Not all Muslims consider every depiction of the Prophet Mohammed to be blasphemous. Islamic scholar Babak Rahimi, who teaches at the University of California San Diego, says: "It is a well-known fact that aesthetic depictions of the prophet have been and remain a major cultural feature of Muslim societies around the world."


The truth of that is demonstrated by the images found in this article. The one below is an 18th century Turkish illustration of Mohammed, his mythical steed Buraq, and the angel Gabriel - all visiting Hell and watching the eternal roasting of "shameless women" guilty of displaying their hair to men.




Views: 53

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The painting you have up here is done in the style of Persian miniature paintings. Take into consideration that Islam pretty much obliterated the arts when it came to the Arabian peninsula. Poetry was banned for 'trying to compete' with the Quraan, and depictions of humans was banned for 'trying to compete' with God's ability to create. The only reason Persian miniatures endured this is because of the strength and importance of the arts to the culture. It's taking it out of context to say, "Here are Muslims depicting Muhammed, no biggie." They also had depictions of the Shah waiting for the moon to rise so he could break his fast with a cup of wine. They also had paintings done up of the Shah's beautiful young lover - a fair-skinned boy with Croatian eyes. These are obviously non-Islamic themes for painting, but they are cultural themes.

I personally don't give too much importance to the depictions of Muhammed either way, but then again I'm not a believer. But when 'believers' try to justify working their way around the loopholes of a religion to do what it flat out prohibits, they're just being hypocrites.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service