff, even Michaelangelos works?

Of course you "artist M" could not catch how God looks like. But since "artist M" did it and God never said that about Himself, "M" has a big problem, cos he produced something which is not how God described Himself.

It is to "M" as he being Christian would believe that God created people in his own image. So for him at least (if not a Muslim) the view is defensible.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

No nothing to do with "my" so called artists. I'm talking of all art throughout history from all cultures that is not caligraphy. From the cave paintings through ancient India, including the incredible stuff from the ancient Arabic lands and indeed the sublime Quranic caligraphy, believe it or not.
I find it an unsually extreme position to describe art as disgusting. That's more than dislike. Hey there's much of art I may not like. I can appreciate it though.
Well on the art front at least if you come from the position of finding most if not all of it ugly and disgusting then it follows that in your perfect world it shouldn't have been created.
Only annoying if you take such a defensive position. I merely asked of your further opinion. Re read the post. You see. It's a question, not a statement of what you think.
What about a poem about something other than God. Is that allowed as it's a representation in some way(though not visual). Genuine question.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does that include the bad stuff, even Michaelangelos works?

It is to "M" as he being Christian would believe that God created people in his own image. So for him at least (if not a Muslim) the view is defensible.

From all the things I believe I said the "M works" are ugly and disgusting. Did I say anything like that about music, etc.? Or caligraphy? No.

I say that I don't like paintings or sculptures (a.k.a. idols) when human body or any other creature is painted or "sculptured". I didn't comment music or anything outside what I just said in my previous sentence. So let's stay in those limits.

If you appreciate that "art" well I don't. I don't have to. There's nothing useful in it except a warning that this is something believers should not be doing. By this I don't mean "M" cos I wouldn't know that.

Oh yeah, the "M" stuff is something he had wanted to do so God let him do that. Whoever chooses path of evil God will help him and whoever chooses path of good God will also help him. Nothing happens if God does not will it and all that He wills, does happen.

Wibbs wrote:

What about a poem about something other than God. Is that allowed as it's a representation in some way(though not visual). Genuine question.

If there's no evil in the poem, then I'd say no problem whatsoever. Allah (swt) knows best.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

From all the things I believe I said the "M works" are ugly and disgusting. Did I say anything like that about music, etc.? Or caligraphy? No.

Well caligraphy is allowed under Islam is it not? I just mentioned it for completeness. Judging from your posts all art that is representative is evil/against God(except caligraphy as it's outside that obviously, though abstract forms of nature do play a part in much of it)

I say that I don't like paintings or sculptures (a.k.a. idols) when human body or any other creature is painted or "sculptured". I didn't comment music or anything outside what I just said in my previous sentence. So let's stay in those limits.

Ok Lets. So that's pretty much all art then, with the exception of pure landscape painting I suppose? Music or anything else we can contend with again.

If you appreciate that "art" well I don't. I don't have to. There's nothing useful in it except a warning that this is something believers should not be doing.

Personally I would have worries about someone who says pretty much all art has nothing useful in it, especially as it's apparently created by God in the end anyway. But that's just a purely personal view. To each their own.

So you would prefer that none of that art would have been created? In an ideal world as it were, not you or someone who belives same actively seeking to rid the world of representative art of course. Or am I wrong in that? Hypothetically of course, would you if you could remove such ugly and disgusting art from the world?

By this I don't mean "M" cos I wouldn't know that.

Well that's fair enough. I take from that you're not trying to stop Michaelangelo or anyone else creating same. I was honestly wondering about that TBH.

Oh yeah, the "M" stuff is something he had wanted to do so God let him do that. Whoever chooses path of evil God will help him and whoever chooses path of good God will also help him. Nothing happens if God does not will it and all that He wills, does happen.

Riiiight. Let me get this straight if you don't mind. So God in your opinion helps those who chose the path of evil? Does this extend beyond art? It seems it does as nothing happens without His will.

So the butchery of someone like Stalin or Pol Pot was "helped by God? Again, are you serious? In that view God is both evil and good. I mean, if He helps those who choose evil as well as good then it can be no other way. You would think that God would be trying to help his creation back to the path of good, not evil.

Where's Satan's place in all this? He seems to be not required if God helps those who choose evil. If he helps evil in those who "choose" it then he must be evil when He does so. It seems this version of God is hard to equate with love of His creations if He's willing to help both the destruction as well as the building of it. Very capricious and apparently eternally beyond any human reason as even the "choice" of His creations is his will.

Lets look at it another way;

If as by the earlier example someone writes a poem about God that contains something that God didn't say in the Quran. Fine so far. That's bad. Now if God creates everything it means therefore that ultimately God did say it about himself. Yet God may punish the poet with eternal pain for something God did? Where's the reason, mercy or love in that?

If there's no evil in the poem, then I'd say no problem whatsoever. Allah (swt) knows best.

I suppose that's where the grey areas come into it. A rigid road I would imagine.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

"...

To cut this short, 1stly, you're twisting some of my words the way you like it. So regarding art - end of discussion for me.

2ndly, Almighty Allah gave each one of us free will. If he had wanted to stop Stalin or Hitler i.e. He would have done it. So they expressed their "views" with "a huge bit of force and injustice, etc.". And they will have to answer to God for that. The same applies to me & you and everybody else.
However, letting them do that doesn't mean that God committed those evil things, right? I hope that you can understand what I'm saying. By the word "helped them" I should have said "make it easier for them". So, decisions were theirs. If God was forcing somebody to do something, then on the Day of Judgement it wouldn't be fair to have trials for those things "that one had to do cos one was forced by God." It doesn't make sense. Nobody is forced by Almighty to do anything, we've got our free will and we make our choices, but without God's Power, we can't move even our baby finger.