Muhammad & Idolatry

[Weebeast]

I'm just wondering whether or not it's the illustrator's fault if muslims would 'idolize' Muhammad if they knew what he looked like? I guess you don't have to be muslim to discuss but if you are one please don't give me "it's the rule that's written in Qur'an" line. Lets use something that Allah didn't give to the devils and jins. Lets face it, Muhammad did exist (we can agree on that) and there were people who knew him and knew what he looked like. We're also familiar with "There's no god but Allah and Muhammad is its rasul" line. There's no reason to put the blame on the illustrator when some so-called alim bows to a potrait of Muhammad.

Why am I so excited about illustration of Muhammad? I'm not but you know, this is 2006 and it's about damn time that Hollywood starts making movie about him. Wouldn't you at least appreciate that if Islam goes Hollywood?

[Meneldil]

As far as I know, it's forbidden to depict Muhammad precisely to avoid idolatry. I heard a liberal/moderate muslim scholar explaining that the founders of Islam didn't want believers to worship Muhammad as the Christian worshiped Jesus (since the only true god is Allah), and thus banned all pics of him.

Now, I might be wrong, and a muslim member might correct me (or rather, the guy who said that), but if that was the case, it pretty much failed, as the recent events shown us.

[BDC]

From what I read in newspapers recently, it's not actually forbidden, it just goes against tradition.

Making pictures that is. The idol worship probably is forbidden...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

i think it is kinda hypocritical the whole 'don't idolize anyone' and yet they idolize muhammed (pbuh) enough to stone danish embassies just because a picture of him (admittidly with his turban as a bomb) was in one of their newspapers
it seems a little over the top but i would like to hear a muslims point of view on this because i have no clue what goes on in an islamic world

[InsaneApache]

[Meneldil]

From what I read in newspapers recently, it's not actually forbidden, it just goes against tradition.

What's the difference ? A religious rule is nothing else than a tradition.

[Bar Kochba]

i judasim theres the same concept not to make idols out of our leaders thats y it was not revelid were moses was buried

[LeftEyeNine]

Hollywood-ization is corruption. I don't want a Muhammed movie. Forget it.

The bannination of depictation of Muhammed both relies on the intention to avoid people from using his existence in an unpleasant way and the idolization.

..please don't give me "it's the rule that's written in Qur'an" line. Lets use something that Allah didn't give to the devils and jins. Lets face it, Muhammad did exist (we can agree on that) and there were people who knew him and knew what he looked like. We're also familiar with "There's no god but Allah and Muhammad is its rasul" line...

Eh, what do you want to hear ? Do you think Muslims make up excuses to avoid something ? That's what to be said and it is there said, you see ?

[Adrian II]

The bannination of depictation of Muhammed both relies on the intention to avoid people from using his existence in an unpleasant way and the idolization.

Then why are Bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's pamhplets and calls for murder in the name of the Prophet broadcast, quoted and copied in the entire Muslim world? Surely their use of the Prophet for terrorist purposes must be judged 'unpleasant'. Then why aren't we seeing Muslims burning effigies of Osama bin Laden for a change?

I know you are not a binladenist or an alzawahirist, instead you are a damn good Turkish computer guy and a fun member of this website. But I would appreciate some sort of an answer from a Muslim to get a better perspective.

[BDC]

What's the difference ? A religious rule is nothing else than a tradition.

It's not actually forbidden in the Qur'an or something. I don't know, I haven't read it, just passing on what I read in newspapers.

And yes, it's completely hypocritical to march over a silly cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb, but have no issues with someone flying a plane into a building full of people (lots of them Muslims) in his name.

[Weebeast]

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say here. It is mandatory for a muslim to know that Allah is the god. If a muslim ever happens to worship the wrong god then it's his fault, not the fault of a christian who doesn't know anything or plan to know about Islam.

Hollywood-ization is corruption. I don't want a Muhammed movie. Forget it.

I thought we're supposed to spread Islam? Seriously though, there need to be one. I grew up hearing stories of Muhammad so the movie version would be cool. At least they need to do Muhammad on History Channel.

Do you think Muslims make up excuses to avoid something ?

No, but they use Allah-given brain. If people sit-back, relax and think for a second, moving on with their lives and getting over that whole 'burn danish flag thing' might seem to be the right thing to do.

[LeftEyeNine]

Then why are Bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's pamhplets and calls for murder in the name of the Prophet broadcast, quoted and copied in the entire Muslim world? Surely their use of the Prophet for terrorist purposes must be judged 'unpleasant'. Then why aren't we seeing Muslims burning effigies of Osama bin Laden for a change?

I have already accepted before that interpretion of Islam has been a quasi-disaster in many societies. It is nonsense to expect poor societies educated in a highly dogmatic and strictive interpretion of Islam to burst off in the way you mentioned of whom only wealth are their faith and religious figures. (no sympathization here) You know what kind of life women have over there. There is a set-up that men can get aroused from high heeled shoes that are banned wearing from women. You see what a mess there is over there ? The recent events are not disjunctive or exceptional at all, they are all largely connected with how the society is set up over there -yes, even with what women are banned from wearing.

I know you are not a binladenist or an alzawahirist, instead you are a damn good Turkish computer guy and a fun member of this website. But I would appreciate some sort of an answer from a Muslim to get a better perspective.

I have the ability to reply the way I am questioned. The times before I replied were ones that casted a generalization shadow over all Muslims, therefore everytime I had to point out what I am. Because although you may have stated your previous questions like this one, Islam-o-phobia is everywhere. There were times I was reacted with horror as if I am a terrorist when I introduced myself being a Muslim.

[Papewaio]

I know you are not a binladenist or an alzawahirist, instead you are a damn good Turkish computer guy and a fun member of this website. But I would appreciate some sort of an answer from a Muslim to get a better perspective.

Probably the same reason I get more upset with the actions of my social and intellectual equivalents then those of someone I do not feel represents my society.

[LeftEyeNine]

I thought we're supposed to spread Islam? Seriously though, there need to be one. I grew up hearing stories of Muhammad so the movie version would be cool. At least they need to do Muhammad on History Channel.

No one is not supposed to spread Islam. I present my knowledge and why I am a Muslim in case you are interested, you show interested or flush the idea away. We are living in a civilized and settled world where people can communicate overseas in seconds. Jihad is a way back concept -already accomplished the mission of stabilized and strong presence of Islam.

Your at least option seems more reasonable. Without depictation of Muhammed, a documentary would be nice of course. The Message was a solid movie about Muhammed's period, featuring Anthony Quinn. It is nearly a tradition broadcasting the movie with the start of Ramadan in Turkish channels every year.

No, but they use Allah-given brain. If people sit-back, relax and think for a second, moving on with their lives and getting over that whole 'burn danish flag thing' might seem to be the right thing to do.

Hate against the West that is taking its roots from poverty and international politics has been ignited by radical Islamic terrorist organizations. THis is the 3rd time I'm saying this -their action was predictable and after all provocation that is individual (poverty), internal (terrorist organizations) and external (e.g. Danish papers).

[Adrian II]

The Message was a solid movie about Muhammed's period, featuring Anthony Quinn. It is nearly a tradition broadcasting the movie with the start of Ramadan in Turkish channels every year.

I didn't know it was popular in Turkey. But Quinn was Abu Bakr (he was ideally type-cast as well!) and the Prophet was never shown, only his presence was suggested.

Why would you abhor any movie that portrayed him visibly? I mean what is the importance of the taboo to you, to LEN the man personally?

[LeftEyeNine]

The movie is absolutely popular in Turkey. And yes, Muhammed was never shown in any way, the dialogues that needed to be with him were like monologues as well.

Why would you abhor any movie that portrayed him visibly? I mean what is the importance of the taboo to you, to LEN the man personally?

I have seen enough of this. I am a Muslim and finding the reasons to bannination of Muhammed from being shown/ depicted/illustrated absolutely rational. See what they have done in the first chance ? It may please you, you can fit it into the Freedom Of Speech. But Muhammed is my holy Prophet and does not deserve the way he is offended because of what Al-Freak-Da-Bombists have done. Even you had suggested that he would approve and be aside with AQ if he was alive after all these.

Danish newspaper would apologize in the first days of the matter and nothing would have happened. It has happened before (Muhammed being depicted in a portray by Bild, if I'm not wrong) and the case was peacefully closed by their apologize.

This is a nerve that should not be touched. It is like the West peeing on a wall religious taboo of centuries. The reason why you take it this far and find the Muslim world reaction ridiculous, lies under the Norwegian paper's words of apology (not the exact version): "We couldn't anticipate that it would state such an offence against Muslims"

Yeah it offends us and give up depciting him, let alone the ugly charicatures, why that much of insistence? Can not you have fun without depicting Muhammed ?

P.S. I've already stated my refusal against what has been done to the embassies and flags, please do not reply in a way "Should you have reacted that way?". The answer is above and I'm repeating the reasons of such harsh reactions added the contribution of fuel into the fire by Western papers doing the same thing one after another, for another time again here.

[Adrian II]

I am a Muslim and finding the reasons to bannination of Muhammed from being shown/ depicted/illustrated absolutely rational. See what they have done in the first chance?

There is so much wrong about your statement that I am going to address only one aspect of it.

Why on earth do you think that each and every depiction of Mohammed would necessarily have to be disrespectful? If his words, his actions, the people around him can all be shown in a movie in such a fashion that this movie is shown over and over on Turkish tv, why then would any movie showing the actual Mohammed suddenly, and of necessity, be disrespectful and unfit for any audience?

[LeftEyeNine]

There is so much wrong about your statement that I am going to address only one aspect of it.

Why on earth do you think that each and every depiction of Mohammed would necessarily have to be disrespectful? If his words, his actions, the people around him can all be shown in a movie in such a fashion that this movie is shown over and over on Turkish tv, why then would any movie showing the actual Mohammed suddenly, and of necessity, be disrespectful and unfit for any audience?

It does not have to be. But depictation is a means to do it. About this matter, "none" is better than "fair". Done. My statements are rightful through my point of view. I don't bother with yours being right or wrong. Screw it.

[Adrian II]

Screw it.

I won't!

[LeftEyeNine]

I won't!

You hit under belt, forget it.

[Xiahou]

I don't see why it's so tough to fathom why Muslims would be against portrayals of Mohammed. Just read up on Christianity and iconoclasm and people's reasoning behind that for starters.

[Adrian II]

You hit under belt, forget it.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Slyspy]

Bannination! You have my support LEN for inventing my new favourite word.

On a related issue: Remember the film "Ben Huir" with Mr Heston? Similar sort of thing I think.

[Adrian II]

I don't see why it's so tough to fathom why Muslims would be against portrayals of Mohammed. Just read up on Christianity and iconoclasm and people's reasoning behind that for starters.

We do not promote the notion that all Muslims think alike or that Muslims think just like Christians, right? So I am asking one Muslim's personal view. Wrong again! 'Don't bother to ask, all Muslims think alike. Just like Christians, really.'

Jezus H...

[LeftEyeNine]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

I have seen enough of this.

[Adrian II]

I have seen enough of this.

No you haven't. You haven't seen this, for instance.



It is a stone sculpture of Mohammed in the U.S. Supreme Court marble courtroom, part of a group depicting the 18 'law-givers' of mankind: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Napoleon, Marshall, Blackstone, Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian.

In 1997 a coalition of American Muslim groups asked the court to sandblast or otherwise remove the sculpture, contending that it was a form of sacrilege because graven images are forbidden in Islam. Chief Justice Rehnquist rejected the request, saying the Muhammad sculpture "was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship."

Rehnquist also dismissed the objection to the curved sword in the marble Muhammad's hand as reinforcing the stereotypical image of Muslims as intolerant conquerors: "I would point out that swords are used throughout the Court's architecture as a symbol of justice and that nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone." Rehnquist said that the description and literature, however, would be changed to identify Muhammad as a "Prophet of Islam," and not "Founder of Islam." The rewording, based upon "input of numerous Muslim groups," would also say that the figure "is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor Adolph Weinman to honor Mohammed, and it bears no resemblance to Mohammed."

Link

The Council on American Islamic Relations in its annual report called this rewording a 'great success'. No more protests were heard. The rewording was seen -- and rightly so -- as a sign of the respectful treatment of Mohammed by the U.S. government.

That is exacty now governments should treat religions and reilgious symbols: they are not the intellectual property of the believers, but of all mankind, and they should be treated either respectfully or not at all. What private citizens think of it (and say or do about it) is of course their own business.

Would you agree that in this particular case the depiction of Mohammed is acceptable?

[LeftEyeNine]

No. His face should be erased. There are many miniatures of Muhammed in a book that tells of his life which is can be found in Topkapi Palace, I hear dthat a copy of it is also a property of British Museum. In all miniatures in the book Muhammed's face was not depicted.

However I don't think the particular incident you talk about needs any further reaction if they don't agree to erase his face.

[rory_20_uk]

Erase it? Why??? It's doesn't belong to Muslims. Push off, get your own...

Why everyone else should:

a) do what Muslims say
b) Put up with the "infidel" tag all the time (offence at which is overlooked).
c) Ignore sacrilege when done by Muslims (the Taliban demolishing a temple thousands of years old).

I completely fail to see.

As a group, the arrogance of Muslims is IMMENSE: Tear it down - we don't like it, you infidel!

The world does NOT belong to you. Yours are NOT the only set of possible laws. And "give and take" does not mean Muslims give out orders, and everyone else must obey them!

Even the moderates basically make the same set of unilateral demands, but just don't threaten those that don't comply with beheadings / death etc etc...

[Reenk Roink]

Have some candy rory...you're acting like the people you blast...

[rory_20_uk]

That's it?? No irrefutable argument? No logic? My sister used to come up with a similar argument when she was about 4. But as a Muslim, I guess no other is required...

Yes, I am getting annoyed as more and more I'm hearing that things should be altered, and almost all the time it is Muslims that see offence in something; furthermore no other religion complains so hard and so long about... anything!!

Unlike the people I "blast", I've not stated that anyone should act in a certain way, unless you count acting like mature adults in the 21st Century a demand. Sadly you might, and one that Muslims more than most fail to achieve.