Why No Images Of Muhammad?

Mark Hamill

I know that images of Muhammad aren't allowed in Islam, but I would like to know why.
Thanks

hivizman

As I understand it, pious Muslims believe that possessing any image of people or other living beings is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. There are several prophetic traditions (hadith), where Muhammad is reported to have objected to the possession of images. For example, both Bukhari and Muslim, the most respected sources of hadith, quote several narrations, on the authority of such as 'Aisha, Muhammad's wife, and Abu Talha, a companion of Muhammad, that "angels do not enter a house where there is a dog or a picture of a human being".

This dislike (if not prohibition) of images of humans may be connected with a fear of idolatry. Muslims worship Allah alone, and setting up a "partner" for Allah - shirk - is the one unforgiveable sin. So Muslims fear that, if Muhammad, or indeed any of the prophets, were to be portrayed, there is a danger that people would "idolise" the image rather than worshipping Allah alone.

A further factor may be a belief that no image or representation is adequate to portray Muhammad, so attempts to represent him show a lack of respect. This is so even if there was no intention to cause offence by attempting to portray Muhammad.

Are you thinking of the recent announcement that a film company is going to produce a "life of Muhammad", without the Prophet actually being portrayed?

Filan

That film is hard to visualise

hivizman

I've seen only extracts from The Message (also known as Muhammad, Messenger of Allah), a 1976 film starring Anthony Quinn as Muhammad's uncle Hamza ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib, but apparently any scene in which Muhammad was involved was shot from his point of view, so he was not actually represented on screen. So, for example, Muhammad's entry into Medina is filmed as if the camera is riding on the Prophet's camel.

Filan

Ah yes now I understand....a bit like some of those first person computer games....?

hivizman

Yes, I guess so. Also, from what I've read on Wikipedia, the voice of Muhammad was not heard directly, but his words were spoken by the other characters.

mcmoustache

FYI only the Sunnis have a problem with it. You can still buy images of Muhamed(sp?) in the bazaars of Iran which is a Shia-dominated country. He looks very like jesus TBH;). There was a brief chilling effect after the cartoon insanity but I think that's probably long forgotten. Especially now that they hate the Sunnis again after the Jundullah attack.

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

As I understand it, pious Muslims believe that possessing any image of people or other living beings is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. There are several prophetic traditions (hadith), where Muhammad is reported to have objected to the possession of images. For example, both Bukhari and Muslim, the most respected sources of hadith, quote several narrations, on the authority of such as 'Aisha, Muhammad's wife, and Abu Talha, a companion of Muhammad, that "angels do not enter a house where there is a dog or a picture of a human being".

Why dont angels like pictures of human beings?

hivizman wrote: »

This dislike (if not prohibition) of images of humans may be connected with a fear of idolatry. Muslims worship Allah alone, and setting up a "partner" for Allah - shirk - is the one unforgiveable sin. So Muslims fear that, if Muhammad, or indeed any of the prophets, were to be portrayed, there is a danger that people would "idolise" the image rather than worshipping Allah alone.

But isnt the reaction of some muslims to images of Muhammad (eg those who protested to the danish or Bangladeshi cartoons) idolisation of Muhammad?

hivizman wrote: »

A further factor may be a belief that no image or representation is adequate to portray Muhammad, so attempts to represent him show a lack of respect. This is so even if there was no intention to cause offence by attempting to portray Muhammad.

In what way are they inadequate?

hivizman wrote: »

Are you thinking of the recent announcement that a film company is going to produce a "life of Muhammad", without the Prophet actually being portrayed?

Yeah, I read about that announcement and then thought to ask here why images werent allowed.

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why dont angels like pictures of human beings?

That's the problem (for a non-Muslim, anyway) with hadith - the statements don't often come with a rationale. I think that the reason why angels don't like pictures of human beings is that, as the agents of Allah, they are reflecting the detestation of creating potential idols who would be rivals to or at best partners of Allah. It does, though, seem to be a big jump from a picture of a friend or family member, or a stuffed animal, to an idol that someone is worshipping. There are some other hadith that are quoted in this context, for example that whoever makes an image of a living being will be asked on the Day of Judgement to give life to the image, and when the maker fails to do so (because only Allah is the source of life), then the maker will be condemned to hellfire. However, even if this gives a clue about why angels don't like images, this doesn't explain why angels don't like dogs in the home.

There is some issue of whether the "images" that the angels are not supposed to like have to be three-dimensional. or whether two-dimensional images are also included. Also, images produced by modern technologies, such as photographs, films, and television, are argued by many current scholars not be covered by the prohibition on images of living beings in the home (given that these scholars make regular appearances on the TV and YouTube, they would of course have to argue this).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But isnt the reaction of some muslims to images of Muhammad (eg those who protested to the danish or Bangladeshi cartoons) idolisation of Muhammad?

That's certainly a feasible interpretation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way are they [i.e., portrayals of Muhammad] inadequate?

Not sure that there is a specific "way" in which portrayals of Muhammad would be considered inadequate. I suspect it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations - a representation that did not agree with verbal descriptions of Muhammad (see here for example) would be considered a falsehood, and hence insulting to the Prophet, while one that was accurate would be considered by Muslims as offering a focus for worship, while suggesting that the image is as good as the "real thing".

komodosp

Also, images produced by modern technologies, such as photographs, films, and television, are argued by many current scholars not be covered by the prohibition on images of living beings in the home

In fairness, I can see the logic here. Films, Photographs, etc. are transferring of information, whereas drawing/painting someone implies idolisation a bit more, given the work put into it as well as the freedom to draw them more beautifully or whatever.

Out of curiousity, whereas in the west we had the Rennaissance, did the prohibition of painting portraits and building statues put any sort of strain on cultural development in the Muslim world?

Mark Hamill

komodosp wrote: »

In fairness, I can see the logic here. Films, Photographs, etc. are transferring of information, whereas drawing/painting someone implies idolisation a bit more, given the work put into it as well as the freedom to draw them more beautifully or whatever.

But what about photoshop and animation? These allow the same freedom on films and photographs as painting does on images.

komodosp

Perhaps photoshop is immoral too?

PDN

komodosp wrote: »

ut of curiousity, whereas in the west we had the Rennaissance, did the prohibition of painting portraits and building statues put any sort of strain on cultural development in the Muslim world?

Apparently not.

merrionsq

mcmoustache wrote: »

FYI only the Sunnis have a problem with it. You can still buy images of Muhamed(sp?) in the bazaars of Iran which is a Shia-dominated country. He looks very like jesus TBH;). There was a brief chilling effect after the cartoon insanity but I think that's probably long forgotten. Especially now that they hate the Sunnis again after the Jundullah attack.

AFAIK those images, despite being widespread, are actually still illegal in Iran. And "holier-than-thou" Shia's criticise those who have such images. But it does appear to be more acceptable among Shia. But so arguably are other worrying practices like music and dancing:eek:
The 1976 film didn't show Muhammad on screen or feature his voice, but the mere idea of him being in a film was still enought to incite anger in many countries, including a breakaway group from the Nation of Islam in the US taking hostages and shooting people.

tuxy

Music and dancing worries you?

hivizman

On the proposed new movie about Muhammad, there was a thoughtful piece reproduced on the Islamonline.net website about how making a film about Muhammad in the 21st century raises more difficulties than the producers of The Message had to deal with back in the 1970s.

For example, would modern cinema audiences tolerate a film in which the main character was not portrayed through image or sound? How could a film today avoid having to deal with issues about Muhammad's life that some find controversial, such as the age of Aisha, the treatment of the Jewish tribes in Medina, and whether Muhammad had indeed designated Ali as his successor?

doughef

I'm sorry..

Music and dancing worries you?? seriously???


relax altogether..Have a beer.. Christmas is nearly here and you can look forward to a break from the flight school that your no doubt attending..

The Recliner

doughef wrote: »

I'm sorry..

Music and dancing worries you?? seriously???


relax altogether..Have a beer.. Christmas is nearly here and you can look forward to a break from the flight school that your no doubt attending..

Doughef banned from the Islam forum for the comments above

mcmoustache

tuxy wrote: »

Music and dancing worries you?

I think (and hope) that was sarcasm there. I could be wrong.