The Sharing Group Discussion: Are All Depictions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) Blasphemous?
بِسۡمِ
ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
The following was posted by me, on The Sharing Group, on the 15th
January 2017: “I believe drawings and artistic representations of the Prophet (s.a.w.)
are not automatically blasphemous. Feel
free to disagree, and bring your contentions.”
Sister Rukhsana Ihsan Jamshed: Why do it
when it can endanger your life?
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That is a
valid concern in places like Pakistan and India. Fortunately, I live in a civilised country.
Sister Aaminah Shiah: I am torn on this one. Allah (s.w.t.) does not want us making
graven images because man is stupid and tends to worship what they draw. But, the Prophet (s.a.w.) is not a god
so, should drawings of him even count? I
do not know.
Sister Colleen Dunn: I am curious as to why you believe
that man tends to worship what they draw.
Sister Zoe Fletcher: Sister Colleen Dunn, years ago,
long before I converted, someone told me that Muhammad (s.a.w.) had said
that he did not want to become another “Jesus”, and end up an object of
worship. I have no idea where the person
got this information from, but it always stuck in my head. Now we have Christians worshiping Jesus (a.s.)
and appearing to pray to crosses. Not
that a picture would create this situation though.
Sister Colleen Dunn: Yes, exactly. We cannot blame the object for our own
failings. And I would question if the
Prophet (s.a.w.) actually said that. People make all kinds of claims, and not all
of them are true. If you go to an art
museum, people appreciate the art. They
do not worship it. Pictures, even
beautiful ones, do not automatically have that effect on people. Going to the Louvre to see “Mona Lisa” is a
tourist stop, not a pilgrimage.
Brother Zain Aly Trook: Sadly, there is a teaching amongst
our madaris here, in my country. It
is taught that pictures are haram because we will have to bring these
images to life in the hereafter and that jinn also attach themselves to
pictures of any lifeforms. It is
teachings like this that must stop.
Sister Aaminah Shiah: Pretty much what Sister Zoe said. We are not supposed to imagine am image for
God because He does not have one. The
pictures of Jesus (a.s.), or the prophets, or saints get that kind of
attention in the minds of people. Whether
they actually worship the actual picture or not, they still see this image in
their heads when they pray. I think that
is what God Wants us to avoid.
Historically speaking, though, this has happened over and over
again. Whether it is drawn or sculpted,
the society worshipped it; cavemen with their paintings, indigenous tribes;
same thing. Catholicism, Buddhism,
Hinduism, the ancient Romans and Greeks, even Jahiliyyah Arabia - the
paintings and statues permeate the religious practices of whatever society they
represent. They become so much of a
representation that they eventually become the god they represent.
Sister Ayesha Hadi: Not blasphemous per se but, for me personally, they denote a lack
of adab. Some things are sacred.
Sister Gina Chowdhury: This is one of the things I love
about Islam: that we remove all risk of distraction with a visual
representation of a human being. Be it a
prophet, this is a strong reminder that he was just a human being.
Brother Amos Teo: There is a sculpture of the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) at
the US Supreme Court together with other great lawgivers: Muhammad (s.a.w.) Sculpture inside Supreme Court a Gesture
of Goodwill.
Brother V’dya Vice Versa: How they know that sculpture
represents Muhammad (s.a.w.) in the 1st place?
Brother Gary Dargan: While Moses (a.s.) has a
staff in one hand and the 10 Commandments in the other, Muhammad (s.a.w.)
is depicted with the Qur’an and a sword reinforcing the lie that Islam was
spread by the sword.
Brother Amos Teo: The sword can also be used to chop off the hands of a thief.
Brother Gary Dargan: That is the other problem. Why is shari’ah always reduced to hudud?
Brother Ahmad Jenkins: Because here, in the West, that is
all that is known outside secular law, so people see that perspective in shari’ah.
Brother Ibrahim Underwood: It is also because that is what
reactionary modernist groups reduce Islam to when they gain power. They protect Islam’s “honour” by controlling
the bodies of women and “prove” they have established an Islamic social order
by lazy applications of sacred law. They
do not overturn injustices committed by the rich against the poor, nor take on
any of the other great challenges, for example.
Brother Ahmad Jenkins: It is a topic I too am torn over,
but I love the classic depictions of them without faces.
Brother Sri Nahar: Forget God, not even angels have forms, though they might have
appeared in human guise to the prophets.
Brother Amos Teo: Brother Sri Nahar, kindly point out where it is written that
angels have no form?
Brother Sri Nahar: It is a doctrine in Christianity - angels being purely
incorporeal beings, cannot have a material form.
Brother Amos Teo: The Bible mentions that the angel needed to knock on the doors of
Lot (a.s.) to gain access to his house, in the chapter on Sodom and
Gomorrah. The Qur’an Mentions that the
angel Gabriel (a.s.) could not enter a room where there is a dog. They did not walk through walls. Therefore, angels do have a form. They cannot enter a house without an
invitation. They are creatures of Allah
(s.w.t.) Who Alone is Omnipresent. They may have been given various abilities to
transform and reshape but they do have a form of origin as expected of a Created
being, formed by the Creator. But that
is only my personal opinion. You do not
have to agree.
Brother Hisham Mstfa: Maybe they do not have form in any
way we could depict them?
Brother Sri Nahar: You said, “The Bible mentions that the angel needed to knock on
the doors of Lot (a.s.) to gain access to his house, in the chapter on
Sodom and Gomorrah.” It mentions no “needs”.
You also said, “The Qur’an Mentions that the angel Gabriel (a.s.)
could not enter a room where there is a dog.”
No, it does not. That is from the
hadits.
Brother Llewellynn Hamza: I think just to draw or to show in
a movie is nothing wrong. I feel The Prophet’s
(s.a.w.) concern was not to be worshiped and have statues and images
throughout the world. Sort of like how
Jesus (a.s.) is worshiped and prayed to. Outside of that concern of worship, I never
thought it was a problem to see artistic renditions or make a motion picture of
him. I feel the original intention got
lost over time and taken an extreme level.
Sister Zoe Fletcher: I agree, and like with so many
other things, it got oversimplified and the logic was lost.
Brother Llewellynn Hamza: You are right, people have this
habit of making the simple become more difficult.
Brother Michael Amaddeo: Wa ‘Alaykum as-Salaam,
My contention is not legal as much as it is straight personal
opinion, that it would be blasphemous because it would not even come close to
doing Rasulullah’s (s.a.w.) face justice, Allah (s.w.t.) Shower
him and his family with blessings.
Brother Jak Kilby: Given what happened with Christianity, why would you consider
drawing likenesses, which would only be imagined in any case, of the Prophet (s.a.w.),
or other prophets? Surely the case of
Christian iconography is a fair warning in the empirical sense?
Brother Ibrahim Underwood: in fact, the earliest generations
of Buddhists did not show any image of Gautama for that same reason. Eventually, they showed a pillow, then a
footprint, then a faceless man, and then eventually what we see today.
Brother Hisham Mstfa: Brother Ibrahim Underwood, I heard
Hussein Yee say a similar thing online. I
wondered whether it was just a guess or had some clear historical evidence.
Brother Ibrahim Underwood: Brother Hisham Mstfa, I have seen
the artwork, the pillow depiction is literally a floor cushion for sitting on
in a scene, but the seated figure is absent.
The footprint is another one - an outline of his foot in some, or just a
stylised representation in others. But
it is the same as how those that came after Isma’il (a.s.) added to the
worship of Allah (s.w.t.) in the Ka’bah - incremental changes that after
a few generations seemed normative, then next minute, laughing Buddhas on
dashboards.
Brother John Mcardle: I do not think its blasphemous. But I think the problem some have is that no
one will come close to capturing the beauty of the Prophet (s.a.w.); any
pictures drawn will not be him as no one knows what he looks like.
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: There is no prohibition on depiction of the Prophet (s.a.w.), or
any figure, in the Qur’an. There are,
however, specific ahadits that proscribe depictions of creature and
people. The sharh, explanation,
of such narrations is the concern of shirk. A such, there is no prohibition in Sunni Islam
over pictures of people in history books, and in medical journals, or animals
in science books and of people in books of genealogies.
In Shi’ah Islam, up to the present, there are depictions of the
Prophet (s.a.w.) and the Ahl al-Bayt. This is despite the fact that, traditionally,
the main body of Shi’ah scholarship frowned upon it.
Here is another fact: Many of the early books of sirah, the
stories of the prophets, had depictions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) as well
as other prophets. These were books in
the time of the Salaf. Therefore,
it is false to claim that Islam was always against this, or that this
prohibition is the default position. As
late as the 1930s, there were no issues with this. And then Wahhabism happened, and the ummah
collectively became stupid.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w.) Final
Sermon, from Imam Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni’s (r.a.) Kitab al-Atsar al-Baqiyyah
'an al-Qurun al-Khaliyyah.
This is from Marie-Rose Seguy’s “The Miraculous Journey of Mahomet”,
from the Middle Ages.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w.) flight from
Makkah from 1920s, one of the most recent.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) on the
Buraq, from the Mughal Period.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) meeting Sayyidina Bahirah (r.a.), from Shaykh Rashid ad-Din Fadhlullah Hamadani’s (r.a.) Jami’ at-Tawarikh.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) putting
back the Hajr al-Aswad, also from Shaykh Rashid ad-Din’s (r.a.) Jami’
at-Tawarikh.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w.) birth
from Shaykh Rashid ad-Din’s (r.a.) Jami’ at-Tawarikh.
This is a 15th Century Persian depiction of Prophet
Muhammad (s.a.w.) in Paradise.
From the same manuscript, a depiction of his visit to Hell, during
the Mi’raj.
This is a 19th Century Persian depiction of Prophet
Muhammad (s.a.w.) at al-Kawtsar.
This is a depiction of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) on the
Buraq, from Shaykh Abu Muhammad Sa’adi Muswlih ad-Din ibn
‘Abdullah ash-Shirazi’s (q.s.) Bustan.
Here is an 18th Century Ottoman depiction of Prophet
Muhammad (s.a.w.), when he was presented to Sayyidina ‘Abd al-Muththalib Shaybah ibn Hashim (r.a.).
And finally, this is entitled “The Charge of the Lion”, depicting
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) and Sayyidina Abu Bakr ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Utsman
asw-Swiddiq (r.a.) in the Cave.
For a thousand three hundred years, the ummah had no
problems with this. Why is it suddenly
an issue now?
Brother Jak Kilby: So, how does that these depictions claim to show the Prophet (s.a.w.),
that any of such things are okay? It
proves only that such things have been done before and likely not in every case
by Muslims.
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Brother Jak
Kilby, the description is there. Except
for one contemporeous medieval lithograph, every one of them are by Muslims,
and I only gave Sunni sources for this one. So, yes, it is fine. I have no issues with depictions of the
Prophet (s.a.w.). Our books of sirah
used to be illustrated.
Brother Jak Kilby: I have no problem with illustrations, and also have seen these
originating from the earliest days. However,
not of the prophets. I have seen and had
in my hand Islamic manuscripts going back in time, and many illustrated; none
of which have shown any Prophet (s.a.w.). This has been via work with antiquities and
via an ancient library in the Sahara. Perhaps,
you wish to dismiss all these as “Wahhabi”, or claim that just because you have
seen “sources”, those make this allowed. Much of what Muslims do, and have done, is far
from halal; surely you know that.
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Well, the
evidence is there above that there have been illustrations, and that was a
norm. There is nothing in the Qur’an
specifically against it, and scholarship has ikhtilaf on this. I hold the position of fiqh al-mu’amalah
that everything is permissible unless specifically stated otherwise.
Brother Jak Kilby: “Nothing in the Qur’an specifically” - does that mean you become “Qur’an
only”, and dismiss ahadits and the rulings of scholars over the ages?
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: No, it means
I do not take ahadits as literal gospel. That is a Shafi’i affliction. I am neither a fan of the Shafi’i madzhab
nor its methodology. And there are
rulings of the scholars on both sides. Just because one side is more well-known in
this era does not make it the more correct one.
Brother Jak Kilby: I agree there are many differences of opinion of the scholars,
from early times too. But have never
read or heard of any who accepted any of the prophets to be depicted.
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: As Imam Abu al-Fadhl ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuthi (q.s.) said, “Denial of knowledge does not mean a denial of
any clear proof.” So, you are not hearing
of this is not a valid argument in fiqh.
Brother Jak Kilby: But if I err then it is on the side of caution, which I feel is
best in such a case which would have serious implications.
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: And you have
a right to your position, and I respect that. We will agree to disagree.
Brother Fadlullah Wilmot: I think this argument of erring on
the side caution has been misused, as one of the fundamental principles of Islamic
jurisprudence is that if it is not expressly forbidden, it is allowed.
Sister Colleen Dunn: The way I interpret this is that
there is no problem with the pictures themselves. If there is a problem at all, it is our
response to them, which is most certainly our responsibility. No need to blame art, or for that matter the
artist, so long as the depiction is respectful.
Sister Zoe Fletcher: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, I
follow your logic.
Sister Saira Malik: Does anyone know what the Prophet (s.a.w.) looked like?
Brother Ibrahim Underwood: There are descriptions of his
appearance, some of which vary. I do not
think people have paid much attention because it is not his appearance that
matters, but his behaviour, his example.
Sister Saira Malik: My parents and I have heard this from various sources that Allah
(s.w.t.) will Ask us to put life into the pictures and sketches.
Brother Zain Aly Trook: My sharing and personal account. I fell in love with Nabi Muhammad (s.a.w.)
from a very young age, not by virtue of my parents, or the slave drivers at madrasah. It began when I heard certain forms of Arabic
nasyid dedicated to Nabi Muhammad (s.a.w.), and the love that
those words are recited with. I thought
that nothing sounded more beautiful. I
still do until this day by the way.
Then, I visualised being in Madina with an aroma of incense in the
air, listening to the adzan alone whilst fixated on the green dome. Then, I visualised a man whose actions,
voice, and words, and manner is second to none, a man that I could love 100
times more than my mother. A man who is
the reason I believe in the oneness of Allah (s.w.t.). I could write and write about this, but words
will never describe this feeling within.
In my case, a picture will not do justice to what I feel, and the fact
that such a love can be felt for someone that I still have almost zero visual
reference for is proof of Divine Love and is indeed a miracle on its own.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone who may find a picture
that ignites a great love for Nabi Muhammad (s.a.w.). Allah (s.w.t.) is Most Merciful and
there is no greater lover of Nabi Muhammad (s.a.w.) than Him.
Brother Mohammed Rehan: Swahih Muslim – “All the
painters who make pictures would be in the fire of Hell.”
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That is not
how ahadits work. Simply putting
up a truncation of a translation without the context does not make it a ruling.
Anybody can take a hadits from
any book, to justify all sorts of things, from slavery to murder. And that is how groups like ISIS work.
There are a series of ahadits in Swahih Muslim that
state the people who draw pictures will be Asked, on the Day if Judgement, to
bring them to life, and being unable to, will be Sent to the Fire. That is not the same as saying all painters regardless,
who make pictures will go to Hell, Mohammed Rehan. We are not Wahhabis; our religion demands
intelligence.
In the field of ahadits, we must consider the sharh,
explanation. In this case, Swahih
Muslim is a sort of risalah or kilab, similar to a juzu’.
There are two definitions of juzu’.
The first refers to collections of
traditions passed down on the authority of a single swahabah or tabi’in,
which were then further developed into masanid. The second definition refers to a collection
of ahadits pertaining to a single subject.
However, the rasa’il are more specific in terms of subject
matter. They are collections of ahadits pertaining to one of eight
topics. They are belief and dogma, ‘aqidah; legal rulings, ahkam,
piety, ascetism and taswawwuf, ruqaq; etiquette, adab;
exegesis and commentary of the Qur’an, tafsir; history, tarikh
and sirah; crises, fitan; and, appreciation and denunciation of persons,
places and events, manaqib and matsalib. The rasa’il are also known as kutub.
Many of the works of such scholars as
Imam Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuthi (r.a.) and Imam Shihab ad-Din Abu al-Fadhl Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani (r.a.)
belong to this category.
Swahih Muslim is classified as a muswannaf. The muswannaf are large collections of ahadits
that pertain to most, or all of the categories of rasa’il. The ahadits are put together and
arranged in various books or chapters, each dealing with its particular topic.
In essence, it only lists the matn and the narrator with no
examination of the matn, the sanad, the silsilah or the manaqib.
That is not what it is for. The most
famous exegesis of Swahih Muslim is Sharh Swahih Muslim by Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi (r.a.). If we take these
ahadits as blanket prohibitions, then the religion becomes ridiculous. That means no pictures of any kinds, no
bestiaries, no books of natural history and science, no books of medicine and
anatomy, and no books of travel and culture.
In the current age, that means no form of documentation, no identity
cards, no passports, no pictures or photographs of any kind, no videos, no
television, no cinema, no documentation and no videoconferencing. Obviously, this is not what these ahadits
mean. That would be ridiculous.
The context of these ahadits lie in the creation of idols
and iconography, which is part of shirk. This is echoed in the ahadits on idol
makers being asked to bring their idols to life. So, please, we should desist from this kind of
stupidity. Misquoting ahadits is
the greatest fitnah of this ummah.
Brother Neuman
N. Nazir: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, you might want to read up on Dr. Henry
Corbin, who tackled this issue: Ya Ali Madad: The Rationale for Praying to God & Calling upon the A’immah
in Prayer.
What is the difference between an idol and an ayah or icon? They are easily conflated as the same thing by
the unthinking, unsophisticated and, sadly, all too often sectarian minds. Because Islam is anti-Christianity, ergo Muslims
cannot do this is the reasoning and yet ancient Christians prayed 5 times a
day.
So, what is the difference between an ayah/icon and an idol? An idol is when matter in itself is
worshipped. As the Midrashic story of
Abraham in Surah al-An’am lets out. In
contrast, an image, an icon, a tselem, an ayah is a both a portal
to higher realities and a manifestation or mazhar of higher realities.
The Qur’an Establishes this distinction. The Qur’an is composed of ayat, and
presents itself as the ideational vision of the cosmos, a cosmos that is the ayah
of the Divinity. When matter is
worshipped you have materialism. When matter is a portal to the Divinity. This is a nuance that Wahhabi black and white
thinking often fails to grasp. And yet,
this is the very heart of tawaswswul. An ayah can be a book as the Qur’an
highlights, and it can be a prophet, sage, imam, and anyone or anything
else that serves as a portal to the Divinity.
Confusions on these matters stem from the loss of the distinctions
between the Hahut, the Transcendent Godhead; Lahut, the
manifestations of the Divine Powers, the Names and Attributes; and the Nasut,
the one transfiguring the Names and Attributes. Tawaswswul is ultimately about having a
verifiable bridge to the Divinity because the Nasut is the bab or gate
of the Names and Attributes, the Lahut.
We see a similar scheme in the gospels where the Father is the
Divinity, Hahut; the Holy Spirit is the descending Names and Attributes,
Lahut; and the Son is the transfiguration of the Names and Attributes, Nasut.
Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I fail to see
how this is related.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to share our thoughts. Once approved, your comments will be posted.