Images of the prophets

[beso]

Muslims are offended by images of Muhamed.

They also claim that Jesus was a prophet of Islam. Why are they not offended by images of Jesus?

[Ankou]

because the imagery is representative of a different religion.

are they also offended by the sphinx and hieroglyphs?

[ludwig]

It doesn't matter ankou, if I were to draw a cartoon of muhammed, that would be representative of nothing other than me doing a doodle, but they'd still be offended by it.

[beso]

No because as Sith will tell you, Islam is much older than Mohammed. He was just the last in a long line of Muslim prophets. Christians think they have their own religion but they are really just confused Muslims.

[beso]

(:-|)> = Mohammed.

Now they want to kill me.

[ludwig]

Interesting. The ed now has to decide whether that image is offensive or not.

[Ankou]

"if I were to draw a cartoon of muhammed"

yes, but that would be representative of their religion.

beso, some would set out to kill you for merely questioning them and mentioning their prophet. i suppose the closest analogy for the non religious might be the burning of effigies such as david beckham and wayne rooney at footballl matches.

[jno]

have a look at the photo with this (ignore the story itself)

http://www.thisislond...an-from-the-pulpit.do

The children's faces have been pixillated out. Why? Because people are nervous about the power of depicting them in public. It's thought that showing them puts them at some sort of risk, by giving others the power to identify them

At the moment we only do this with children. But as concern over privacy/intrusion increases adults are worried about this too. Some publications require releases from everyone in a photo before they'll print it.

This is a roundabout way of answering your question, I know. But people are concerned over the uses of imagery, a concern that seems to be slowly increasing; and it makes sense to be more concerned for those closer to you - which in the case of Muslims would be Mohammed rather than Jesus. But many dislike portraits of any living being.

As you probably know, Christianity has also had a history of iconoclasm; and Muslims have in the past portayed living beings.

http://upload.wikimed...d/d2/Samarkand-25.JPG

It's pointless to demand "consistency" from "Muslims"; like anyone else, they have differing views among themselves.

[rowanwitch]

Many years ago before the twin towers I saw a photo of Osama bin laden I remember at the time thinking what a soft gentle look he had.. something other worldly... he'd have been a marvellous representative image for an artistic impression of Mohammed in the same way as Jesus has been modelled by many different people... just goes to show that images are not to believed. Certainly not the pale skinned golden haired Mr Christ of classical painting

[ludwig]

// yes, but that would be representative of their religion. //

No it wouldn't. It would just be me drawing a historical character. I don't have anything to do with their religion and don't represent it or need to abide by its self imposed rules in any way.

[naomi24]

//Christians think they have their own religion but they are really just confused Muslims. //

According to Islam no other religion has ever really existed. The Jews are also confused Muslims.

Although as far as I am aware, unlike the bible, the Koran does not specifically forbid images of people being made, and there are examples of Islamic art from the past depicting human beings - including Mohammed. However, the hadith says visual images of living creatures should not be created and that seems to be what most Muslims believe now. Another example of Mohammed's law overriding that of Allah.

[Ankou]

ludwig - so this mohammed you are drawing has nothing to do with the islamic mohammed then ? you didn't make that clear.

[jomifl]

There is major logical schism here. If I display a picture of a person, that is fine. If I say it is a picture of mohammed then I will be stoned to death, decapitated,whatever. As nobody knows what mohammed looks like(because no pictures of him have been allowed for a millenium or so) it is only an image of mohammed because i say it is, so I could show a likeness of him as long as I don't say that it is a likeness and that would be fine. I could show a likeness of his hypothetical twin brother who would look exactly like him but it wouldn't be him so that also would be fine. I could hint that an image of mohammed was mohammed but as long as I didn't hint strongly enough then I would survive.
Magritte entitled his painting of a pipe 'this is not a pipe'. Perhaps muslims could learn something from a French surrealist painter. Incidentally there are a lot of arabs named 'mohammed', who is to say that a picture of mohammed is really not just one of many mohammeds?

[beso]

Mohammed was probably butt ugly so he forbade all images of people.

[ludwig]

// ludwig - so this mohammed you are drawing has nothing to do with the islamic mohammed then ? you didn't make that clear. //

No. I made it clear that it WAS the islamic Mohammed I would be drawing, but that as I have nothing to do with Islam, don't believe in their god, am not bound by their rules, and don't represent the faith in any way, I should be allowed to draw what I like without fear of retribution.

I suspect you knew that though.

[Ankou]

this article has some interesting points.

http://lesswrong.com/...us_harm_minimization/

[jno]

"Mohammed was probably butt ugly so he forbade all images of people"

Ah. Sorry, I thought this was a genuine question seeking an answer rather than just another anti-Islam rant on a topic where you know all the answers already. In that case, ignore my previous past (as indeed you already have).

[naomi24]

Have you ever read a physical description of Mohammed? He was reputed to have been a practically perfect specimen as human beings go. I suspect beso could be right. ;o)

[jomifl]

I just filched these spellings of the prophet's ( not god's messenger of course, that was someone else)name from Wiki, guess the correct one, bearing in mind that none of them resemble the original arabic spelling.

4.1 Mohamad
4.2 Mohamed
4.3 Mohammad
4.4 Mohammed
4.5 Muhamad
4.6 Muhamed
4.7 Muhammad
4.8 Muhammed
4.9 Muhammet
4.10 Mahomet etc. ((added by me)

[Ankou]

"I should be allowed to draw what I like without fear of retribution."

no. there will always be limits of acceptability in varying degrees. (islam aside) if you set out to specifically offend someone via art or suchlike, then do they not have the right to be offended with varying degrees of retribution?

[jomifl]

Who has the right to dispense retribution? and for what?