Depictions of Muhammed

[glo]

Following the recent tensions surrounding 'Draw Muhammad Day' I have come across a website with depictions of Muhammed which were painted by Muslim artists throughout the centuries.

In 1999, Islamic art expert Wijdan Ali wrote a scholarly overview of the Muslim tradition of depicting Mohammed, which can be downloaded in pdf format. In that essay, Ali demonstrates that the prohibition against depicting Mohammed did not arise until as late as the 16th or 17th century, despite the media's recent false claims that it has always been forbidden for Muslims to draw Mohammed. Until comparatively recently in Islamic history, it was perfectly common to show Mohammed, either in full, or with his face hidden. Even after the 17th century, up to modern times, Islamic depictions of Mohammed (especially in Shi'ite areas) continued to be produced.

I won't post the link here, but can somebody clarify whether there really was a tradition of depicting Muhammed, and whether the prohibition is really only fairly recent?

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

Look clearly it says Shia Muslims. They have no respect for Islam. Also some resources can be fabrigated or nonsense.

[shuraimfan4lyf]

What is the ruling on drawing in Islam?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Drawing is of two types:

One is drawing pictures of animate beings. It says in the Sunnah that this is forbidden. It is not permitted to draw anything that depicts animate beings, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, according to the saheeh hadeeth: “Every image maker will be in the Fire.” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The most severely punished of people on the Day of Resurrection will be the image-makers, those who tried to imitate the creation of Allaah.” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The makers of these images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and they will be told, ‘Give life to that which you have created.’”

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed those who consume riba (interest, usury) and those who pay it, and he cursed the image-makers. This indicates that making images is forbidden. The scholars interpreted that as referring to images of animate beings such as animals, people and birds.

With regard to drawing inanimate objects – which is the second type of drawing – there is no sin in that, such as drawing mountains, trees, planes, cars and the like. There is nothing wrong with that, according to the scholars.

With regard to forbidden kinds of pictures, an exception is made in cases of necessity, such as drawing pictures of criminals so that they will be known and caught, or pictures for identity cards which are essential and which cannot be obtained otherwise, and other cases of necessity. If the ruler decides that producing images of criminals is necessary, because of the seriousness of their crimes and to protect the Muslims from their evil when they are known, or for other reasons, there is nothing wrong with that. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“…He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of necessity …”

[al-An’aam 6:119]

Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb by Shaykh Ibn Baaz, p. 302.

[marwen]

that website is the most stupid one I ever saw ! looking at the pictures I can know that non muslims are doing them if I can't say they're fake,
all these pictures have nothing to do with the islamic knowledge. There is a lot of weired things there.

[ژاله]

hi glo,
considering that image making in general is forbidden in Islam, depicting the prophet is just out of the question.....
the website you mentioned is satanic.

[aadil77]

The only 'muslims' who drew images of the prophets were shia's, you will still find these images available in iran

may they be cursed for it

[Ummu Sufyaan]

so another thread stirring trouble emerges.

[Woodrow]

Following the recent tensions surrounding 'Draw Muhammad Day' I have come across a website with depictions of Muhammed which were painted by Muslim artists throughout the centuries.



I won't post the link here, but can somebody clarify whether there really was a tradition of depicting Muhammed, and whether the prohibition is really only fairly recent?

It is true that there is a long history of manuscripts being published dipicting Muhammad. What is not true is they were done by Muslims and there was no Islamic prohibition against them. The majority of these were done in Persia, modern day Iran. Quite a number of these are for sale in curio and antique shops today. Some are in Museums. I have seen more than a few, but in every one I have seen the Manuscript is written in Farsi, not Arabic. Although Farsi is often mistaken for Arabic to those not familiar with Arabic. I have not seen any of those old manuscripts written in Arabic, but will concede it is possible there are some written in Arabic as not all Arabic speaking people are Muslim. Although they were prohibited and would have been considered very sinful I doubt if there would have been much fuss made over them for several reasons.

1. There were very limited and available in only a small region of the world. Few Muslims would have seen or know of their existence.

2. there purpose was not to ridicule or lie about Muhammad(PBUH)

3. They did not present any obscene caricature of Muhammad(PBUH)

So the answer is:

1. They exist

2. They were always prohibited in Islam (See Hadith --"Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created." (Hadith, Sahih Muslim vol.3, no. 5268)

3. They were not done by Muslims. You will have to take my word on that I refuse to post any links showing any of them, You will just have to take my word the manuscripts are written in Farsi.

[glo]

Thank you all for your replies.

Woodrow, the depictions I refer to were in no way disrespectful towards Muhammed. Many show scenes from the Hadiths and Qur'an. (I just wanted to make clear that I am not referring to any images which are disrespectful to Muhammed)
I completely understand that you would not allow any links which contain such images. That's why I didn't post a link myself.
Oh, and I am certainly happy and willing to take your personal word for what you have said.

Sister Ummu Sufyaan, my intention is not to stir up trouble.
I came across some information on the Internet for which I asked clarification. There is a difference between seeking knowledge and stirring up trouble, as I am sure you know. Please don't assume to know what's in my heart and what my intentions are.

Thanks again to all who have given me their answers.
I suppose the thread can now be closed.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Thank you all for your replies.

Woodrow, the depictions I refer to were in no way disrespectful towards Muhammed. Many show scenes from the Hadiths and Qur'an. (I just wanted to make clear that I am not referring to any images which are disrespectful to Muhammed)
I completely understand that you would not allow any links which contain such images. That's why I didn't post a link myself.
Oh, and I am certainly happy and willing to take your personal word for what you have said.

Sister Ummu Sufyaan, my intention is not to stir up trouble.
I came across some information on the Internet for which I asked clarification. There is a difference between seeking knowledge and stirring up trouble, as I am sure you know. Please don't assume to know what's in my heart and what my intentions are.

Thanks again to all who have given me their answers.
I suppose the thread can now be closed.

typical lame comeback. please give up your shirrade, for i guarantee you, you haven't gone unnoticed.

*awaits the silly excuses*