Depicting the Prophet Muhammad

While it's certainly true that pious prohibitions against depicting the Prophet have deep roots in Islam, the idea that this prohibition is universal and its violation punishable by death really is a modern invention.

Therewith, I offer some examples of (respectful) Islamic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, from Al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations (aka The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries or Vestiges of the Past):

From Edinburgh University Library, Or. (Arab.) MS 161, from the 13th century, fol. 10v, showing Muhammad and Jesus riding together (source: Bridgeman Art):


And here's a 17th-century Ottoman copy of the same manuscript, BNF, MS Arabe 1489, fol. 5v., showing Muhammad preaching (Source: BNF)


Discuss.

My impression from long-ago Islamic-arts classes was that it's not a modern thing, but a disagreement within Islam.

>2 timspalding: You are correct. I used to have conversations with various friends who were moslem (long before the world lost its mind, as it's done of late), and only two of them were insistent that it was forbidden. The others pointed out that it was the physical depiction of Allah that was forbidden. It went on in that vein for quite some time.

It's rather like conversations between Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic, or you may choose any other two sects of any religion you like that appears to non-members to be the same.

>1 nathanielcampbell: Lovely images, by the way. Now I want this book (and no, I don't have any realistic expectation of getting it...).

Persian Islam, i.e. Iran, is supposed to be culturally more inclined to allow images of Muhammad. Whereas Saudi Islam, at least in its modern version which is the historical source of the type of Islam at the root of the current problems, is very against.

>3 Lyndatrue: It's rather like conversations between Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic

I've come across that often in Sudan, albeit not on the issue of images. Sometimes you even get two imams from the same tariqa and indeed the same mosque who differ quite considerably on interpretations, just as you can with two Catholic priests.

Indeed, I should have been more careful in writing the OP (it was late, and paris just added to a draining day of 7-month-old teething).

It's a disagreement within Islam, but the skewing of modern Islam around the vast power of the Saudis, combined with post-colonial fundamentalism, has allowed the one side (absolute iconoclasm) to present itself as the de facto univocal front of Islam.

>4 hf22: Iran's biggest budget movie to date, to be released this year, Muhammad (dir. Majid Majidi) shows the Prophet but not his face. I don't know if Wikipedia is correct in saying "per Shia tradition", but it seems more fraught even in Iran then showing Jesus is in most of the Christian world.

>6 nathanielcampbell: So? It doesn't really matter whether all Muslims believe that. The images still offend a lot of Muslims; the fact that they don't have the unanimous support of all Muslims doesn't really mean that they don't really find it offensive. And Mohammad is not a huge figure in the West; with rare exceptions, the appearance of Mohammad in western media is in ways that Muslims are going to find offensive no matter what their views on iconoclasm are.

And it is a small world. In 1926, Youssef Wahbi was in discussion to play Mohammad in a film in Turkey when the King of Egypt called him up and threatened to strip him of Egyptian citizenship if he did. I'm a little surprised that Majid Majidi could drop $35 million on a movie that would have limited distribution outside Shia Islamic countries.

"You insult my religion in some way and I will kill you - maybe even commit suicide while doing it."

If I had such ideation I would hope that the two men in white coats would come and take me away to the funny farm.

Unfortunately we live in a world wherein there are MILLIONS of such people running loose who do indeed follow such a sick ideology. So, there just aren't enough men in white coats or funny farms to be procured to deal humanely with the mass hordes of such maniacs. The cost would be prohibitive - to say the least.

So what's today - Monday? Ah, just another day in paradise.

>8 JGL53: Are there really MILLIONS of such extremists? I somehow doubt it.

From http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-...

So Rushie and Hirsi Ali ought to be killed at least. Now, I don't know if anyone's polled on blasphemy in particular—I thought I had a link to such a poll, but can't find it—but it can't be too far from this, can it? Quite a few Muslim countries have the death sentence for blasphemy. And this isn't a modern thing. As Wikipedia summarizes, "In Islam’s history, the vast majority of scholars have held that apostasy in Islam is a crime punishable with the death penalty, typically after a waiting period to allow the apostate time to repent and return to Islam."

Now, there is SOME sort of difference between believing the state should execute blasphemers and apostates and believing individual citizens should. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say anyone who thinks people should be killed for what they say or think is an extremist.

>10 timspalding: Among Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land

Only a percentage of Muslims say this, so these are percentages of a percentage, not percentages of the Muslim population as a whole.

But >8 JGL53: is about insulting Islam, not about apostasy, so really those statistics are irrelevant to the question at hand.

>8 JGL53: is also about those who are willing to kill someone and possibly commit suicide ("I will kill you - maybe even commit suicide while doing it"). That's extremism. Simply believing in the death penalty after due process is not "extremism", even though many of us would oppose it. Many people in the USA no doubt support the death penalty but would not take it into their own hands to go and kill someone, unless they are "extremists", such as those who kill abortion doctors, or the bloke who blew up that building in Oklahoma.

It should also be remembered that most/many Muslims "who say sharia should be the law of the land" understand that sharia only applies to Muslims. So Rushie and Hirsi Ali ought not to be killed. Non-Muslims would not merit being killed, except by "extremists".

Once you start to look at it that way, I doubt very much whether there are MILLIONS of Muslims out there ready to go and commit suicide to kill a non-Muslim who insulted their religion.

> 11

Are you for real, john, or are you just an accomplished comedy writer? Because if the latter, kudos.

No, seriously, your post is the sorriest apologetics I have read recently.

Case in point: I did not say that I believed that millions of Muslims exist who are willing to commit suicide and murder those who insult Islam. I said that they followed that ideology. IOW, they are perfectly willing to ENDORCE their fellow Muslims who do so - while perhaps not willing to make the "sacrifice" themselves.

A subtle point but apparently one that flew over your head while you prepared your usual weasel-worded apologetics regarding the MILLIONS of the religious worldwide who either promote some sick ideology of murder or who actually commit the most egregious and mentally sick actions one can imagine.

Word and deed aren't that different.

I believe I am quoting Jesus on that.

It's in the bible.

Look it up.

>11 John5918: Only a percentage of Muslims say this, so these are percentages of a percentage, not percentages of the Muslim population as a whole.



So 52 million in Egypt alone.

It should also be remembered that most/many Muslims "who say sharia should be the law of the land" understand that sharia only applies to Muslims

So, then, on the celebrity side, there was nothing that Bill Maher said that was wrong-headed or out of bounds, and Ben Affleck is an effing Mensa reject.

Ok, then. Moving on..........

Look, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with those who insist not all muslims believe any of this stuff. I don't believe in collective guilt, stereotyping or anything. I don't feel I have any authority to speak for what Islam is, but when someone within Islam says this is not Islam, they have my support and best wishes. I have certainly seen and known many muslims whose Islam was as thoughtful, pacific and reverent as anyone else. When all that's said and done, however, the statistics of Islamic belief remain scary. If we are allowed to be worried that most evangelicals deny evolution—and we should be—we ought to be allowed to be worried that, say, most Egyptians want to stone adulterers and kill apostates and blasphemers. These are worrying ideas, worryingly widespread. And it is simply illogical to deny that these ideas are not implicated in the attacks on Charlie Hebdo.

All of which significantly reduces those percentages.

>13 timspalding: Not sure how you get 52 million. Wikipedia tells me the population of Egypt is 84 million, of whom 90% are Muslim (75.7 m). Of these 75.7 m your graph says that 74% of them (55.9 m) favour sharia as the law of the land, and 74% of these think it should be applied to non-Muslims. That's 41.4 m, not 52 m.

But the poll doesn't enquire how many of these people want the sharia penalties to be applied, and for which crimes. But more importantly with regard to >8 JGL53: ff, it doesn't ask how many of the people who are in favour of the death penalty are willing to go out and slaughter someone personally in a suicide attack.

>16 timspalding:

Updated mine.

And to your update I repeat: the majority of people who are in favour of the death penalty in any society are unlikely to go out and slaughter someone in cold blood in a suicide attack.

> 19

The majority of people who believe sincerely in Hell in any society are unlikely to go out and set an "unrepentant sinner" on fire. So?

Words and thoughts are prerequisite to actions.

But in your world as long as one is unwilling to commit the action then we are all on the same page?!

In my opinion, that is fucked.

But that is just my opinion.

(And btw - 41.4 Million vs. 52 Million is some big effing important difference? Grasp at straws much?)

Here & Now had a great interview with Christiane Gruber today on medieval and early-modern depictions of the prophet Muhammad -- the online version includes some amazing images: http://www.hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/16/quran-prophet-images

I live in a Muslim country, and I can tell you with certainty that not all Muslims follow the teachings of the Islamic Extremists...

That said, a devout friend of mine informs me that there is nothing in the Qur'an that prohibits images of the Prophet Muhammad. This was introduced in recent times and in his opinion it is simply used as another political tool against the West.

I can believe that, and I hope that the move to remove politics from the religion gets some traction. I do not expect to see this in my lifetime however, as power is power regardless, and those who wield it will rarely give it up voluntarily.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555 points out that it is based on material in the Koran, and the strict form of the prohibition is between 200 and 300 years old.

the move to remove politics from the religion gets some traction.

I'm seriously skeptical of apolitical religion. How can you know deep truths about the universe, in Islam's case, have messages transmitted from God to Mohammad for general dispersal, and it not affect your politics? It's not convenient for atheists like me, and I can argue the advantages of a secular government, but I would expect people, if they believe something to be true, to have it color their politics.

>23 prosfilaes: "I'm seriously skeptical of apolitical religion."

And especially so in the case of Islam, which was explicitly political / theocratic from the very start. Whereas early Christianity was an "underground" religion that explicitly did not seek political power, Muhammad's revolution was holistic from the get-go -- not just the idea that your religious convictions should influence your political ones, but that the two are in fact one and the same. Christianity fled from the world; Islam sought the world's dominion.

(It's one of the complex of factors that contributed to the much faster spread of Islam in comparison to Christianity; of course, the political vacuum caused by the fall of the western Roman Empire and the exhaustion of the eastern Roman and Persian Empires from a century of ravaging warfare was at least if not more of a significant factor.)

Wasn't sure which of the many parallel threads to post this one on, but since Jean Vanier is a respected religious figure, this one is as good as any.

L'Arche founder Jean Vanier says Je Suis Charlie marches created more division (Tablet)

Mr Vanier was speaking on the theme “Why do the strong need the weak”...

Cardinal Nichols voiced his support for Mr Vanier’s comments, saying: “We should be ready to repudiate violence and there was real violence in the magazine; the cartoons were there to make people angry. It is all very well to have the right to insult each other but we should also respect one another”...

>25 John5918: there was real violence in the magazine

That is the question, isn't it? Is what is printed on a piece of paper "real violence"?

>26 southernbooklady: Actually I wish he hadn't used the word "real"; a little over the top, perhaps. But there is violence in the written word, which is why in most countries we have laws against hate speech and incitement (I know, the USA is different). In extreme cases hate speech is a precursor to genocide. I'm not suggesting that we have reached that stage yet, but I think it's important to note that violence and the written word are linked. Few people would condone the repeated stereotypes of Jews, for example, which were common in Europe not so long ago, or blacks in the USA. That speech was violent, and led to violence.

>26 southernbooklady:, >27 John5918:

Sure, words are acts. But they are also part of a continuum. A verbal insult can be potent but is not the same as a blow to the head, never mind cutting off a head.

This relativism makes some religionists uncomfortable. It also embarrasses the illusion of some secularists who like to claim "it's only words." In my book, that's obscurantism meets naïveté.

The problem now is to get these parties talking to each other. Personally, I'm not optimistic about whether they'll ever find much of a common ground. But talk (like sports at primary school recess) provides an outlet for energies that can otherwise be spent....badly.

"Jaw-Jaw" is better than "War-War" - Winston Churchill

Back to the OP...

There was a piece on BBC World Service radio today about whether it is forbidden to depict the Prophet. Their expert (an Iranian professor who specialises in this type of thing) says there is no prohibition in the Holy Qur'an or the Hadith, that it is a later interpretation, and that there are hundreds of illustrations of the Prophet in existing literature from earlier times; the 13th century seemed to have been quite prolific. She said the prohibition has only been widespread for the last couple of hundred years, although images have never been used in mosques.

>1 nathanielcampbell: the idea that this prohibition is universal and its violation punishable by death really is a modern invention.

Does it matter how modern the idea is, if it has universal or near-universal acceptance now?

>31 southernbooklady: "Does it matter how modern the idea is, if it has universal or near-universal acceptance now?"

Does history matter at all, if things are different now than they were then?

Well I like history because it gives a sense of context, helps us to see things in perspective. But while it may provide a better understanding of how things came to be as they are now, it doesn't really change what they are now, does it?

In the terms of the prohibition on depicting the Prophet, that fact that it wasn't always so doesn't ameliorate the reality that it is so now.

>33 southernbooklady: "...In the terms of the prohibition on depicting the Prophet, that fact that it wasn't always so doesn't ameliorate the reality that it is so now."

It is so now for the majority of followers of islam, but not all of them. Some plurality within the islamic world community are "moderates".

Try to avoid accidently using absolutist-sounding language. It upsets nathaniel mightily and generally to no good end.

>32 nathanielcampbell:
The thrust of the question was elsewhere. It wasn't dismissing history.

>35 krolik: It wasn't dismissing history.

History, for me, is about understanding. But it is not, in itself, a justification or an excuse for an action or policy. It's context.

>30 John5918:

The Iranian background of their expert might colour her views. Persian and Shia Islam were always more comfortable, historically, with such images. It seems however Arab and Sunni Islam, which is the source of the current terrorists, has always been less comfortable (and does not consider Persian and Shia Islam to be real Islam anyway).

Accordingly I would be cautious in relying on such commentary. One tradition can not really speak for the other.

>31 southernbooklady: Does it matter how modern the idea is, if it has universal or near-universal acceptance now?

No, of course I agree it doesn't, and I wasn't trying to suggest it does. The current reality is what we need to deal with.

However as Nathaniel says, history is important and it's always worth understanding how we got to where we are now. I think findings like this are also useful in challenging the perception, whether that perception be within Islam or in the modern west, that Islam is and always has been monolithic. It hasn't and still isn't. As hf22 says, Iranian strands of Islam may have been different to some of the Arab strands, although at least in modern terms I'm not sure that it has been any less radical; it's only a few decades ago that the western world perceived Iranian Shia Islam as the main threat.

>38 John5918: I think findings like this are also useful in challenging the perception, whether that perception be within Islam or in the modern west, that Islam is and always has been monolithic.

Except that when certain people in the West are doing something certain Muslims object to, it's not helpful to then argue that Islam is not monolithic and that this prohibition is ahistorical. It starts to wander into the field where one group starts to tell another what "true" Christians believe or what "true" Muslims believe.

>39 prosfilaes: Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

>40 John5918: Maybe that Muslims do not need you to tell them about their faith. Unsurprisingly, they understand it fine, and are perfectly capable of explaining it in the public sphere. And they do not need non muslims correcting them when said non muslims do not like what muslims actually believe.

Again, unsurprising, the extremists views get more backing from the history of their strain of islamic thought than do the views of westerners who think they are more theological sophisticated.

That when Muslims complain that portraying Mohammad is prohibited, telling them that's not really what their religion believes is not helpful; that the argument in this case is self-serving.

>41 hf22:, >42 prosfilaes:

Wow, how combative!

Having lived and worked for nearly 30 years in a Muslim country I am well aware that Muslims don't need me to tell them about their faith. I think you failed to notice that it is a Muslim professor who is telling people about her studies of her faith. And she's not "telling them that's not really what their religion believes", simply explaining that it hasn't always been like that in all manifestations of their religion.

Unsurprisingly, they understand it fine, and are perfectly capable of explaining it in the public sphere. And they do not need non muslims correcting them when said non muslims do not like what muslims actually believe.

Well, er, actually that's what happened. A Muslim expert explained it in the public sphere. As far as I know, no non-Muslims did any "correcting".

I believe it's a relevant bit of information for this thread.

>43 John5918:

Like I said, your expert represents a different tradition, that of Persian Islam. Whose distinctiveness seems to have been due to strong cultural traditions (perhaps pre-existing), rather than Islam qua Islam.

In truth, while we know much less than we might like about early Islam, we do know it was explicitly and strongly iconoclastic. We know that in part because of the impact it had on surrounding cultures - For example the Christian Iconoclastic Controversy in the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries seems to have been at least in part a response to the influence of Islam. Their anti-image views were something outsiders noticed and sometimes admired.

If anything the Sunni extremists are a reformation or ressourcement type movement, which is always on strong ground within Islam because of the narrative around its revelation (i.e. an unmediated dictating of scripture by God provided precisely to correct the false human "developments", or rather corruptions, of the primitive faith of the Old Testament Patriarchs).

When Sunni's say these types of images are banned by their faith, their tradition backs them up. References to Persian or Sufi Islam, which western commentators love to point to, are beside the point. Mainstream Arab Islam is not Persian or Sufi, and indeed it considers those to have lots of heretical accretions. And from an Islamic point of view, their view is arguably the better one.

>43 John5918: Well, er, actually that's what happened. A Muslim expert explained it in the public sphere. As far as I know, no non-Muslims did any "correcting".

If you look at the references in this subthread, it leads back to #1, not #30. And that #1 is the head of this thread and is not by a Muslim.

I think you failed to notice that it is a Muslim professor who is telling people about her studies of her faith.

Even in #30, it wasn't really. It was the BBC taking a known fact and finding someone with the right credentials to state it.

>44 hf22: Like I said, your expert represents a different tradition, that of Persian Islam

My expert?

But apart from that, you're saying exactly what I'm saying. There are different traditions within Islam. Islam is not and never has been monolithic. Thank you. We agree.

>45 prosfilaes: It was the BBC taking a known fact and finding someone with the right credentials to state it.

Isn't that what the media often do? They make a science programme and they find a scientist with the right credentials to narrate it. They explore all sorts of facts and find someone with the right credentials to do so. Thank God when they do, as there are enough facts being bandied about by those who don't have the right credentials. They want to explore a particular aspect of Islam and they find an expert with the right credentials to do so. I don't know whether you ever listen to BBC World Service, but it explores all sort of arcane subjects which are of interest to someone somewhere in the world.

>46 John5918: Nothing's monolithic. I'm sure there's some Muslims out there who eat pork, just like there are some Jews who do. That doesn't mean it's an invitation, when Muslims get pork as a requirement for food lunches or something, to bring up how non-monolithic Islam is and start arguing about how fundamental not eating pork is to Islam.

Isn't that what the media often do? They make a science programme and they find a scientist with the right credentials to narrate it

Which is moderately different then taking one thing out of context and getting an expert to repeat it. This professor was not giving a multi-hour program on the history of Islam on BBC.

>47 prosfilaes: Why do you assume that an academic expert repeating some scholarly facts about her own religion is "arguing"? She was actually very placid and unargumentative.

How is it taking something out of context for an expert to take one aspect of their field of study and propound on it in a scholarly manner?

On the BBC website yesterday I read an interesting article about a particular type of caterpillar which builds a completely unique type of cocoon utterly unlike other caterpillars. Hang on, the BBC is taking one thing out of context and getting an expert to repeat it. After all, nothing is monolithic, even caterpillars. They should have made an hour-long documentary about all aspects of caterpillarism.

PS: Yes, that last paragraph should use the "driven to sarcasm out of frustration at a ridiculous argument" marker if such a marker existed.

Nothing's monolithic

But a lot of people don't seem to realise that.

>48 John5918: Why do you assume that an academic expert repeating some scholarly facts about her own religion is "arguing"?

She's not relevant. The BBC did not randomly choose out of the blue to cover this topic. So they picked someone who would make their case for them in a placid and unargumentative way.

On the BBC website yesterday I read an interesting article about a particular type of caterpillar which builds a completely unique type of cocoon utterly unlike other caterpillars.

So if Pope Francis really annoys the British, you'll understand that the articles on Pope Sergius III are just random historical bits?

>49 prosfilaes: Good grief.

>38 John5918: I think findings like this are also useful in challenging the perception, whether that perception be within Islam or in the modern west

I think one has to be aware of the distinction between challenging perception and using history as justification for one's own ends. The former is fine because it increases understanding. The latter is not.

It makes me think of the way people like to argue about whether or not Albert Einstein was an atheist. As if being able to claim him for your side somehow validates your position and invalidates your opponent's. History allows us to understand why we are as we are now, but it does not justify it.

>51 southernbooklady: History allows us to understand why we are as we are now

Precisely.

^

Wow. Great insights, all. Religion is making more and more sense to me now.

Thanks guys and gals.

>46 John5918:

But apart from that, you're saying exactly what I'm saying. There are different traditions within Islam. Islam is not and never has been monolithic. Thank you. We agree.

But your error is to propose that something turns on this fact. It does not - It is immaterial to the matter at hand. The differing traditions you refer to are small minorities globally, and do not speak to the great mass of Muslims today, or their beliefs regarding these images.

Your argument is like bring up the views of the Nestorian Churches when discussing modern Christianity. They exist, even today, and show Christianity is not and never has been monolithic. But they have sod all to do with any reasonable discussion of modern Christianity.

The great majority of Muslims, now and in the past, have been down on images of their prophet. Their tradition, not being based on small minorities like Sufis and Persians, backs them up on this. I know the Sudan has historically had a Sufi influence, though it has reduced in recent times, but these are the material facts globally and historically.

To argue from such exceptions is pseudo-sophisticated nonsense. The exceptions in this type of case prove the rule, as they mostly exist as acknowledged unorthodoxy in acknowledged unorthodox communities (as viewed by the modern and historical Muslim mainstream).

>54 hf22: your error is to propose that something turns on this fact

Really? Have I proposed that?

>55 John5918:

If not, why bring it up? Introducing it into the discussion presupposes you think it has some value for the discussion.

>55 John5918: Because it is relevant to the OP, which is called "Depicting the Prophet Muhammad"? Because I just listened to it on BBC World Service and thought others might be interested?

>57 John5918:

So you do think it has some value, as I indicated. Playing dumb is tiresome.

>58 hf22: I don't really know what you mean. Any scholarship has some value, no matter how obscure. And so in a thread entitled "Depicting the Prophet Muhammad" I would say that some scholarship on the subject being discussed has some value. I don't think anyone, including you, is saying that the scholarship itself is inaccurate. So yes, it has some value, just as the knowledge that there's a species of caterpillars out there somewhere which makes a cocoon totally unlike any other caterpillars has value. Whether it has any immediate usefulness is a different question.

>59 John5918: I don't really know what you mean.

Have you not heard of the Charlie Hebdo killings and more distantly the Danish Mohammad cartoons? This is not an abstract, random academic discussion; it's motivated by and connected to real world events. I'm not sure why you would think that we were discussing some random piece of religious arcana in abstract.

>60 prosfilaes: To be honest, prosfilaes, I'm often not sure what you are actually discussing. Mea culpa.

>59 John5918:

Again, playing dumb is tiresome.

You have a strong opinion on the matter at hand, which as a matter of fact is fairly similar to the BBC's editorial line on the subject. Both the BBC, and yourself, point to this piece because it is felt that it feeds into the preferred narrative (i.e. this violence is not about Islam per se etc).

But, as I have pointed out, this is a shallow and misleading understanding of the underlying facts being presented. The ban on depicting Muhammad is deeply engrained in mainstream Islam, and is not some modern optional extra, which can then be used to show that the extremists fail to understand the true nature of Islam.

To pretend, like you do at >61 John5918:, that you are not aware of all this context is unpersuasive.

>63 John5918: The ban on depicting Muhammad is deeply engrained in mainstream Islam, and is not some modern optional extra, which can then be used to show that the extremists fail to understand the true nature of Islam.

I agree entirely. I just happen to think it's an interesting snippet about depicting the Prophet Muhammad which is on topic for this thread, which is named, er, "Depicting the Prophet Muhammad".

>63 John5918:

I agree entirely.

That was not the impression you gave when you provided, without qualification, the views of an "expert" that "there is no prohibition in the Holy Qur'an or the Hadith, that it is a later interpretation, and that there are hundreds of illustrations of the Prophet in existing literature from earlier times; the 13th century seemed to have been quite prolific. She said the prohibition has only been widespread for the last couple of hundred years, although images have never been used in mosques.

If thought the expert's view was interesting, despite being a minority view or difficult to support, it might have been helpful if you indicated that.

If you post without comment views which are basically the reverse of your own, unsurprisingly people are going to wrongly attribute the posted views to you.

>64 hf22: Ah well, it seems that you and I are going to continue to see the world differently and to understand the meaning of "conversation" differently. No surprise there.

>65 John5918:

This is a text based forum for people who, generally speaking, have never met in person. You need to provide some clues as to what you are trying to say, or you will be misunderstood.

So when you post something which you now suggest is the precise opposite of your own view, and when questioned defend it, you can't expect me to read your mind to tell you actually don't agree with it.

That is not a conversation - It is being unnecessarily obscure.

A conversation often needs people to bring in views that are not their own, even purely for interest. But the context needs to be in the text posted - We don't have any other pointers.

> hf22

You seem to have finally caught on to john's modus operandi regarding argumentation - the more things are muddled up and the more open-ended definitions of words are then the more john feels himself to be in his comfort zone.

His handle should be "john the obscure". Or perhaps "through a glass darkly jtf."

lol.

>66 hf22: Once again, we disagree. I think a conversation on LT is precisely what whoever contributes to it wants it to be. Others can ignore it or respond to it, but not set the rules that it must be as they want it to be. You and I clearly understand it very differently. That's fine. Neither of us is right or wrong, just different.

> 66

hf22 -

Just as an example of what we are agreeing on here - back when jtf was responding to my posts and I foolishly was taking him seriously - I grew frustrated with his wishy-washy licking around the edges approach to religious debate and so I posted a list of questions about various religious beliefs - all highly associated with traditional christianity - such as "Do you believe in the Virgin birth?", "Do you believe Jesus was the unique son of god?', etc. and ask jtf to respond. I just wanted to clear the air and dispense with misunderstanding.

jtf of course ignored that post entirely. I think it was because he knows that if he ever gets specific regarding ontology then someone can and might very well start a conversation that will be rather challenging to him.

jtf apparently is not into that. At all. He just likes to float along picking the lotuses out of the philosophical stream and smelling them while thinking good thoughts and avoiding the vicissitudes of life. He prefers we all love one another and give him the benefit of the doubt - that he is a right-on and righteous intellectual dude deserving the highest level of respect.

So just a head's up - if you see some entertainment value in taking jtf's brain out and playing with it then that will be fine with him. No harm done. Just remember to put it back after you're through.

As long as jtf does not bore you, then go for it.

>68 John5918:

Once again, we disagree. I think a conversation on LT is precisely what whoever contributes to it wants it to be.

Not if you are here to speak to, and be understood by, other people.

Others can ignore it or respond to it, but not set the rules that it must be as they want it to be.

Do you want to communicate with others, or not? If not, why follow the rules of English? Why not speak Klingon?

You and I clearly understand it very differently. That's fine. Neither of us is right or wrong, just different.

If you are trying to communicate with others, which you seem to want to, failing at it would seem to be an issue.

I get you want a defence mechanism so you don't have to confront challenges to ideas which form part of your identity, but this is a bit much.

>70 hf22: If that's how you understand it, fine. It's not how I understand it. My apologies that I am not able to bridge that difference between us in such a way that I can get through to you, and my apologies to everybody else who had to put up with another personal misunderstanding between me and you. But fortunately the world will not end because you and I do not understand each other.

Meanwhile, I will continue to post snippets which I find interesting, especially when they are on topic for the thread on which I post them, but sometimes even when they are off topic. That's partly what makes these LT conversations so interesting.

>71 John5918:

So you don't care if people have no idea what you are trying to say, and have no interest helping them do so. Because it might threaten your worldview.

Right. Real nice.

Does anyone else also feel that this has gotten to the level of personal attacks?

>73 MarthaJeanne: It does to me, which is why I apologised in >71 John5918:. I repeat that apology to you, MarthaJeanne, and others, and I will try to refrain from responding any more.

>72 hf22: "So you don't care if people have no idea what you are trying to say,"

You seem to be the only one who is having trouble understand what John is trying to say (well, possibly also >60 prosfilaes: ).

> 75

And also me. - And, no doubt most of the people on earth if given the wonderful opportunity of watching jtf"s lips flap and listen to the noise produced thereby - in keypunch form, that is.

If jtf has something of import to say then I pray to his non-existent god that john finally get off the pot and SAY IT.

I and others will await this improbable momentous event with non-bated breath.

lol.

Another excellent article by Christiane Gruber, which I ran across today while pulling manuscript images of Muhammad to use as my students study him, the Qur'an, and the rise of Islam next week: http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298

Taken altogether, these images, sites and celebrations have one thing in common: namely, a very contemporary urge to erase various forms of devotion to the Prophet within discourses emanating from extremist and Salafi spheres. Such discourses, which present themselves as representing a “true Islam,” have been loudly present in the public sphere.

Couched as normative and thus representing a general consensus, they have the net effect of turning images of the Prophet into items that should not, in principle, exist. Theory and practice, along with fact and belief, find themselves at odds here, to say the least.

When one speaks of a “ban” of images of the Prophet in Islam, the negative repercussions are many. First, all doors to constructive dialogue on the topic are closed a priori, thus precluding a nuanced and apolitical discussion of historical Islamic images freed from the polarizing narratives of today. In addition, such images effectively become further endangered as a form of artistic heritage if merely speaking of and illustrating them is seen as a subversive, rather than a productive and reconstructive, act.

And so we must pose ourselves yet another question: why not celebrate this global artistic patrimony by flooding our eyes with beautiful images instead of unseemly cartoons? In so doing, such images will invite us to ponder, at least to a small degree, all that connects us as visual human beings, regardless of creed and conviction.

>77 nathanielcampbell:

To be honest, that article does not seem a very good representation of the scholarship, at least as I understand it.

In the first instance, it tends to conflate that which should be distinguished, which is attitudes to figural imagery at all, to images of Muhammad at all and images of Muhammad in worship. The attitudes to these three different things seem to have been different.

Secondly, it seems very one sided in its citing of evidence, basically pointing to the well known examples of images of Muhammad. However it makes to reasonable attempt to show if these examples are the rule or merely the exception to the rule, when most scholarship on this point I have seen indicates they were the exception (based on, for example, the prominence Islamic attitudes to such images played in the early interactions between Islam and Eastern Christianity).

Accordingly, the attempt to show the ban is a post 1800 thing seems to me unpersuasive, and indeed not well founded on the available historical scholarship.

So unless there is more recent scholarship of which I am not aware (always possible), this effort seems unimpressive.

This article (http://theconversation.com/why-theres-opposition-to-images-of-muhammad-36402) by Jamal J. Elias, while short, seems to be to provide a fairer historical summary based on the available scholarship:

Muslim opposition to pictorial representations of religious figures (or of God) does not come directly from the Quran (which doesn’t address the topic of images). But it does date to early Muslim texts that evince an antipathy toward idolatry; it also emerges from a related desire, among Muslims, to distinguish themselves from other religious communities.

Historically, many Muslims have viewed the possession of religious images as a slippery slope: a step toward worshiping idols or assigning partners to God (and thereby corrupting one’s monotheism, or shirk, in Arabic). It’s a concern Islam shares with Judaism and several forms of Protestant Christianity ...

Muslims haven’t always associated religious images with idolatry. There are many fine examples of painted images of Muhammad – many appear in lavishly illustrated biographies of him that date from medieval times.

Almost invariably, the rich were the sole possessors of these rare, expensive books and, as is often the case, the rules of the palace differed from those of the street. For this reason, the art and book collections of the elite probably had little influence on the religious practices of the majority, and most surviving Islamic talismans and relics in mass circulation don’t depict Muhammad or other religious figures.

Still, pictorial traditions survived in some places, while new ones emerged in others, most notably in the proliferation of colorful images of Muhammad and saints in modern Iran. Whether this can be attributed to a theological characteristic of Shi'ism – the dominant Muslim sect in Iran – or a peculiarity of Persian culture is open to debate. Outside of Shi'ism, however, predominantly Sunni societies – which, in most countries, account for the overwhelming majority of Muslims – treat religious images with an aversion verging on taboo.

>79 hf22: Fair points, and I really like the article you link to, as well (I hope you don't mind if I include it in a packet of electronic resources for my students on the topic).

>78 hf22: "In the first instance, it tends to conflate that which should be distinguished, which is attitudes to figural imagery at all, to images of Muhammad at all and images of Muhammad in worship. The attitudes to these three different things seem to have been different. "

I think, though, that is part of Gruber's point in the Newsweek article -- the conflation of these attitudes into a complete iconoclasm seems to be coming from what she calls (not problematically) "extremist and Salafi spheres," and thus her article (and work more generally, as I understand it) is to push back against such a conflation, to show that the evidence of practice contradicts a theory of absolute iconclasm.

>80 nathanielcampbell:

Fair points, and I really like the article you link to, as well (I hope you don't mind if I include it in a packet of electronic resources for my students on the topic).

Yeah, I think it is a really good introduction to the issue. Great for students who don't have a lot of background.

I think, though, that is part of Gruber's point in the Newsweek article -- the conflation of these attitudes into a complete iconoclasm seems to be coming from what she calls (not problematically) "extremist and Salafi spheres," and thus her article (and work more generally, as I understand it) is to push back against such a conflation, to show that the evidence of practice contradicts a theory of absolute iconclasm.

Ah, OK. Maybe her broader work makes the point clearer - It is certainly a more reasonable point.

I still think there is a potential methodological issue, being if the weight of historical evidence is being properly assessed, rather than just taking minority examples as if they proved the point (an issue which impacts some scholarship on Christian traditions, to my continuing dismay).

But I suppose I would actually have to go read some of her more serious stuff to see if that fairly applies to her. Semi-popular articles can be misleading - Much important nuance is often lost by all except the most skilled writers.

The "Saudi" Arabians were not represented in the Pew polls? And Egypt (86) and Jordan (82) make the Palestinians (66) look like liberals.