Images of the Prophet Muhammad - a Zombie Error
So - are images of the Prophet Muhammad illicit in Islam? From what some people do and say you might think so.
Not so fast. This is a classic zombie error - a commonplace belief that will. not. die!
I am not a specialist in Islamic art, but I teach an occasional low-level survey of the field at these Colleges, where we have an excellent Visual Resources Collection for a school of our size, a collection which is unfortunately for your visual delight very observant of copyright laws, so I can't post any pictures. I popped some terms into the search engine and came up with this list of paintings of the Prophet Muhammad executed by Muslims that we happen to own slides of; this is not an exhaustive list!
So, journalists, don't tell us this is a taboo subject matter in Islam. The physical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad may be a taboo subject matter in some sects of contemporary Islam, but let's all be clear -- this is not a universal prohibition.
Here are LOTS of examples for you arranged in chronological order:
From Rashid al-Din's Jami al Tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) - here's a page from the Met (with pictures) explaining some history of the book.
-----Khalili Collection Ms 727, Rashid al-Din's Compendium of Chronicles, f3a: Muhammad conquers Mecca, 1314, painted Iran.
-----Edinburgh University Library MS Arab 20, Rashid al Din's Compendium of Chronicles, Scene of the Birth of Muhammad, 1315, painted Iran. The baby Muhammad has a visible face. Here's a link to an image of ONE folio, though not one showing Muhammad.
---Topkapi Sarayi Library, Istanbul, B.282 Kulliyyat-i Tarikhi of Hafiz-i Bru, folio 171A: Muhammad Conquers Mecca, 1415-1416, painted Afghanistan -- Muhammad's face is a golden wash of fire and he stands in front of a gold background. F 169A shows Ali storming a fortress.
---Topkapi Sarayi Library, Istanbul, MS Hazine 2154, F 107:Muhammad describing Jerusalem, 1400-50, painted Iran -- FULLY FACED Muhammad.
---Paris, Bib Nat, SupplTurc 190, Hari-Malik Bakhshi, Mi'rajnama, folio 34B: Muhammad and the Angel Gabriel, 1425-50, painted Afghanistan. Fully faced Muhammad, both Muhammad and Buraq encased in flames.
---Khalili Collection MSS 620, The Giant Uj* and the Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, 15th Century book, painted Iraq - click this link, choose Publications, choose Vols XXV-XXVI, scroll down - it's the image in the left margin. I can't find the folio information without going to our library and the Khalili collection doesn't allow access to pages deep in the directory. Sorry.
---London, British Museum. Mi'raj, 1497, painted Iran. The thumbnail image I can see looks like a fully-faced Muhammad, but it won't enlarge and I'm not sure.
---Worcester Art Museum, page from a Khamseh of Nizami, Mi'raj, Muhammad on Buraq, 1550, painted Iran. Here's a link to a page from the book, but like the Edinburgh link not to the correct page. It begins to make me wonder if the curators are avoiding controversy by keeping the Muhammad images off the internet?
---Freer Gallery, Washington, Jami, Haft Awrang (Seven Thrones), F 275A, Mi'raj, Muhammad on Buraq, painted Iran, 1556-65. Go here, scroll to Arts of the Islamic World, choose the last virtual exhibition -- your tax dollars at work!! Choose the first poem of the 7 - "Chain of Gold." The Ascent of Muhammad (the Mi'raj) is the 4th page in. There's a nice note on the use of the veiled prophet (anyone from St. Louis reading? That's where it comes from.).
---Topkapi Sarayi Library, Istanbul, MS.Hazine 1221, Kitab Siya-i Nabi (Life of the Prophet), multiple scenes from the life, including the Birth, Call by Gabriel, the Call to Prayer from the top of the Kaba, the Mi'raj, and the Death of the Prophet, 1594, painted Turkey.
Some other useful things
Here is a useful piece on the Night Journey of Muhammad, the Mi'raj, from Wikipedia. Perhaps its explanation of the mystical content will help you understand why this is such a common IMAGE of Muhammad.
The Wikipedia article on Buraq, the steed of Muhammad, even has a picture optimistically described as "public domain." I don't recognize it (it's not a great reproduction and, like I said, I'm not a specialist). It shows a veiled Muhammad.
*Uj is, I think, Og of Bashan in the Hebrew versions.
We can, of course, forgive MUIS for being ignorant of existing art by Muslims depicting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Let's not forget to forgive the very Straightened Times for being ignorant of the existence of Muslim Danes who held their own counter-protest *in favor* of the publication of the caricatures.
11 comments:
The Straight Times reflects the constant totalitarian-dictatorship government's on going campaign:
We pledge ourselves to be UPTIGHT and take life really, really SERIOUSLY
The Straight Times reflects the constant totalitarian-dictatorship government's on going campaign:
We pledge ourselves to be UPTIGHT and take life really, really SERIOUSLY
yes... it is fine and well that there have been depictations of the Prophet. but there are certain sects (perhaps now more mainstream sects) who feel that pictures of the Prophet is blasphemous. should the Danish press not be sensitive to those group of people?
also, even if there have been depictations of the Prophet, i don't think they showed him in the negative light that those caricatures did. i feel that the caricatures seem to imply that Islam is a dangerous religion, which exalts its followers to war and blow people up. i feel that the Muslims have every right to be outraged at that.
now of course we could say that the Muslims who took umbrage to the caricatures simply have no sense of humour and thus it is their fault that they feel offended.
if that is the case, then i can call anyone a "motherfucking bastard" and he/she should not be able to do anything to me. is that reasonable?
of course, we can defend the right to freedom of expression of the Danish press. of course they are free to say and print whatever they want. in that case, then the Muslims are free to express their anger by burning embassies, protesting, boycotting, etc.
Man is born free but is everywhere in chains. our rights stop at another person's nose. everyone is free to express his/her views, but should accept responsibility for what he/she says. in this case, i feel strongly that it was irresponsible for the Danish paper to publish those caricatures and even more irresponsible of the other papers in the rest of Europe to fan the already raging fires.
and to be fair, i think it is highly irresponsible for the sectors of the Muslim which reacted violently. though... i wonder, given the superiority complex of the 'West', whether there were other ways of making the 'West' realise that they can't expect everyone to accept their views.
so basically you're saying that if someone criticises or makes fun of something you believe in, you are justified in killing them or destroying their property?
wow! that sounds so rational! I'm sure that's the reason why nobody thinks these people perpetrating the violence are rabid lunatic uncivilised savages.
"-----Edinburgh University Library MS Arab 20, Rashid al Din's Compendium of Chronicles, Scene of the Birth of Muhammad, 1315, painted Iran. The baby Muhammad has a visible face. Here's a link to an image of ONE folio, though not one showing Muhammad."
Link is broken
of course, we can defend the right to freedom of expression of the Danish press. of course they are free to say and print whatever they want. in that case, then the Muslims are free to express their anger by burning embassies, protesting, boycotting, etc.
Are you really saying printing caricatures is morally, socially, and legally equivalent to burning down embassies in violent protests and issuing death threats?
so basically you're saying that if someone criticises or makes fun of something you believe in, you are justified in killing them or destroying their property?
wow! that sounds so rational! I'm sure that's the reason why nobody thinks these people perpetrating the violence are rabid lunatic uncivilised savages.
Well... he did say "and to be fair, i think it is highly irresponsible for the sectors of the Muslim which reacted violently."
no... i don't think it is. but that doesn't mean that some people might not think that it is. just as how some people might think that they have the right to print caricatures that might be offensive and insulting to some people but others dispute it.
the printing of those caricatures can (and i think the more sensitive Muslims do indeed) take it as not just a form of blasphemy but a form of defamation (or is it libel?) on the entire faith of Islam and all Muslims. it is almost like me saying that all the guys in your family are motherfucking assholes who ass-rapes your own sisters in the press just because there is one black sheep in the family who does that when you are acutally a good decent person who believes in abstinence and then me telling you that there's nothing you can do about me cos i have the freedom of speech. oh... and then every single other paper in the whole of Asia reprints my statements about all the male members of your family just to defend my freedom of expression.
you know what i think the Muslim community should have done? they should have filed for class action suit against that Danish paper, suing them for unwarranted defamation (or libel... whatever it is...). but would the European courts act? was there any way of getting redress and recourse for such an insulting caricature which seems to imply that Islam instigates violence?
i believe that if the Muslim community thought hard enough, then yes. there must be. but can you really blame them for being angry?
there is freedom, and there is responsibility.
muslims love to self-pwn. All it takes is a few cartoons and caricatures to expose and draw out the extremists hahaha.
I am puzzled at this author's piece. How can a work of satire by a cartoonist be equivalent to an artist's devotional depiction of the Prophet?
In old Persian arts, miniatures were drawn of the Prophet, but all of them have his face blanked out in deference to the Koranic prohibition.
all u guys are jus dumb ass!! is tt violent enuff for you??!! wats the pt of explaining if u jus cant get it!!??? duhhh!!!
Post a Comment