Depictions of Muhammad

The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, founder of the Islamic faith, has long been a concern in Islam's history. Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.

Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Some, particularly Iranian Shi'a scholars, accept respectful depictions, and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past. However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.

Background

Main article: Aniconism in Islam

Some major religions have had times in their history when images of their religious figures were forbidden. In Judaism, one of the Ten Commandments forbid "graven images." In Byzantine Christianity during the period of Iconoclasm (8th century, and again during the 9th century) visual representations were forbidden, and only the Cross could be depicted in churches. Even in modern times, there are disputes within different groups of Protestant Christians about the appropriateness of having religious icons of saints. The concern generally boils down to the concept of whether or not the image is becoming more important than what is being represented. In Islam, although nothing in the Qu'ran explicitly bans images, there are some supplemental hadith which explicitly ban the drawing of images of any living creature; other hadith tolerate images, but never encourage them. Hence, visual depictions of Muhammad, or prophets such as Moses or Abraham, are avoided.

Depiction by Muslims

Verbal descriptions

In one of the earliest sources, Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, there are numerous verbal descriptions of Muhammad. One description sourced to Ali ibn Abi Talib is as follows:

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, is neither too short nor too tall. His hairs are neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. He has long al-masrubah which means hair growing from neck to navel. He is of long eye-lashes, close eye-brows, smooth and shining fore-head and long space between two shoulders. When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. I never saw a man like him before him or after him. .

Athar Husain gives a non-pictorial description of his appearance, dress, etc. in "The Message of Mohammad". According to Husain, Muhammad was a little taller than average, sturdily built and muscular. His fingers were long. His hair, which was long, had waves, and he had a thick beard, which had seventeen gray hairs at the time of his death. He had good teeth and spare cheeks, brownish black eyes. His complexion was fair and he was very handsome. He walked fast with firm gait. He always kept himself busy with something, did not speak unnecessarily, always spoke to the point and without verbosity, and did not behave in an emotional way. He usually wore a shirt, trousers, a sheet thrown round the sholders and a turban, all spotlessly clean, rarely wearing the fine clothes that had been presented to him. He wanted others to wear simple, but always clean, clothes.

Visual depictions

The Qur'an forbids idolatry, but does not specifically forbid representative art.

Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." (TOQ 52-54)

However, there are hadith, or recorded oral traditions, that have been interpreted to forbid any representational art:

Allah, Most High said: "And who is more unjust than those who try to create the likeness of My creation? Let them create an atom, or let them create a wheat grain, or let them create a barley grain."

[...] All the painters who make pictures would be in the fire of Hell.

Just like "drinking of wine was more sternly and unequivocally forbidden in the Qur'an then was painting of pictures, but drunkenness has been a common features from days of Umayyads down to modern time". Similarly "despite the fulminations of the theologians the painter went drawing the figures of men and animals". However, "the figure of Muhammad seldom occurs in a picture painted by a Muslim artist, and when it is found the face is generally veiled or the prophet is symbolically represented by a flame of golden light. This vary rarity of the subject matter" leads to presenting those figures in this article.

T. W. Arnold says that "It was not merely Sunni schools of law but Shia jurists also who fulminated against this figured art. Because the Persians are Shiites, many Europeans writers have assumed that the Shia sect had not the same objection to representing living being as the rival set of the Sunni; but such an opinion ignores the fact that Shiisum did not become the state church in Persia until the rise of Safivid dynasty at the beginning of the 16th century."

• File:====Cinema====
• File:==Depiction by non-Muslims==
• File:There have also been numerous book illustrations showing Muhammad.
• No barrel, not even one where the hoops and staves go every which way, was ever split open like one frayed Sinner I saw, ripped from chin to where we below.
• His guts hung between his legs and displayed His vital organs, including that wretched sack Which converts to whatever gets conveyed down the gullet.
• 
  Portrait of Muhammad as a generic "Easterner", from the PANSEBEIA, or A View of all Religions in the World by Alexander Ross (1683).
• 
  A drawing of Muhammad in The Life of Mahomet (1719).
• 
  A drawing by William Blake showing Muhammad pulling his chest open in Dante's Inferno (1827).
• 
  Controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.
• Muhammad as depicted by sculptor Adolph Weinman on the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC carrying a sword and the Quran.
  Muhammad as depicted by sculptor Adolph Weinman on the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC carrying a sword and the Quran.

Recent controversies

See also: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

In 2002, Italian police reported that they had disrupted a terrorist plot to destroy a church in Bologna, Italy, which contains a 15th century fresco depicting an image of Muhammad.

In 2005, a Danish newspaper published a set of editorial cartoons, many of which depicted Muhammad. In late 2005 and early 2006, Danish Muslim organizations ignited a controversy through public protests and by spreading knowledge of the publication of the cartoons. Western Muslims generally said that it was not simply the depiction of Muhammad that was offensive, but the implication that Muhammad was somehow a supporter of terrorism. On 12 February 2008 the Danish Policed arrested three men alleged to be involved in a plot to assassinate Kurt Westergaard, the man who penned the cartoons.

In 2006, the controversial American television program South Park, which had previously shown an image of Muhammad in the July 4, 2001 episode "Super Best Friends", attempted to satirize the Danish newspaper incident. In the episode "Cartoon Wars Part II", they intended to show Muhammad handing a salmon helmet to Peter Griffin, a fictional character in the Fox animated television show Family Guy. However, Comedy Central, the parent company of South Park, rejected the scene, citing concerns of violent protests in the Islamic world. The creators of South Park reacted by instead satirizing Comedy Central's double-standard for censorship, instead including a cartoon segment in which American president George W. Bush and Jesus defecate on the flag of the United States.

The Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy began in July 2007 with a series of drawings by Swedish artist Lars Vilks which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a roundabout dog. Several art galleries in Sweden declined to show the drawings, citing security concerns and fear of violence. The controversy gained international attention after the Örebro-based regional newspaper Nerikes Allehanda published one of the drawings on August 18 to illustrate an editorial on self-censorship and freedom of religion. While several other leading Swedish newspapers had published the drawings already, this particular publication led to protests from Muslims in Sweden as well as official condemnations from several foreign governments including Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt and Jordan, as well as by the inter-governmental Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The controversy occurred about one and a half year after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in Denmark in early 2006.

An additional controversy emerged in September 2007 when Bangladeshi cartoonist Arifur Rahman was detained on suspicion of disrespecting Muhammad. The Interim Government confiscated copies of the Prothom Alo newspaper issue in which Muhammad was caricatured. The cartoon consisted of a boy holding a cat conversing with an elderly Muslim in Bengali where the older man asks the boy his name and he replies "Babu". The older man chides him for not mentioning the name of the prophet Muhammad before his name. He then subsequently point to the cat and asks the boy what it is, and the boy replies "Muhammad the cat". The cartoon caused a firestorm in Bangladesh, with militant Islamists demanding that Rahman be executed for "blasphemy". A group of people torched copies of the paper after publication of the cartoon and several Islamic groups protested, saying the drawings ridiculed prophet Mohammad and his close aides.They demanded "exemplary punishment" of the paper's editor and the cartoonist. Bangladesh, however, does not have any blasphemy laws although it was earlier demanded by the same extreme right-wing Islamic groups.

In December, 2007, controversy erupted in the Netherlands when Iranian artist Sooreh Hera exhibited photos of two Iranian gay men in a series of sexually provocative positions, wearing masks depicting Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali. The photo series was intended to highlight the hypocrisy the artist saw, of Muslim married men engaging in sexual relations with other men. The Hague Municipal Museum expressed interest in buying the series, but refused to display it, citing fear that it could "offend certain groups". Right wing politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom), excoriated the museum’s decision, saying it was “based on fear”.

In 2008, several Muslims protested against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in Wikipedia.

See also

• Aniconism
• Iconography
• Qadam Rasul
• The Satanic Verses

Controversial depictions

• Idomeneo controversy
• Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
• Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy

External links

• "Religious" Paintings in Islamic Art
• Mohammed Image Archive: Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History