Why is it wrong for non Muslims to draw Muhammed?

[beenie]

FYI, there is nothing in Qur'an that says drawings are not allowed (of anyone)...just sayin'.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting. Who did taught not to draw pictures of Mohammed then?

 

[CaptainBritain]

FYI, there is nothing in Qur'an that says drawings are not allowed (of anyone)...just sayin'.

If thats the case, that settles that, nothing wrong in it.

 

[Valjean]

I find it remarkable the way people become so incensed about symbols or symbolic acts.
People are more outraged about symbolic disparagement of a deeply held value than about an actual violation of same.
Burning a flag does not harm the country it represents, nor does it affect the life of a citizen in any way. A disparaging portrait of a religious figure, likewise, doesn't harm either the religion, its followers or its God. Yet people commit all kinds of 'sins' everyday, which actually do harm others, and no-one seems to be religiously outraged.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I find it remarkable the way people become so incensed about symbols or symbolic acts.
People are more outraged about symbolic disparagement of a deeply held value than about an actual violation of same.
Burning a flag does not harm the country it represents, nor does it affect the life of a citizen in any way. A disparaging portrait of a religious figure, likewise, doesn't harm either the religion, its followers or its God.

I think they see it as someone walking up and spitting in their eye.

It's a challenge. An invitation to fight.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think they see it as someone walking up and spitting in their eye.

It's a challenge. An invitation to fight.

Only people already looking to fight would see it that way.

 

[Valjean]

FYI, there is nothing in Qur'an that says drawings are not allowed (of anyone)...just sayin'.

I thought depictions of anything was forbidden in Islam, (as they are in the Bible, as well, BTW) and particularly depictions of people. Descriptions of the religion all seem to emphasize this, and this is given as an explanation of the abstract, non-pictorial decorations found in mosques.

 

[Acim]

I find it remarkable the way people become so incensed about symbols or symbolic acts.
People are more outraged about symbolic disparagement of a deeply held value than about an actual violation of same.
Burning a flag does not harm the country it represents, nor does it affect the life of a citizen in any way. A disparaging portrait of a religious figure, likewise, doesn't harm either the religion, its followers or its God. Yet people commit all kinds of 'sins' everyday, which actually do harm others, and no-one seems to be religiously outraged.

Excellent point(s). :bow:

I think it has to do with picking battles, and sense of empowerment. Perhaps false sense is better choice of words.

We (some of us) think harming another is, at times, necessary. Part of natural order or civil order. Must be done. Like Obama claiming upon taking of OBL's life, "justice was done." So, we teach ourselves that in some cases, you are absolutely right to act in a forceful manner. Those who assert themselves in that way may be frowned upon, but are essentially isolated as if problem was only theirs. Not ours.

Symbolic disparagement is, apparently, easier battle to fight. Hands get less dirty, and we can maintain illusion that it really is their problem we are correcting.

 

[beenie]

Interesting. Who did taught not to draw pictures of Mohammed then?

If thats the case, that settles that, nothing wrong in it.

It's in Hadith. However, it's important to remember that these Hadith DO NOT apply to non-Muslims, and are even disputed within the Muslim community itself (some believe photographs are allowed, but sketches are not, etc.) There is no justification for attacking a non-Muslim for drawing Muhammad, but they CAN be offended if it's mean-spirited, just as a Christian has the right to be offended if Jesus is depicted in a negative way. Offended doesn't equal fanaticism though. React in a peaceful, mature way and they'll be taken more seriously.

1678. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "Those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection; and it will be said to them: `Breathe soul into what you have created.'''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: We learn from this Hadith that drawing pictures of humans, animals and all those things that have a soul in them is a great sin and is liable to heavy punishment. However, one will not be taken to task for such pictures which are made compulsory by the Government, i.e., identity cards, passports, domicile certificates etc., because one cannot exercise his own will in such matters, but this exemption is subject to the condition that he does not exceed the compulsory requirement.



1679. `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) visited me after returning from a journey, and I had a shelf with a thin cloth curtain hanging over it and on which there were portraits. When he saw it, the colour of his face changed (because of anger) and he said, "O `Aishah! the most grievous torment from Allah on the Day of Resurrection will be for those who imitate (Allah) in the act of His creation.'' `Aishah said: We tore it into pieces and made a cushion or two cushions out of that.
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: This Hadith has already appeared earlier [Hadith No. 650]. We learn from it that the act of drawing (pictures of humans, animals and things that have a soul in them) or photography and hanging of pictures (of such things) for display or decoration in homes is a great sin. It is, however, permissible that sheets bearing such pictures are cut into pieces for making such things which are not sacred and people go on trampling them, as was done by `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) that she made pillow covers of these pieces.



1680. Ibn `Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "Every painter will go to Hell, and for every portrait he has made, there will be appointed one who will chastise him in the Hell.'' Ibn `Abbas said: If you have to do it, draw pictures of trees and other inanimate things.
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: A painter will be punished for his paintings according to the number of his products. The greater the number of paintings he has produced, the more would be the punishment. Thus, there is a great warning for those who make films and photographs on marriages and functions because they make photographs of hundreds or thousands of persons at a time. If, in spite of knowing that this act is unlawful in Shari`ah, they do it on account of slackness on their part, they shall have to suffer heavy punishment for it in Hell. If they think that it is permissible in Islam, while it is forbidden, they would be regarded infidels and abide in Hell. It is absolutely wrong to think that this prohibition applies only to the painters or sculptors and that photographs taken by a camera is not a picture but a mere reflection and, therefore, one is exempted from their prohibition. Whether a picture is made by hand or camera or video, it is a picture and its maker is warned with Hell. May Allah save us from it. However, pictures of natural scenery which are lifeless are permissible.



1681. Ibn `Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "Whosoever makes a picture, will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and will be asked to infuse soul therein, which he will not be able to do.''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: One who makes a picture by any means, will be ordered to put life into it. This order will be in the nature of reproach and reproof because none can do it. Obviously one will not be able to do it and will thus be awarded stern punishment.



1682. Ibn Mas`ud (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "Those who will receive the most severe punishment from Allah on the Day of Resurrection will be painters (of living objects).''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].



1683. Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The Almighty Allah said: `Who is more an oppressor than him who goes to create like My creation? Let him make an ant or a grain of corn or a grain of barley.'''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: This Hadith has a stern warning for photographers and video-makers who try to imitate the Creative Attribute of Allah.



1684. Abu Talhah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a portrait.''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: Angels here means angels of mercy whose visit is a blessing for homes, because the angels who supervise us and record our deeds are with us all the time.



1685. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: Jibril (Gabriel) promised to visit the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) but delayed and this grieved him very much. When he came out of his house, Jibril met him. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) asked him about the reason of delay, and he replied: "We do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a portrait.''

[Al-Bukhari].



1686. `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: Jibril (Gabriel) (PBUH) made a promise with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. There was a staff in the hand of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He threw it from his hand and said, "Never does Allah back out of His Promise, nor do His messengers.'' Then he noticed a puppy under his bed and said, "O `Aishah, when did this dog enter?'' She said: "By Allah, I don't know.'' He then commanded that it should be turned out. No sooner than had they expelled it, Jibril came and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said to him, "You promised to visit me. I waited for you but you did not come.'' Whereupon he said: "The dog kept me from coming. We do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.''
[Muslim].

Commentary: This Hadith has an elaboration of the preceding Hadith and tells us that a puppy had entered the house of the Prophet (PBUH) and he did not know about it. The presence of the puppy in the house obstructed the visit of Jibril (Gabriel). It is a pity that now many Muslims keep dogs in their houses in imitation of the Europeans and also display in their showcases photographs of animals, or their own family members, or pictures of their deceased parents, or their mentor, or some saint for the sake of blessing, little knowing that such pictures deprive one of the Blessings of Allah rather than bestowing it upon them.



1687. Abul-Haiyaj Haiyan bin Husain said: `Ali bin Abu Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) said to me: "Shall I not send you to do a task that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had assigned to me? Spare no portrait unwiped out, and leave not a high grave unlevelled.''
[Muslim].

Commentary: Drawing pictures and raising graves over the height of a span are forbidden and their removal is the responsibility of Muslim rulers. An Islamic state neither allows pictures, nor does it permit permanent structures over graves, nor graves over a span's height.

"Leave not a high grave unlevelled'' does not mean levelling them to the ground. What it really means is that these should be reduced to the permissible height

Source

 

[beenie]

I find it remarkable the way people become so incensed about symbols or symbolic acts.
People are more outraged about symbolic disparagement of a deeply held value than about an actual violation of same.
Burning a flag does not harm the country it represents, nor does it affect the life of a citizen in any way. A disparaging portrait of a religious figure, likewise, doesn't harm either the religion, its followers or its God. Yet people commit all kinds of 'sins' everyday, which actually do harm others, and no-one seems to be religiously outraged.

Very nicely said. It's the intention behind the drawing that incites people though. Violence is still wrong no matter what, and no silly drawing will change my faith.

I thought depictions of anything was forbidden in Islam, (as they are in the Bible, as well, BTW) and particularly depictions of people. Descriptions of the religion all seem to emphasize this, and this is given as an explanation of the abstract, non-pictorial decorations found in mosques.

I didn't see this post before I posted my second post; see above.

My point is that Qur'an doesn't specifically say anything, but it's clarified in Hadith (somewhat). It is frowned upon to draw images with faces, etc. That's why you'll see a lot of abstract art in Islamic culture.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Only people already looking to fight would see it that way.

I think it might be seen as fear. You know, a paranoid can be set off by anything.

Religious belief -- especially for the conservative -- defines the universe and the meaning of life. When you wobble a guy's world, he might feel so terrified that he reacts aggressively.

 

[beenie]

Thing is, the vast majority of Muslims will shake their heads, speak about how wrong it is to them, and leave it at that. It's those who are already feeling attacked that will act out on it...unfortunately, they're the loudest and most seen.

 

[England my lionheart]

I thought depictions of anything was forbidden in Islam, (as they are in the Bible, as well, BTW) and particularly depictions of people. Descriptions of the religion all seem to emphasize this, and this is given as an explanation of the abstract, non-pictorial decorations found in mosques.

This is my understanding too,if you paint a picture of a living thing its seen as playing God by some Muslims which accounts for Muslim Art.

 

[no-body]

All I see here is arrogance and superiority.

Arrogance is being so insecure in your beliefs you use fear and threats to intimidate others into doing what you want.

While I basically agree, it is unrealistic and perhaps naive (if not all-out disrespectful) to simply expect Muslims to ignore a direct challenge to one of their points of sensibility.

Worse still, it doesn't exactly breed good will, which would be the point.

Don't get me wrong, I am sick and tired of the demands of many Muslims. But aiming to irritate them and expect them to be more reasonable after that is simply not a good idea.

People can't be pressured into being reasonable; they must be won over with displays of a willingness to establish civil discourse and to show respect.

You can't argue with the fundamentalist anyway (queue the Dr House quote "if you could rationalize with religious people there would be no religious people") and it becomes a matter of principal when you really do make the media and individuals fear you to the point of having to watch what you say.

I feel bad for the sane Muslims that have to go through this fundamentalist phase but the rest of the world shouldn't be cowed by the crazies just because they are at a rough point in their religion. We don't need another dark ages.

I'm not going to personally advocate people draw Mohammed or satirize Islam but I'm not going to shed a tear when they do it either nor say it is wrong, because it isn't.

 

[Marble]

I understand why it is wrong for Muslims to do so according to the faith they follow but for non Muslims who are bound by none of the sharia rules why is it wrong?

It is not wrong.
Perhaps Muslims do not like it, but in a multi-faith society members of every religion are obliged to tolerate that people of different/no faith behave in a way that is wrong according to their own religion.

Remember this?
Row over cows for slaughter sparks riot - Telegraph

There's nothing wrong with respecting views one doesn't share.

Than please Muslims should respect that non-Muslims have no problem with pictures of Muhammed.

I'm going to keep it 100 with you, Islam is plagued with fanatics.

Problem is, that Islam has no central authority.
And the voices of few fanatics are always louder than the voices of the mass of moderate people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand why it is wrong for Muslims to do so according to the faith they follow but for non Muslims who are bound by none of the sharia rules why is it wrong?

In Revoltifarianism, it's wrong not to mock deeply held beliefs.
So Muslims are often in violation of our tenets & are therefore disrespectful.
But we also value disrespect, so we be cool.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Thing is, the vast majority of Muslims will shake their heads, speak about how wrong it is to them, and leave it at that. It's those who are already feeling attacked that will act out on it...unfortunately, they're the loudest and most seen.

Yeah, and it's a shame that most Americans read or hear about the most extreme aspects of Islam and assume that they are representative of Islam. An honor killing. The stoning of an adultress. A ruling by some tribal chief somewhere in rural Pakistan can be taken as normative... 'cause it's most likely to be reported in the news.

Of course that works both ways. I have found that even educated Brits think all Americans are ignorant dolts. After all, after 911, some interviewee on television asked, "Osama who? Where's Afghanistan? I hope it's not close enough to shoot nukes at us!"

Or they'll point at Glenn Beck and say, "Oh, how ignorantly reactionary are those poor Americans!"

The squeaky wheel ruins a lot of reputations.

 

[Marble]

I did a search on Google for "islamic classic art muhammed" to see if I could find any pictures of Muhammed by Muslims themselves.
I found this article with some pictures of Muhammed:

So, in deference to the joy, art, freedom supressing, dreary, dull, intolerant and homicidal fanatics of Islam, (a minority, by all accounts, but supported by the majority of muslims who will not stop them or hinder them in any way) the exhibition about Islamic art in the metropolitan museum in New york has removed all items which show the prophet Mohammed.
That is cowardly, and irresponsible and also falsifying history.
‘Cause I have news for you: Islamic artists have depicted Mohammed in art since the very beginning, and where ever muslims had books or art made.
Yes, this may come as a surprise, but there have been times when islamic countries actually had books printed, artists painting, musicians composing, and poets writing. And as Islamic countries were mostly muslim a lot of all this artistic effort went towards Islamic subjects, including depicting the prophet Mohammed.
Now of course Mohammed has been depicted for hundreds of years in Europe, but, as the artworks show, for even longer in Islamic countries, and by Muslims.
Now the reasons the muslims want to erase this fact from history (as they erase everything else they don’t like from history, including for example ancient Buddah statues) is that they want to claim that everybody, especially western cartoonists, must and should be murdered for doing so because the prophet must never, and has never been, depicted in paint.
Yeah right.
Enjoy a small selection of Islamic art depicting the prophet Mohammed: