Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Graven Images 101
Magwang
Veteran
I found this article on Slate. The link is: http://www.slate.com/id/2135670
Does Islam really prohibit images of religious figures?
Outrage over a series of Danish cartoons that depict the Prophet Mohammed continues to spread throughout the Muslim world. On Tuesday, protesters attacked a NATO base in Afghanistan; in Pakistan, demonstrators chanted, "Hang the man who insulted the prophet." Many news reports claim that the cartoons violate a Muslim stricture against the depiction of the prophet. Does Islam really prohibit images of religious figures?
Not all Islamic traditions ban images of Mohammed, and some are pretty lax about pictures of lesser figures. For Muslims, the rule against depicting God and the prophets comes from the Hadith, a collection of sayings and actions attributed to Mohammed. (A few passages in the Quran have been taken to offer oblique support to this notion.) The doctrine has been interpreted in various ways over the centuries. Persian art of the 15th and 16th centuries shows the figure of Mohammed with his face, hands, and feet covered. Some earlier Persian works show full views.
Arab Muslims tend to be the strictest about religious imagery. Shiites are more flexible than Sunnis; for example, they display images of Husayn,* the grandson of Mohammed. Devotional portraits of leading teachers are generally OK, as long as they don't fall under the Hadith ban on depicting the major prophets. Pictures of people in religious scenes—like pilgrims on the Hajj—are also allowed. These are more likely to be displayed in the home than at a mosque, and some conservative Muslims will refuse to pray in their presence.
Muslims are more or less unanimous on the subject of Allah—he can't be drawn under any circumstances. The prohibition on depicting God extends throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Second Commandment instructs the faithful not to make "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." Jews have for the most part avoided visual representations of the deity, although there's been a great deal of Jewish figurative art throughout history. (Some Reform synagogues have stained-glass windows depicting figures from the Old Testament. More conservative Jews won't even write down the word "God.")
Christian attitudes vary widely. The Orthodox Church uses religious icons for worship: Since God became embodied in Jesus, you can represent Jesus and other holy figures. You can't draw a picture of the Lord above, though. Catholicism assigns religious imagery a more pedagogical role, interpreting the Bible to say that religious images are allowed as long as you don't worship them. That's why you'll find that white-bearded fellow on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Some Protestant traditions—like Calvinism—banned images outright. Today, you won't find much imagery in Baptist churches. Lutherans and Anglicans tend to be more accepting of religious images, believing that a picture can be used to teach an idea as long as it's not being worshipped.
Many Eastern religions make liberal use of imagery—pictures of the Buddha and of Hindu gods are particularly widespread. Some historians theorize that early Buddhists banned religious imagery: You can find ancient art that uses symbols—like a tree, a wheel, or a footprint—where a picture of the Buddha would normally go. Sikhism, which merges elements of Islam and Hinduism, prohibits the depiction of God. Sikhs do allow images of their most important spiritual figures for inspiration.
Does Islam really prohibit images of religious figures?
Outrage over a series of Danish cartoons that depict the Prophet Mohammed continues to spread throughout the Muslim world. On Tuesday, protesters attacked a NATO base in Afghanistan; in Pakistan, demonstrators chanted, "Hang the man who insulted the prophet." Many news reports claim that the cartoons violate a Muslim stricture against the depiction of the prophet. Does Islam really prohibit images of religious figures?
Not all Islamic traditions ban images of Mohammed, and some are pretty lax about pictures of lesser figures. For Muslims, the rule against depicting God and the prophets comes from the Hadith, a collection of sayings and actions attributed to Mohammed. (A few passages in the Quran have been taken to offer oblique support to this notion.) The doctrine has been interpreted in various ways over the centuries. Persian art of the 15th and 16th centuries shows the figure of Mohammed with his face, hands, and feet covered. Some earlier Persian works show full views.
Arab Muslims tend to be the strictest about religious imagery. Shiites are more flexible than Sunnis; for example, they display images of Husayn,* the grandson of Mohammed. Devotional portraits of leading teachers are generally OK, as long as they don't fall under the Hadith ban on depicting the major prophets. Pictures of people in religious scenes—like pilgrims on the Hajj—are also allowed. These are more likely to be displayed in the home than at a mosque, and some conservative Muslims will refuse to pray in their presence.
Muslims are more or less unanimous on the subject of Allah—he can't be drawn under any circumstances. The prohibition on depicting God extends throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Second Commandment instructs the faithful not to make "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." Jews have for the most part avoided visual representations of the deity, although there's been a great deal of Jewish figurative art throughout history. (Some Reform synagogues have stained-glass windows depicting figures from the Old Testament. More conservative Jews won't even write down the word "God.")
Christian attitudes vary widely. The Orthodox Church uses religious icons for worship: Since God became embodied in Jesus, you can represent Jesus and other holy figures. You can't draw a picture of the Lord above, though. Catholicism assigns religious imagery a more pedagogical role, interpreting the Bible to say that religious images are allowed as long as you don't worship them. That's why you'll find that white-bearded fellow on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Some Protestant traditions—like Calvinism—banned images outright. Today, you won't find much imagery in Baptist churches. Lutherans and Anglicans tend to be more accepting of religious images, believing that a picture can be used to teach an idea as long as it's not being worshipped.
Many Eastern religions make liberal use of imagery—pictures of the Buddha and of Hindu gods are particularly widespread. Some historians theorize that early Buddhists banned religious imagery: You can find ancient art that uses symbols—like a tree, a wheel, or a footprint—where a picture of the Buddha would normally go. Sikhism, which merges elements of Islam and Hinduism, prohibits the depiction of God. Sikhs do allow images of their most important spiritual figures for inspiration.
0
Comments
Christianity is heterodox Judaism, and also of a different opinion on images than Islam, in that it makes Christ into an "image" of God (Colossians 1:15). Therefore, Christians cannot really see some of the issues. "To walk in the other person's shoes..."
(But religious rigidness poses the bigest obstacle to that idea of world peace.)
I've seen pictures of illuminations or stained glass that showed a Mother Earth depicted as Saint Bridgette holding up her habit so her womb was on display for any to see. Lifting up yer skirt isn't supposed to be common among nuns and Saints.
It's interesting how this sutff is interpreted. It's my feeling that there was a group of people looking for a reason to be outraged and conveniently found one.
-bf
::
These Danish cartoons were published last year, but some people jumped on them and exploited Muslim feelings of alienation in Europe and elsewhere.
It sounds like Musilms are fed up with being stereotyped. Not justifying the violence of a few. But this inter-faith tension is getting out of control.
::
::
Edit: In case it wasn't clear, maniacs = those that are killing people over this.
Rather like Abraham Lincoln being responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Lancashire. The greatest voice in the quest to abolish the Slave Trade in America - because his troops blockaded the ports and prevented the exporting of cotton to England. Cotton picked by the slaves. It's a testament to the humanity of starving and sick, impoverished Lancastrians that they voted to support the abolition of the slave trade. A gesture that cost them another year of famine and pestilence....
And Gandhi, in his incredible one-man crusade to free India from the Empirical dominance of England, persuaded all his followers to wear home-spun clothes. He effectively closed down England's Cotton Mills. They never fully recovered.
So:- 'For every Action, there is an equal and opposite Re-ction'....
I'm waiting to see what the 'opposite reaction' will be to this Moslem Anger....Collective Karma indeed....
AGAIN.
-bf
Lincoln and Gandhi did good; Some of the other consequences were 'bad'.... But there is a statue of Lincoln in Lancashire, to commemorate both the Cotton Mill workers, and how HE changed the face and attitudes of mankind....
But at the moment, I'm hard-pressed to see the good in this current conflict and upheaval... Unless it's to make more "enlightened Souls" a bit more Aware of what 'ripples in a pond' can do.....
We are already seeing some counter demonstrations in countries where the muslim population doesn't live under fear of direct retaliation from the the terrorists. Just as hysteria and hatred can spread, so can peaceful resistance. Let us just hope.
It against basic Islamic Law to depict any religious figure in the form of idols and at times, pictures (I'm still quite confused about this - I've heard some types of pictures are OK, some are not)
But very simply and specifically put, no depiction of Allah and his Last Prophet is not allowed. Allah is so divine, formless and undescribable that no human can ever understand him truly, with word, thought or anything. Any thing that you call "God" is not Allah, because Allah is too complex for the human to know him. (One can know him only through great faith and belief in Him)
Nabi Muhammud (pbuh), as well as all the other prophets of Allah, have been known to the Muslims only as being undescribably handsome (like the "guapisimo" semantics in Spanish)- but other than that I don't know much. I don't know if my neural networks are failing me, (DANGEROUS!) but I May be very wrong. Prophets if depicted are usually drawn as a white silhouette (pardon my spelling) and nothing else.
But basically to the Muslims it is a great sin to draw the Prophet in any form I guess. I think the Denmark publication has pushed "freedom of speech and expression" too far - which is what serves as an excuse by democractic-authoritian of today to deny the people of such rihts.
Giving one of the prophet an image is like claiming that "hey!I have seen them before.I mean they were walking down my block!".Even the religious book that I have studied(During my religious studies,too bad now I have to quit due to lack of funds)no image of the prophet are given.
In fact,just giving the prophet an image can be pardoned but the fact still remains that the cartoon was a parody,a symbol that seemed to suggest that Islam is related to violence and achiving our means through that.We cannot assume the whole basket of eggs is spoilt just by seeing one.
Another point is that,as much as we respect and love our prophets,one must remember that we only pray to Allah s.w.t..There is no idolisation of any of the prophets.
(Please Correct me If I Am Wrong!)
Wouldn't dream of correcting you but would like to ask a question. With great respect, how many eggs have to be bad before we say "it's a basket of rotten eggs" rather than "it's a basket of eggs, some of which are spoilt"?
If every image of Islam seen on the TV is violent, is it not understandable that many people relate Islam to violence?
It was just a side note.
There is a statue of Lincoln in Lancashire?!?!?!A colonist!?!?!?!
-bf
i'm not denying that there are fanatic radical islamic group, but there are many good muslims too.imho it is a duty of every good muslim to proof that islam is a religion of peace. so the violent reaction to protest this cartoon only make most western people believe that islam is the violent hard religion.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood any of my post.
His reply was that in his opinion it is the fault of the other moderate Muslims like himself that they have to suffer this persecution as they have allowed the fundamentalists to get out of hand. He said that if they want to be seen as the peaceful religion that they are then they need to get their own house in order.
He is constantly amazed and disgusted by the extremism that gets shown on the news and reported in the papers as it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Interestingly he pointed out that many of these fanatical leaders started out as complete nobodies and that they are distorting Islam as a way of making themselves seem powerful.
I honestly did not know a lot about Islam (and still really don't) before I started seeing things in the new about militant Islamics - but I'm not one for taking what the news says as being accurate.
They're reporting sensationalism. You hear very little good things about anyone in the news. Thus, I find I will see what people have to say about the other side. It was then that I found out how peaceful Islam really can be.
But, most people don't hold the contempt that I do for "news" - so maybe they don't take the time to check out the differences.
-bf
If my given surname was "Dahmer," I think I'd long ago have changed it. That's one bad thing about having a "rare" last name.
I really feel for the moderate Muslims, but can't imagine what they CAN do to counteract their bad image, other than living decent and humane lives and pointing out that way to others, too.
Too bad we human beings have such trouble muddling through problems about identity.
Let's call the troublemakers "Anti-Zionist terrorists." They're not Muslim, although they may fancy themselves as such. They represent nothing positive, so let's not grace them with the name of a religion.
Anywho, the Anti-Zionist terrorists' main hang-up centers around an identity striving to emerge. We can only hope that in a reasonable time period these tensions will subside, and a compromise will come to the fore of their minds.
Well, I've said enough already.
---
Both Nirvana and I have contempt for the "news".
-bf
Iconoclasm, the destruction of images, arose in the Byzantine Empire in 730 CE but condemnation of holy images was nothing new. Both Origen and Clement of Alexandria write against venerating images. Pressure came from the Jewish population of the Empire against 'idolatry'. Then, in 726, the island of Thera erupted. The response of the pope, Leo III, was to forbid veneration of images.
This brought the debate out into the open as icons were destroyed and mosaics ripped off church walls. Blood flowed.
At that time, the Umayyad caliphs were not absolutist in their opposition to depictions of the Prophet, although cautious. Under the Abbassids, the primitive custom, observed in many early religious systems, of regarding images as taboo became absolute.
Where is all of your knowledge going to go when you go?
-bf
Where did it come from?
MU
I think we should put a special place out here called Simon's Writings - just so we can capture and keep this. Keep it permanent - just like true Buddhists.
-bf
I'm not sure about that one, Nirvana. They are pretty anti-American, as well as anti-western, wouldn't you say?
You know what I find funny about the news? You hear North American newcasters calling Palestinians and other Arabs anti-Semitic. Arabs ARE Semites. A Semite is "a member of the group of races that includes the Jews and Arabs and formerly the Phoenicians and Assyrians." (From the Oxford dict.) Jews and Arabs are "cousins" and they are collectively known as Semites.
I SECOND THE MOTION.
_________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Brigid
...[The "jihadi" terrorists] are pretty anti-American, as well as anti-western, wouldn't you say?
__________________________________________________________________________
No disagreement here. They're also against other branches of Islam, so anti-Zionist is not really the best term for them, afterall. However, it should be understood that the West's support of the State of Israel is seen in these quarters as a provocative posture, and as the undergirding problem. I imagine in time we'll come up with a useful term for comprehending what they're all about. BUT THEY ARE NOT MOSLEM, the fact that they fancy themselves to be, notwithstanding.
They bring shame on their people, and not peace.
Their mouths speak peace but they hurl bombs.
They kill and maim and say they've done good deeds.
They look out onto the good earth and all they see is ugliness.
They see people building things and they imagine ways to bring these buildings down.
Muslims? No.
Wanton Criminals? Yes.
And knowing these things, newspapers publish these insensitive cartoons?
Shameless.
These newspapers aren't interested in freedom of speech issues or freedom of the press. They're just interested in patting others in their profession on the back and letting the chips fall where they may. That is not concern with the search for truth (what freedom of speech is at root concerned with), but with status and personal or corporate gain.
That's Enough from me,
Nirvana
---
Your post would be just as true to today if we were to substitute the word "Christian" or "Jew" where you have "Moslem". But our problem remains: these are people who have taken on the title of a faith system and, however much I may deplore their interpretations and views, I am not sure that I can judge who is and who is not a "true" member.
Idolatry is defined as worshipping a depiction of a deity. Buddhists have images of the Buddha, but they don't worship them. It's a symbol such as a cross.
I think we need to notice that there are 'rules' about how to treat and behave around certain forms of images. The old Protestant in me can easily recognise Buddha statues as 'idols' because they are treated with reverence. Even the crucifix to which we bow or on which we refuse to spit has the nature of an idol.
The difference with a symbol is that the symbol is not perceived as having inherent value but only insofar as it symbolises. As soon as an object is treated as having meaning in and of itself, it becomes an object of some degree of worship. Look at the crowds round that boring little painting of a grinning Italian, the Mona Lisa. One of the anomalies about the protests against depicting the Prophet of Islam is that the proscription applies to all representations of living beings!
Basically, it is a question of where the attention is fixed (as always): if it is fixed on the 'religious' object itself, that object can be seen as an idol. If attention goes beyond, to a perceived meaning 'behind' the object, it is a symbol.
That is what I know.
if we're going to get into semantics, which is not a bad thing, I thought i'd pop this one up:
From the Oxford on-line Dictionary....
Idol
• noun 1 an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship. 2 a person who is greatly admired: a soccer idol.
— ORIGIN Greek eidolon, from eidos ‘form’.
So perhaps we may be forgiven for all being correct....
The origin of the word is simply, "Form" which would suggest that these images were constructed and fashioned to represent the object of respect, reverence, importance...
Strictly speaking, the statue of Winston Churchill, outside the Houses of Parliament, or the mounted statue of the Duke of Wellington in Aldershot, are examples of idols..... They are historical figures who have done much in the eyes of the public to merit recognition, and a place in the annals of History....
So has every other 'graven image', or 'form', in one way or another...
Statues of Lenin were destroyed, in Russia, and more recently Sadam Hussein's images received the same treatment in Iraq.... How the Mighty Fall....
Interesting thread.....
It is a very interesting program. The most interesting thing to me was that diplomatic measures were taken by Danish Muslims for 3 months before taking the issue to other Muslim nations. Perhaps if the Danish authorities had responded a little differently, we wouldn't be hearing any reports of violence in relation to this.
This does NOT excuse the violence, but the blame does not lie solely with the Muslims here. Additionally, it is important to note that the initial reaction of the Muslims in the western country did not react violently. This indicates that perhaps the violence has a lot to do with culture & cultural, and that the religion is not inherently violent.
Anyway, take care & be well.
_/\_
metta
Now in the Bible (Old Testament, that is) there seems to be a very strict attitude towards graven images. I'll quote from the Ten Commandments (Commandment No.2):
"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 King James Version)
From my understanding this level is upheld strictly is Islamic Law (and practice), but I'm no expert.
Anyways, this standard was probably not upheld by most in First Temple times, seeing as most Israelites then were probably idol-worshipers anyway...
But, and this is the more interesting part, in the time of the Second Temple and afterwards (until today basically) the attitude toward graven images became much less strict. In fact, a 6th-century synagogue that was uncovered in Beit Alpha (it's in the Jezreel valley in Israel) has a painting of Apollo in the center of the floor. And there are many more examples where that came from.
Of course, nothing is that simple, and I have heard a Rabbi not long ago say that people shouldn't have plays or movies with actors depicting ancient sages. I guess you have all sorts of opinions.
So why did I write all this? I'm not sure.
On a more personal note, I recently talked to someone I know and asked him for guidance to learning Buddhism and buddhist meditation more seriously and he told me to stay away from Tibetan Buddhism (which is the tradition he goes by) because they use a lot of statues and imagery that might bother me. Guess I'll see where life takes me. hope it'll be okay.
Hope I was of use to someone out there and haven't just wasted time writing a lot of pointless words.