Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Question on the bannage of pictures of Muhammad
Comments
-
Wibbs wrote: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?
Wibbs, I think your post shows a complete lack of understanding how things work. I wish Allah guides you to the straight Path.
If you accidentally say (read: guess) something about Allah, and have no bad intentions, then I suppose it's not an evil thing. But if you say something which is not true about Allah, then it's different. Your intention counts as well here. God creating everything is about His creations/creatures, right, not really about His Being? I hope you can see the difference. So, regarding this poem, we're not discussing the creations of Allah, but Allah Himself. There's a huge difference. About creations you shouldn't speak bad anyway, like cursing the wind or something. Or in fact, not even about Stalin or Hitler. You can however say they did something terrible and evil, this also is different. You cannot even say they were evil, you don't really know that, but you can say that for a specific evil they committed.
And no Wibbs, the painting/sculpture was a product of "your artist" not God's product, they chose to do that with their own free will, like Hitler chose to erase Jews from the face of the Earth.
In my opinion, God's Mercy is when He shows you the straight Path, which is only one, like the Truth is only one, but there are many lies and many false paths. God's Love is also the fact that you were nothing/nil and He created you from nothing. So here you are, etc.
I guess there are countless examples of God's Mercy and Love and they certainly are not limited, you can't measure them, you can't count them, like you can measure Allah's Mercy nor His Love.0 -
I am not sure why someone would find M's works ugly. I guess its a matter of taste. But I personally wouldn't see it as affront to God. (imho).
For example. I wrote a computer program one time that could learn and build another program from what it learnt from various data. The program created the new program and was pretty cool what it did, however it would not of existed if I had not given that gift to the first program to begin with.
If the first program had not at worked at all I would of been more upset.
Thats my analogy take on things.0 -
Hobbes wrote:I am not sure why someone would find M's works ugly. I guess its a matter of taste. But I personally wouldn't see it as affront to God. (imho).
For example. I wrote a computer program one time that could learn and build another program from what it learnt from various data. The program created the new program and was pretty cool what it did, however it would not of existed if I had not given that gift to the first program to begin with.
If the first program had not at worked at all I would of been more upset.
Thats my analogy take on things.
Well done Hobbes! (prolog maybe?)
PS I hope that problem is not called Multithreaded Boards.ie Talking Engine? (just kidding)(I mean, people here learn new stuff every day...)
0 -
babyvaio wrote:It's forbidden in Islam to paint/draw creatures with soul and also to make their statues.
I too do not like Michaelangelo's works of divine representations etc. I do like another Michaelangelo though. He used to wear an orange mask, had an "M" on his belt and shout COWABUNGA!!
In terms of the philosophical question posed about evil and its source. God is very clear about this in the Quran.
An-Nisa:47
"Whatever of good befalleth thee ( O man ) it is from Allah, and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself. We have sent thee ( Muhammad ) as a messenger unto mankind and Allah is sufficient as witness."
The idea that nothing happens without God letting it happen is of course true but, as babyvaio mentioned, the free will that God has given us lets us decide what to do. God would never make us do something bad and then punish us for it. So, with our free will, we may choose one way or the other. Thought we all agreed on this concept before in another thread.
As babyvaio corrected from an earlier post, God doesn't help someone do something bad, He only may let someone do something bad if they want to do it. Guidance is always there, waiting for when they want it.
Anyway, this has already been discussed in this thread so I would recommend that any further discussion on fate in Islam continues in there. This is is actually one of my favourite topics to talk about.Hobbes wrote:For example. I wrote a computer program one time that could learn and build another program from what it learnt from various data. The program created the new program and was pretty cool what it did, however it would not of existed if I had not given that gift to the first program to begin with.
Also, I know who to hold responsible if SkyNet ever becomes a reality0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
the_new_mr wrote:I too do not like Michaelangelo's works of divine representations etc. I do like another Michaelangelo though. He used to wear an orange mask, had an "M" on his belt and shout COWABUNGA!!Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
You know it0
-
"I can resist anything, except temptation" Oscar Wilde0
-
what i dont't get, and what hasn't been answered yet is:
If its impossible to draw a pic of Allah, then why is it banned?0 -
RiderOnTheStorm wrote:what i dont't get, and what hasn't been answered yet is:
If its impossible to draw a pic of Allah, then why is it banned?
Because whoever is the one actually painting the picture would be claiming or suggesting that he's drawing a picture of Allah, but that would in fact mean lying on Allah, cos "the so-called" artist knows that he cannot make such a picture.0 -
RiderOnTheStorm wrote:If its impossible to draw a pic of Allah, then why is it banned?
The first of which is the one mentioned by babyvaio that it would be like lying about God since the artist doesn't know what God looks like (as indeed the human mind can't comprehend God). Even if the artist openly states that they don't know what God looks like.
Another possibility is that of accidental worship over a long period of time. If someone paints/draws a picture of what they think of God and this is placed somewhere where everyone can see it. Generation after generation (and only God knows how much longer we have on this earth), there is a danger that these pictures can be revered in an excessive way to the point of worship. This is also one of the reasons why pictures of Prophets are not allowed as they may, over time, be overly revered.
Another reason is that such imagery greatly limits the idea of God that people may have in their minds. No doubt, partly the reason that people have this image of God as an old man with a white beard etc is down to imagery. This means that on the sub-conscious level, people may find themselves limiting their idea of God to this overly simple representation.
And God knows best.0 -
Advertisement
-
the_new_mr wrote:Well, there are a number of reasons.
...ah, that makse sense. I had posted before that I thought it was because of the limiting effect of His power and that it would limit our idea of Him ........ but then all the posts about it not being possible made me think again.0 -
the_new_mr wrote:Another reason is that such imagery greatly limits the idea of God that people may have in their minds. No doubt, partly the reason that people have this image of God as an old man with a white beard etc is down to imagery. This means that on the sub-conscious level, people may find themselves limiting their idea of God to this overly simple representation.
I might want to communicate the idea of God deciding whether or not someone is saved. So I might say ‘God will judge you’. Now, the word ‘judge’ might make people think of law and courts and all that goes with the idea of criminal justice. But presumably that’s what human justice is like, and this might have nothing to do with how divine justice works. So the statement ‘God will judge you’ is just as misleading as painting an image depicting a god, say, sitting on a throne ordering sinners off to damnation.
In fact, arguably the painting is less misleading because we all know that the artist does not actually know what god looks like. If someone uses a word like ‘justice’, it’s actually less obvious that the same illusion is being created with words instead of pictures.
Also, the same mistake of veneration of the object is possible. As I understand it, there are rules about the handling of the Quran, as the actual object is venerated in addition to the meaning it contains.
The sense I’m left with is that the reason images are not permitted is simply because the religions that Islam was competing with in its early years tended to be idol cults, hence the need to make a taboo out of anything that looked like worship of an idol. The tradition remains, even though the need for it has largely vanished.0 -
Schuhart wrote:But I was reflecting on this, asking the obvious question of whether a written image does not pose exactly the same risks.Schuhart wrote:I might want to communicate the idea of God deciding whether or not someone is saved. So I might say ‘God will judge you’. Now, the word ‘judge’ might make people think of law and courts and all that goes with the idea of criminal justice. But presumably that’s what human justice is like, and this might have nothing to do with how divine justice works. So the statement ‘God will judge you’ is just as misleading as painting an image depicting a god, say, sitting on a throne ordering sinners off to damnation.
dictionary.com defines justice as:dictionary.com wrote:jus‧tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.
Essentially, being dealt justly means not being treated unfairly (just and unfair are opposites) so if someone describes God in written form in a way that God Himself describes Himself then what could possibly be the problem there?
The lying in written form would be when people come up with ideas without backing from the Quran or authentic hadith (traditions of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him)).Schuhart wrote:In fact, arguably the painting is less misleading because we all know that the artist does not actually know what god looks like. If someone uses a word like ‘justice’, it’s actually less obvious that the same illusion is being created with words instead of pictures.
Aside from this, the way a picture may be understood could be compeltely false. Someone may find it very difficult to get a certain image out of their heads and they may find it unknowingly influencing them. A picture says a thousand words and all that.Schuhart wrote:Also, the same mistake of veneration of the object is possible. As I understand it, there are rules about the handling of the Quran, as the actual object is venerated in addition to the meaning it contains.Schuhart wrote:The sense I’m left with is that the reason images are not permitted is simply because the religions that Islam was competing with in its early years tended to be idol cults, hence the need to make a taboo out of anything that looked like worship of an idol. The tradition remains, even though the need for it has largely vanished.
Another important point to note is that when God sent messengers to guide people to monotheism throughout time, there were nearly always pagans and idol worshippers in the vicinity. Take Abraham (peace be upon him) as one example.
Now, I don't mean to get into an inter-religious debate or to attack any other religion so I hope my statements are not misinterpreted in that way but there is a very important point to make here. Other religions have received much criticism (including Christianity from fellow Christians) for allowing pictures and statues of important figures in their religion which has often lead to worship of these pictures/statues.
There are some people that say that having a statue/model of any kind is forbidden based upon a hadith forbidding it. There are three opinions on this.
1) The hadith is authentic and it is indeed forbidden
2) The hadith is authentic but doesn't apply as long as there is no intention to worship the statue as an idol
3) The hadith is unauthentic
I'm with the opinion that it's either 2 or 3 (but probably 2). Only God knows for sure.
Anyway, none of this changes any of the reasons why it's not correct to represent God as an image.
And in the end, as always, God knows best.0 -
the_new_mr wrote:I believe you mentioned this already
Ultimately, it seems to come down to whether someone believes that the written word is less prone to error and misinterpretation than an image. Given the extent to which different people take different meanings from the same religious text, I think my case is made.
I’ll illustrate the point with this specific doctrine regarding idols. As we know some believe this obliges them to destroy all idols. I’d expect most would disagree with that interpretation. Both sides are presumably looking at the same words, but attaching very different meanings to them. So, in reality, words seem to be prone to error and misinterpretation and the idea they are significantly more reliable than images does not seem credible. (I’d guess that what’s at issue here is probably the Hadith you mention, and whether option 1 or 2 applies.)Afghanistan's Taliban rulers on March 12 rejected the arguments of leading Islamic scholars and protests from around the world and said they were obliterating the last traces of the country's ancient Buddhist statues……
Mutmaen said the OIC scholars could give no religious justification for preserving the statues and had argued only that the time was not right for such a course of action.
"The Afghan ulama replied that for us the present time is right and suitable," AIP quoted Mutmaen as saying. It said the Afghan ulama had insisted that Islam orders the destruction of all idols.the_new_mr wrote:The rules are for respecting the Quran since it contains the words of God. It's never venerated in the sense an idol would be.the_new_mr wrote:Other religions have received much criticism (including Christianity from fellow Christians) for allowing pictures and statues of important figures in their religion which has often lead to worship of these pictures/statues.0 -
Schuhart wrote:Indeed, and I’ll try to avoid repeating the same thing endlessly. But I don’t share your confidence that a word like ‘justice’ has the same clear meaning to all people.
As an example, two people may have a different idea of what is the just thing to do in a particular situation but neither of them will disagree what justice in itself is. It is complete fairness.Schuhart wrote:Ultimately, it seems to come down to whether someone believes that the written word is less prone to error and misinterpretation than an image. Given the extent to which different people take different meanings from the same religious text, I think my case is made.
I believe this discussion was with reference to the interpretation of the concept of God and not the interpretation of religious texts. There's no question that there are indeed different interpretations of religious texts in all religions. This is unavoidable as different limited human minds can come up with different interpretations.
This is however somewhat different to the question of whether or not it's okay to represent God in picture form. As I've already mentioned a number of times now, God names Himself using particular names so for sure there's nothing wrong with using those names. Despite the difference of opinion between the Afgan scholars and the others whether or not they should destroy the idols, I don't think any of them would differ that God can and should be called The Just, The Loving One, The Subduer, The Only One, The Forgiver etc.
By the way, the example you mentioned about the idols in Afghanistan show more of a difference of opinion rather than a misinterpretation (as do many other differences in religious opinions). For sure, actual different interpretations do exist but it's mostly a difference of opinion on the same interpretation. A slight difference but an important one. Anyway, things like this are always going to happen. Humans have disagreed with eachother almost since the beginning.Schuhart wrote:If your view was correct, I would expect that there would be far fewer disagreements over the meaning and significance of religious texts.Schuhart wrote:That’s sort of my point. It’s respect of the thing that contains the message, rather than the message itself.Anyone who respects the Quran but not it's words can't call themselves a Muslim. If you do respect (believe) the message then you should respect the book because you believe it contains the Word of God. The respect for the book is a long long loooooooong way away from idol worship so such a comparison is pointless really. People should respect other religious texts even if they don't believe or agree with them anyway.
Schuhart wrote:Put another way, if we were sitting on the North Pole with only a big pile of Qurans, would you have a problem if I gave you one to pray with and burned the rest to stay warm?
Al-Ma'ida:3
"Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine flesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL- ISLAM. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
Remind me never to go to the north pole without a few spare walkie talkiesSchuhart wrote:Just to be clear on a point of detail, Catholics are indeed criticised as idolators by some other Christians. However, Catholics are clearly taught that statues are just that – statutes – and should not be confused with the thing represented.
Some religions (including Christianity) actually ended up worshipping some of their important religious figures because there were statues of them. Once again, without meaning to offend anyone. In the example of Christianity, Jesus (peace be upon him) was not originally considered divine before the first council of nicea and having statues/pictures of him may have contributed to this change in doctrine.0 -
the_new_mr wrote:Two people may have a different idea of what is the just thing to do in a particular situation but neither of them will disagree what justice in itself is.the_new_mr wrote:Despite the difference of opinion between the Afgan scholars and the others whether or not they should destroy the idols, I don't think any of them would differ that God can and should be called The Just, The Loving One, The Subduer, The Only One, The Forgiver etc.the_new_mr wrote:By the way, the example you mentioned about the idols in Afghanistan show more of a difference of opinion rather than a misinterpretationthe_new_mr wrote:Jesus (peace be upon him) was not originally considered divine before the first council of nicea and having statues/pictures of him may have contributed to this change in doctrine.the_new_mr wrote:Remind me never to go to the north pole without a few spare walkie talkies0
-
Schuhart wrote:But if two people have a different idea of what is just in a particular situation, it suggest that they do disagree on what justice means. The fact they might both agree that the word ‘justice’ could be defined by the words ‘complete fairness’ only illustrates what I’m saying – words cloak differences, and the idea they are so much more precise than images is an illusion.
If two people disagree with each other on what is the just thing to do in a given situation (and this happens on a daily basis even between two people of the same faith (or no faith)) then this is because each one has a different list of pros and cons in their head and is trying to communicate this list to the other and why they think they are right.
However, they will still agree that justice is the fairest thing to do in any situation. So, if God is described as The Most Just, then on the day of Judgement, who is going to argue with God? You can argue with a fellow human because maybe they just don't get you and you believe that if they did, they'd agree with you. But if God knows everything and describes Himself as The Most Just then that's that, isn't it?Schuhart wrote:But quite clearly they disagree on what justice, loving, subduing and forgiving means if they cannot agree on whether the statutes should be left standing, and probably disagree and many other things as well. Hence, the idea that a clear idea of the nature of God is communicated by words is shown to be incorrect.Schuhart wrote:Fine, but it still amounts to a significant difference in the practice of a faith. That means the written word does not actually supply certainty. A picture of a god smiling down on a Muslim and a Buddhist might actually get the point across a lot clearer – assuming that the point we wanted to get across was to leave the other guy’s stuff alone.
And that's something that has just ocurred to me now. If God wanted people to represent Him in image form then He would have placed a picture of Himself in the Quran. He of course didn't but did choose to express Himself using the written word. A wise decision from The Most Wise.
And I know you're discussing the principle of representing God in image form in general and not specfically in Islam but since I'm a Muslim and this is the Islam forum, I'm sure you'll understand my stance on thisSchuhart wrote:the_new_mr wrote:Remind me never to go to the north pole without a few spare walkie talkies0 -
the_new_mr wrote:However, they will still agree that justice is the fairest thing to do in any situation. So, if God is described as The Most Just, then on the day of Judgement, who is going to argue with God?
Take an extreme case of a racist and a Buddhist. You ask each of them if we should treat all people justly. They both say yes. You ask if they agree that justice is fair. They both say yes. You might go away convinced that they both share a common belief in justice, because those words don’t reveal that the racist thinks its just and fair to treat people differently according to their race.
That’s my essential point. Simply asserting God is loving, compassionate, whatever, does not actually point to a common understanding of the nature of God.
Compassion could mean leaving statues standing because you realise others see some value in them, or it could mean that you destroy them because you think compassion means you must prevent people from seeing a value in statues that might lead them into what you think is error. People of both views might say compassion is concern for others. The difference is one see it as concern for others that prevents you from doing them any hurt. The other is concern for others that obliges you to hurt them if they do things you think are wrong, but they think are perfectly fine. The same words do not mean the same things to all people. So describing God as Most Just still leaves an amount of doubt over what that actually means.the_new_mr wrote:As I said, the difference of opinion on the practice of the faith here (and in other cases) is to do with the interpretation of text other than the nature of God.the_new_mr wrote:who is supposed to have drawn such a picture and, therefore, who is to say it is right?the_new_mr wrote:And I know you're discussing the principle of representing God in image form in general and not specfically in Islam but since I'm a Muslim and this is the Islam forum, I'm sure you'll understand my stance on this.0 -
Schuhart wrote:Take an extreme case of a racist and a Buddhist. You ask each of them if we should treat all people justly. They both say yes. You ask if they agree that justice is fair. They both say yes. You might go away convinced that they both share a common belief in justice, because those words don’t reveal that the racist thinks its just and fair to treat people differently according to their race.Schuhart wrote:I think the distinction is artificial. If we agree that language is imprecise, then that is something that applies to discussion of the nature of God as much as anything else. If people hold different perceptions of what compassion is, it means they have a different picture of what it means to say God is compassionate.
I believe that everyone has an innate sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to big things.Schuhart wrote:Surely exactly the same question is raised by the written word. Take the extent to which the authenticity of particular Hadiths comes into discussions.Schuhart wrote:Indeed. I suppose I’m really exploring my feeling that the reason for the prohibition on images is simply tradition – its not that there’s actually any real world advantage to the rule.0
Advertisement