How can muslims watch TV or draw animate if its forbidden?

According to my readings on hadiths. Its mentioned several times that "image making" is punished by hellfire.

Now if i were to take a liberal interpretation of this. Maybe this is in context to idol worship, and not actual depictions (though the thing that sorta is allowed is to depict inanimate stuff like nature). I mean Muhammad in past was depicted by Muslims afterall (though not sure of its religious cultural origin). Unless one wanna argue that they didnt know much.

But here is sources for it. Just wondering your views on it?

Depictions of Muhammad - Wikipedia

Hadith - The Book of Adornment - Sunan an-Nasa'i - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith - The Chapters on Business Transactions - Sunan Ibn Majah - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith - The Book of Clothes and Adornment - Sahih Muslim - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith - Book of Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar) - Sahih al-Bukhari - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith - The Book of Clothes and Adornment - Sahih Muslim - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Not sure if this is a contradiction though?
Hadith - The Chapters on Marriage - Sunan Ibn Majah - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith - Book of General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab) - Sunan Abi Dawud - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

There are more of this. But i have trouble finding it. Either case. I just am overall wondering how this works

Remember that not all Muslims go by the Hadiths.
And of course, there is room for interpretation.

Note:
This is an outsiders observation.
It is not based upon any knowledge of Islam.

Revoltingest said:

Remember that not all Muslims go by the Hadiths.
And of course, there is room for interpretation.

Note:
This is an outsiders observation.
It is not based upon any knowledge of Islam.

Click to expand...

There are critics of hadiths i agree. But if you look on wikipedia. Most muslims tends to ascribe to Sunni islamic ones, being over 80% of muslims in general. Sunni culture have the tradition of hadith collection if they are "authentic ones" which is cannon to their teachings of quran and teachings of muhammad. And the 6 strong ones are the ones that has the most effect of the strong sunnah "which i read on sunnah.com (well almost, soon done with bukhari then done). So if the chain is authentic to the tradition of muhammad (Since its said to follow muhammad's example) then its considered valid.

Source: "Over 75–90% of Muslims are Sunni"
Muslims - Wikipedia

I mean if you have read the quran only, trust me, i tried and i could not understand how in the world islamic practice or society is supposed to look like just by reading the quran alone (in sunni islamic religious context of society), like its like saying you would understand Christianity just by reading the book of psalms, it simply is impossible without the new testament and to understand context the old testament aswell. Reading the hadiths however, the ones on sunnah.com made more or less total sense in terms of how the religious culture is practiced. The minority would be shiite which i dont know much about but muslims mostly in general are sunni muslims of that religious culture.

Sunnah - Wikipedia

But there is critics of hadiths. But just saying the overall religious culture of sunni islam is the belief that quran aswell as tradition of muhammad is mandatory (atleast thats what i've come to understand) Its a reason why islamic jurisdiction exists in those countries etc and why they have such a rule. From reading the quran alone i just didnt understand anything. Hadiths however it makes it clear why they do or believe what they do etc.

I am not a expert on islam or the quran.
I might be wrong in the way i read the OP view of and way of study. but to me it seems more like a negative critique of the quran and islamic faith. instead of objective study of the text to learn.

in my understandings it is not allowed to depict Muhammed in statue or drawing. but its about the prophet not about watching tv today,

Jewish law forbids making images, too. Like in Islam, it's interpreted a variety of ways. Since most Muslims aren't literalist fanatics, they don't interpret it in such strident ways, same as Jews.

Saint Frankenstein said:

Jewish law forbids making images, too. Like in Islam, it's interpreted a variety of ways. Since most Muslims aren't literalist fanatics, they don't interpret it in such strident ways, same as Jews.

Click to expand...

But much hadiths are usually critcizing jews of being hypocritical of their belief, almost like they are accused mostly of just not caring about their religious belief at all, aswell as being very harsh on hypocrites of the islamic faith. Like one criticism is for example, jews were not allowed to use pork fat or something. Well they sold it but didnt use it, so they are more or less condemned for that.

Christians tend to be just criticized for being misled or well image makery is something they dont approve of like churches one way or another. Though it does mingle information back and forth so i dont have track of all the info at the moment

So it has very strict rules from my readings on it.

Tena said:

But much hadiths are usually critcizing jews of being hypocritical of their beliefs, aswell as being very harsh on hypocrites of the islamic faith. Like one criticism is for example, jews were not allowed to use pork fat or something. Well they sold it but didnt use it, so they are more or less condemned for that.

So it has very strict rules from my readings on it.

Click to expand...

And? I can find very strict rules in Jewish law, too.

Amanaki said:

I am not a expert on islam or the quran.
I might be wrong in the way i read the OP view of and way of study. but to me it seems more like a negative critique of the quran and islamic faith. instead of objective study of the text to learn.

in my understandings it is not allowed to depict Muhammed in statue or drawing. but its about the prophet not about watching tv today,

Click to expand...

No it was meant as objective : I. Like its at best a curious question. Since if i were to believe in something, and how you know, how it works. I mean one example, it says females are suppose to cover their heads in new testament, yet they have ways of interpreting that.

All i am wondering is... how do muslims perceive this. Is all i am asking.

Saint Frankenstein said:

And? I can find very strict rules in Jewish law, too.

Click to expand...

Yeah but in islamic traditions. Jews are usually being very disliked for being hypocritical to the point where they really dont take their faith seriously. I can take one instant mentioned several times. Stoning for adultery (or sexual illegal stuff, i think by other sources it is mentioned it was adultery) it is more or less mentioned in old testament, torah etc that crime for adultery is death (but i have not read the bible in long time now, but i think it was death for that in the old testament). Well jews tried to hide that to muhammad, when muhammad found out about it they were killed (the people who committed adultery or illegal sexual confrontation)

Source on it
Hadith - Book of Limits and Punishments set by Allah (Hudood) - Sahih al-Bukhari - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Point is, to islamic religious culture they are seen as taking this very seriously "in this context, sunni islamic religious culture". All i am wondering about is what do muslims in general think of TV and that stuff when this is mentioned etc.

Tena said:

No it was meant as objective : I. Like its at best a curious question. Since if i were to believe in something, and how you know, how it works. I mean one example, it says females are suppose to cover their heads in new testament, yet they have ways of interpreting that.

All i am wondering is... how do muslims perceive this. Is all i am asking.

Click to expand...

Then i was the one who read your post in a wrong way,sorry about that.

Amanaki said:

Then i was the one who rad your post in a wrong way,sorry about that.

Click to expand...

Its ok. Like i am not trying or wanting to make angry questions, just questions to get answers or share opinions. If i do make stuff just for the sake of being mean, then i feel i am just being unproductive. Though appreciate your answer

Tena said:

Its ok. Like i am not trying or wanting to make angry questions, just questions to get answers or share opinions. If i do make stuff just for the sake of being mean, then i feel i am just being unproductive. Though appreciate your answer

Click to expand...

Asking question to learn is always good and welcome Being curious about others religion is good too

Amanaki said:

Asking question to learn is always good and welcome Being curious about others religion is good too

Click to expand...

Yeah. Dont get me wrong. I am not of those people who say Islam just wants to kill infidels etc. Its few misconception. It is about fighting nonbelievers "but it doesnt need to be through aggression, but it is kind of flimsy" though it does seem to promote good intentions but i am not 100% sure, how it is done is different though. Like killing one who is protected under islamic law it can even be infidels is not allowed, or transgressing (seems mostly to be about self defense and expansion if one is in war). Etc if you just kill a guy for no reason then you wont smell fragments of paradise or something, only way it is allowed is if that guy has done something to deserve it. Well its from what i understand, you are going to hell if you just kill people for no reason, being infidel is seemed like not a reason to kill one just out of random "atleast i think so". It says however that you wont be punished in this world, in the next life however... not so good.

Also it is said that muslims should act on good intentions even going into foreign nations (or its mentioned somewhere on that to act on good). Like i agree there is much confusing and often information in hadiths that are tossed back and forth. But overall, the overall intentions i think is from what i have read is what you as a muslim believer should act upon and do good.

The minority of extreme ones however, are just that. It can be right wingers, or jihadists. Like i am personally against mafia religious cultures if that makes sense as in religious iron grip. If i want to simplify that. But i also dont mean or want to annoy people just for fun. I could write what i believe in. But it would just take too long. Point is, as a whole or nutshell. The important thing i think is to try to understand humans and try to work for better good. Think that is what overall is better.

But i really think i dont know everything so i dont try to act like it. But i do agree there is some truth that mad fundamentalism or destruction in humans in some, that is more about wishing destruction than understanding, but i think people who have misconceptions often have not studied it. Since i mean not all have the time. But yeah. Sorry, i guess i am talking too much and way off topic. But appreciate it either way

Valjean said:

How can muslims watch TV or draw animate if its forbidden?
Same way Christians can, they cherry pick.

Religious or social strictures are usually observed only as long as they remain convenient. As soon as they become onerous or a more attractive alternative presents itself they're ignored or reinterpreted.

Christians are probably even more guilty of the specific sin of depiction than Muslims. At least most Muslims are aware of the prohibition. Most Christians aren't even aware that the Bible forbids it, as well:
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” -- Exodus, 20:4

Click to expand...

Dont mean to sound like a buzzkill here but. The 2nd commandment. Is more or less talking about dont make idols as in worshipping outside the one true god. It doesnt forbid painters, artists etc. And i can prove it easily.

Arc of the covenant, keyword. Here is description in the bible. And here is how they think it looks like. Cherub is an angel i think
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 37:1-9 - New International Version


Or thats what they will say it means. But its not too implausable atleast. But what do you think?

Tena said:

Dont mean to sound like a buzzkill here but. The 2nd commandment. Is more or less talking about dont make idols as in worshipping outside the one true god. It doesnt forbid painters, artists etc. And i can prove it easily.

Arc of the covenant, keyword. Here is description in the bible. And here is how they think it looks like. Cherub is an angel i think
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 37:1-9 - New International Version
Or thats what they will say it means. But its not too implausable atleast. But what do you think?

Click to expand...

As I said in the post you responded to:
"Religious or social strictures are usually observed only as long as they remain convenient. As soon as they become onerous or a more attractive alternative presents itself they're ignored or reinterpreted."

As is often said, you can support just about any opinion with Biblical quotations, But the passage I cited says pretty clearly that one should make no likeness of anything.

It has no modifiers.Quoting modifiers or contradictions from other Biblical passages strikes me as interpreting a passage that's pretty clear on its own as meaning something other than what it says.

Valjean said:

As I said in the post you responded to:
"Religious or social strictures are usually observed only as long as they remain convenient. As soon as they become onerous or a more attractive alternative presents itself they're ignored or reinterpreted."

As is often said, you can support just about any opinion with Biblical quotations, But the passage I cited says pretty clearly that one should make no likeness of anything.

It has no modifiers.Quoting modifiers or contradictions from other Biblical passages strikes me as interpreting a passage that's pretty clear on its own as meaning something other than what it says.

Click to expand...

Here is the full verse though

"Exodus 20:4-5
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Like i am just asking that, the point is the islamic hadiths forbids it but it also gives "vague reasons why it is" its very straight to the point that image making is just bad. But they take images as idols or something and i assume thats why it is forbidden... in a very vague way.

Point is i feel the bible is much more, transparent to what comes after it.

Like i am not saying, you cant see if it cant be interpreted otherwise. But i dunno. It just feels hard for some reason. I just have not seen any way if its possible. Since it does just seem point blank that, you are sorta trying to play a creator even though you are not one seems to be what i feel it is accusing you of is why painting or making animate stuff is a sin in islam.

In judaism/christianity, even then it specify... you shall not make images because dont worship idols (atleast it indicates that... but i see your point in it, its losely connected but i see)... because i am the only god. Oh never mind its ok to make images if its for my sake arc of covenant.

Point is that some religious culture is a tad bit more, easier.. I dunno.

Like Islamic hadiths also says dont make faith hard on followers, but again it is also very consistant on importance of keeping up rules to being clear and sound.

i just feels its more religious cultural consistency for some reason depending on the religious culture and how its applied and how it differs. Like i dont try to act like an expert. But I'd love to hear your feedback

Valjean said:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,

Click to expand...

My first thought I get now is that we should also not make a picture of God
And is picture meant literally or figuratively. Describing in words is to me also a picture, let alone to blind people.

Then it would mean that we should not say "God hates when you do this etc." or "God wants you to do this or that"
Do I understand correctly what you were implying?

stvdv said:

My first thought I get now is that we should also not make a picture of God
And is picture meant literally or figuratively. Describing in words is to me also a picture, let alone to blind people.

Then it would mean that we should not say "God hates when you do this etc." or "God wants you to do this or that"
Do I understand correctly what you were implying?

Click to expand...

The context is just idol worship. If you search up Arc of the covenant, its described in the bible as having cherubs. Its pretty much, worshipping the one God is fine, even with images. Its just if you stray away from that one god and worship idols that it becomes against the commandment and sin. Its more or less classical mistake some makes. Now whether one wanna say this is against paintings in general. You can make that argument, though loosely it can also work for being ok with it. But i see why some would make that argument. But i feel it can be atleast worked on being interpreted just due to what comes after the verse "you should not make any graven images" etc

Tena said:

Click to expand...

I liked the man in the video talking .. but in the end he was imposing too much in my opinion.

They do take things too literally for my "taste" this time literally with this mosquito story (3m0s onwards):
When a mosquito falls into a glass of water or on your food (Was a bit difficult to understand). If I heard it correctly, you should just eat the mosquito (something with dip it in the rice or so). Because the Prophet has said "1 wing contains the poison and the other wing contains the antidote" .. so don't worry ... trust the Prophet blindly. Funny this is the second thread on mozzies falling in a glass of water in 1 or 2 days.

And then he forcefully added "study the hadith ... don't care about what science says ... because science will prove the same years later ... who are you to put doubts in this book the hadith .. I mean any person putting doubts in this book".

I rather use a bit common sense. What if the mosquito lost 1 wing (the one with anti-dote) ... I mean it did fell into a glass ... maybe because it lost it's anti-dote-wing. My religion tells me to use common sense. This is an Imaam and he gives me a feeling of imposing "who are you to put doubts in the scriptures". Well yes ... don't tell such stories about mosquitos then I might not doubt.

IMHO: This is a strange book if they claim such things, especially when making you feel quilty when questioning and using common sense and telling you to not listen to science (because they change their views within weeks mostly).