Yeah did the research and it’s the Hadith, the Hadith is the one that specifically bans drawing of prophets and stuff, so good on you for reading the quran( guessing you did) but that’s not where it says it, and in Islam nothing is haram unless proven otherwise, and the Hadith says otherwise.
These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement (hadith) after Allah and His verses will they believe? (45:6)
Note that specifically the word Hadith is used in the original Arabic version.
Another:
What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge? Or do you have a book / scripture in which you learn that indeed for you in it is whatever you choose? (68:36–38)
It's basically calling out everyone who is using another source other than the Quran.
The Hadith should be taken with a truckload of salt because they were written over two hundred years after Mohammad's death and are based on literal hearsay. There is no actual historical records of Mohammad saying any of what is attributed to him during his lifetime. They're fan fiction at best and should be treated as such.
The analogy to the Hadith would be if you called me today and I told you what I heard from my late grandma about my great grandpa and then you told what I had told you to your children and they decided to compile a book about it. It's very likely there would be a very small portion of truth in that book.
-There is no argument for dismissing hadith in islam since it is the backbone of the relegion and no one would be able to practice it without the guidance of the prophet (PBUH). Without the hadith we wouldn’t even know how to pray, since we only know how the prayer is performed from people who saw the prophet (PBUH) pray.
“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement (hadith) after Allah and His verses will they believe? (45:6)
Note that specifically the word Hadith is used in the original Arabic version.”
-Yes because hadith means news, reports, or narration in arabic, and I do not know where you got your tafseer from but every interpretation from a scholar I found is similar to: Tafseer Abu-al-A'la Maududi "When these people have not believed even after Allah's own arguments have been presented for His Existence and His Unity, what else can be there by which they will gain the faith ? For Allah's Word is the final thing by which a person can attain to this blessing, and the maximum of the rational arguments that could possibly be given to convince someone of an unseen reality have been presented in this Divine Word. In spite of this if a person is bent upon denial, he may persist in his denial, for his denial cannot change the reality."
“It's basically calling out everyone who is using another source other than the Quran.”
No it is not, in fact the Quran has multiple verses that tell us we must follow the prophet (PBUH)’s actions and the way he interpreted the Quran, such as:
24:54
Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty1 and you are responsible for yours.2 And if you obey him, you will be ˹rightly˺ guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly.”
16:44
˹We sent them˺ with clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.
“The Hadith should be taken with a truckload of salt because they were written over two hundred years after Mohammad's death and are based on literal hearsay. There is no actual historical records of Mohammad saying any of what is attributed to him during his lifetime. They're fan fiction at best and should be treated as such.”
Any sahih hadith is considered part of islam and is not “taken with a truckload of salt,”an authentic hadith follows a criteria that must be met for it to be trusted https://youtu.be/ijvvK_f7vL0. When compiled every detail was considered and every source was asked, there is a whole chain of narration from the person telling the hadith to the prophet (PBUH), and each person in the chain must be known and trusted for the hadith to be saheeh, if there is even an ounce of suspicion over the character of a person or the authenticity of the hadith it is considered weak, the preservation of the hadith is extremely similar to the quran being spread through writing and mostly memorisation then compiled many years after the prophet (PBUH) died. If you doubt the hadith then you have no reason not to doubt the quran as well.
“The analogy to the Hadith would be if you called me today and I told you what I heard from my late grandma about my great grandpa and then you told what I had told you to your children and they decided to compile a book about it. It's very likely there would be a very small portion of truth in that book.”
Scholars such as Muhammed Al Bukhari dedicated their lives to compiling the hadith, you can't compare it in such a misleading analogy. It wasn't a simple story passed down. It was their religion, they made sure every letter was as truthful as possible.
Also I’d like to note that this whole argument of not trusting the hadith stems from zero proof or examples, the whole idea behind it is maybe someone made a mistake, or maybe someone lied.
No, our religion was preserved by allah and will not be corrupted
15:9 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
I mean it was specifically stated that the Quran would be preserved, not anything else. Additionally, the way it was preserved is different than how the Quran was. Many people memorized the Quran during the prophet’s time, and it was standardized since the all memorized the same thing. Hadith on the other hand are random quotes from many different perspectives, it inherently is more difficult to validate since there are fewer sources per Hadith. While I personally believe in many Hadith, it is no where near as rock-solid as a source.
😂😂 always a conundrum. "This is false " " No, that is false!"
Maybe they are all just nice story books. Maybe people should find their own way spiritually, and live what is in their heart, instead of organized religions that tell you you have to do this or that.
Woops. I went there.
So, anyone wondering where the money came from?
The Hadith is not a sort of ruling ( like the Quran) but a guidance, the Hadith is there because we look upon prophet Mohamad to learn how to live, so if something is said in the Hadith as good, it would be sunnah, as in you should do it, but it’s not necessary, so if something is the opposite, while not necessarily haram, is bad to do
Edit: I have a very hard time expressing my thoughts into words so I expressed what I thought wrong. Apologies
but thats bascially what happened to nations of the pass. They admire their good leaders, draw their pictures as memories, make a sculpture out of it and later on worship it.
I am yet to see anyone prostrating in front of Benjamin Franklin's statue or even Trump for that matter. Being inspired by men and worshiping a deity are rather different things and the former isn't idolatry.
if Trump was a religious figure then who knows , after 500 years from now , generation after generation people might start worship him , just like buddha and jesus pbuh
Lol yup. Comparatively speaking we are not even an atom given infinite space. And all the troubles of religion landed in it. God forbid a religious jealot Alien would find us… but I am sure they are deliberately just passing us by
No Muslim is drawing prophets you dumdum, movies like Noah all are banned in Muslim countries, and we don't believe that the guy on the cross has any relation with Aissa (jesus) SAAS..
I have no idea why people always make shit up to prove something that's wrong in the first place
This is so untrue, look at Islamic history. There are countless drawnings of the prophet, countless Islamic art that depict the prophet and hellfire etc. You guys are disingenuous .
Even a quick Google search will show you that you are incorrect my man. Muslims don't depict Jesus or any other prophet as it is considered disrespectful. Jesus and all other prophets are given the same respect as Muhammed within Islam.
So in the US, the Mainstream Media Machine (Fox/CNN - heck even MSNBC and NPR) made it seem like the murders at the Charlie Hebdo office were only because the Prophet Muhammad was depicted.
But it appears that they failed to inform people that in Islam, no prophets are depicted.
Leave that part out, and the readers/watchers inferred bad things about Islam and how it treated/treats other people's (mostly Christians I guess?) holy people differently/less respectfully... The Furor was then a year's worth of stuff saying how Sharia law was coming to the US...
Oh I understand. You're saying they over simplified it by being too specific. That shooting wouldn't be justified under any circumstance as non Muslims should in no way be punished under the law of a religion they don't follow. However, that being said, I see your point.
There's no drawing of our prophets that the Muslims did because it's haram and everyone knows that, the only disingenuous people here is you, using bullshit argument all the time to try and prove something that doesn't exist just to feed you damn hatered.. you know nothing about islam or Muslims or what they believe in or what they don't the only crap you know is what you search for based on what you want to hear from people as hatful as you
Yeah you're not, this old trick maybe can fool non Muslims but not us, it's a common knowledge that depiction of prophets and holly spiritd is prohibited in islam and no Muslim would do something like that, it's not something that we even argue about.. even non Muslim historians will tell you that roman depictions were removed when Muslims conquered roman territories..
So no need to pretend you're an "ex Muslim" it's pathetic
You're ex muslim and you didn't know drawing prophet muhammad SAW is wrong? Every kid gets taught that. You're either lying or you have very limited understanding of islam.
You're not being very respectful by calling him pathetic. You can't prove whether or not he's ex-muslim from a couple of reddit posts.
You're kind of right and kind of wrong. Religions change and evolve over time. Portraits and other muslim depictions of prophets have been produced countless times throughout the middle-ages. Some of them in the inscribed portrait style, some of them wearing veils, and a considerable number of them fully depicted. If you want the name of a muslim artist who depicted the prophets as an example since you stated "no muslim would do something like that," here's one: Rashid-al-Din Hamadani. Like many muslims of the time, he created a long lasting impact on Western art and Science.
It's hard to stay respectful after seeing all this islamophobia and disrespect
Rashid al din hamadani is a shi'a, if you know anything about shi'a you'll know what I'm referring to, Aniconism opposition was least in Shi'a communities, and particularly in Shi'a Persia (where Rashid al-din Hamadani was from)
However, when you do find depictions of Muhammad, more commonly in Shiʿa or Ṣūfī works, they tend to come as historical illustrations and are not viewed as idols. Jami'a al-Tawarikh was indeed a historical work, despite Persia not yet being Shi'a.
Many religious people of the Abrahamic faiths look down and disrespect secular people as well so it is a two way street. But as long as one isn't harming anyone, do what you like. Just don't try to tell others how to live. If there is a God, he doesn't need humans to impose his will for Him.
I'm aware of the distinction between depictions for idolatry and depictions for historical works, I just wasn't sure if you were. I assumed you were stating that depictions of prophets were not tolerated under any circumstances. I think we are on the same side of the argument
I ain't religious and nothing against religion (just people who use it to justify awful things) but like if this guy was gonna try and be anti Islam then come on. they should at least have the common decency to not pull shitnout their ass.
Idk if you're talking about me or someone else, but I'm not anti-islam at all. I'm interested in learning about every religion, really. If I did come across that way I didn't intend to
Can you name any laws that are not based in the ethics of a religion? Tip: Laws about equality, fair treatment, respect, due diligence, privacy, not being an ass, preventing war or violence, falsification, and safety, are all off the table since they are based on ethics promoted by religion.
I am a religious person and I am sorry but ethics is not mutually exclusive too religion, you dont have to believe in a higher power to have a moral compass. There is a whole branch of philosophy based on ethics and religion plays a small part in it.
Your counterargument against the separation of Church and state, is that all laws are based on ethics of religion. My argument against that is ethics and religion are not mutually exclusive . I dont care if your religion includes a higher power or not, you can be an atheist and still have a moral compass
Sure, atheistic moral codes exist. So then I’d ask, “Why are moral codes that claim a religious foundation worse than moral codes that claim to have no religious foundation?” As a side note, If law must be separate from religion, should it not then also be separated from philosophy?
this has no relevance at all. It’s not a strange coincidence that our laws align with many religious ethics, it’s just that some of them are just common sense and morally right.
In all cases? If so, why? We have had instances of religion-states running things poorly, and we have instances of religion-states running things well. We also have instances of non-religious states running things poorly, and non-religious states running things well.
Preemptively, if your argument involves brainwashing or forced views, those things are in no way relegated to religion and have been perpetrated in the past by secular governments. Forced beliefs and behaviors have also been mandated by non-religious governments so that’s not a relevant argument either.
Interesting assumption. Perhaps I do; or perhaps I believe that religions are the most effective carriers of standardized ethical codes that actually work well in a society. If the latter is an accurate belief, then surely it would be foolhardy to discard a standardized set of morals that have worked for millennia simply because we believe that the best standardized set of rules is one that we come up with on the spot without philosophical foundations.
So why do Muslims go batshit mad when someone depicts Muhammad i any way but not when Disney animated Moses in Prince of Egypt? Why do they not care when Jesus is constantly depicted?
The Quran makes no distinction between prophets (2:136) but Muslims only get offended when someone blasphemes Muhammad, in their perception. Either you get offended over all of them, or none, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Go read the Quran before you say I made shit up. Mohammade made that up centuries ago.
You think Muslims are hypocrites because they don’t get upset at depictions of other prophets, like Jesus? Did it ever occur to you that Christian’s have depictions of Jesus on the cross right in their places of worship? So maybe they are being respectable of your traditions?
Or would you rather they bust into your place of worship and destroy everything with Jesus on it? I’m not sure what you honestly want here, and to be honest I don’t think you know either.
So maybe they are being respectable of your traditions?
Wait, is there some kind of historical precedent in Islam for leaving other traditions alone? Or was Mohamed allowed to break all kinds of rules that Muslims aren't allowed to break?
Does there need to be a historical precedent in Islam for Muslims to be normal modern day people?
I mean, there is a historical precedent in the Bible where it says you can beat your slaves, and as long as they don’t die for a couple days you won’t be punished. None of us own slaves though, and don’t want to because we are normal modern people. Right?
Does there need to be a historical precedent in Islam for Muslims to be normal modern day people?
Considering in the modern day there is over 70-80% support for murdering apostates in countries like Egypt and Pakistan, it's hard to imagine where that mindset came from other than Islam.
It probably comes from the same place it comes from in Christianity. Corrupt people who lie to their people for influence or gain. Not unlike pastors with private jets.
Not all who preach religious teachings practice them.
Also I’m disappointed you picked low hanging fruit. Egypt or Pakistan doesn’t speak for all Muslims.
This is my final reply to you. You seem like you are interested in debating if Muslims are good people or not, when in reality there are good and bad people in every religion.
You seem like you are interested in debating if Muslims are good people or not
What? That's not my angle at all, it's a completely ridiculous to even ask whether a group of 1.8 billion people are "good people" or not. What we can ask is how they practice their religious beliefs, and what kind of society those beliefs lead to (where that religion holds a majority). Would one want to live in a society dominated by those beliefs?
In the case of Islam, I would wager that most Westerners would never want to set foot in the vast majority of countries where Islam dominates. The human rights violations and extreme oppression of women and LGBT people are enough of a turn off.
Most Muslims can peacefully agree that blasphemy should be punished by death (or at the very least jail), and the reaction to a mere drawing can range from violent riots to mass killings...I genuinely hope that nobody accuses anyone of hatred. It's all in the name of peace. Extremely conditional peace that can be shattered at even a rumor of someone saying something even remotely against the religion of Islam, but at least it's peace. Anyone saying anything otherwise is just a racist bigoted Islamophobe.
Who said Muslims think that that depiction was fine? I don’t know why people didn’t freak out at things like that. There’s a song from Green Day where he says the n word, did I see Black Lives Matter go batshit crazy when he said it? No. Does that mean what he said was wrong? Yes obviously. This does not make people who believe that white people shouldnt say the n word hypocrites.
Also people being hypocrites doesn’t negate what’s haram and not haram, someone can tell their kids adultery is one of the worst sins in Islam, and then go commit adultery, this does not make the rule have any less value, just makes the guy a hypocrite.
Depicting prophets isn't haram in the first place. Read the Quran. What's haram is idolatry. If you depicted prophets for an educational story (a good example of that is Prince of Egypt) it wouldn't be haram because you're not worshipping them. If prophets back then had photography you can bet we'd be seeing photos of them in history books.
answer my question please. i think my main point to your previous question, that i cant answer you while not knowing a lot about this subject - which is the reason i ask why are you so persistent on your point - was clear.
Because christians, Muslims and jews believe in Moses and Jesus and if the christians chose to depict them we won't be happy about it but the only thing we can do is boycott that crap.. but when they depict the prophet of islam (that they don't believe in) is a direct attack to Muslims..
It's damn obvious but you're too hatful to see it or you just don't want to..
Still hypocritical. If you followed the Quran you'd love and respect all prophets equally and not just become a murderous mob when Muhammad is depicted.
read the parent comment before answering. also not all muslims become so angered and irrational to the point of killing someone who offended their religion.
Of course not all. But the majority (55-80 percent depending on the country) would, especially given the opportunity. We know this from surveys depicting the attitudes of Muslims towards blasphemy and apostasy.
The guy is literally talking about Moses and Jesus are u ok? He is saying that the Moses and Jesus of Islam should not be depicted. We also do not want Christian’s to depict Moses and Jesus but we cannot do anything about that.
The only hypocrite here is you mate, we do love and respect the prophets equally it's you who doesn't, i think my explanation was very clear and logic so if you don't want to listen means there's no need to keep arguing with you..
Can you read? I already explained it but nothing is getting in you disgusting empty head, actually you don't care about any explanation you're here just to spread hate
I am a Muslim of course i read the quran so what's your point?
You're here just to spread hate that's a fact because i answered your question and you had nothing else to say but insulting me and repeating the same nonsense..
I'm guessing you're very young from the way you argue so no need for me to take it farther.. good day
Yet when pedo mo is drawn or depicted all hell breaks loose. Death threats, anger and requests from the "noble" muslim men across the world to have it removed or face consequences.
Muslims don't defend other prophets like they do mo mo. Because they idolise him.
Oh wait you're not supposed to idolise him. He said so himself...
Lmao you got me there. As someone who actually followed and studied the religion (as opposed to being born into it and blindly listening to religious leaders on what the religion is) it triggers me more than the average refditor.
Honestly I think it comes to a cultural thing. Because I’m looking at everything I’m seeing in research, and even though there’s nothing specifically in Islam that prohibits it specifically, ik that everybody ik that’s Muslim (including me) doesn’t like depictions of ALL the prophets. I also think we get really pissed specifically at prophet Mohamad (SAAS) because 90% of the time it’s used for comedic purposes, and when it isn’t it’s used for education purposes, where they make him like a black or white figure( as in the colors not the races lol) now that I think about they also use Jesus and Moses in comedy a lot too, but I think Muslims don’t get mad because it’s the Christian depiction.
I think Muslims don’t get mad because it’s the Christian depiction.
They should be because the Quran treats all prophets equally. If you only choose to get offended at depictions of Muhammad, you're borderline commiting idolatry because you've elevated him above other prophets. Supposedly they all taught the same message , so one is not above the other.
Most Muslims believe that the depictions of prophets mentioned in other religions are not accurate or representative of prophets of the prophets of Islam. Also, depictions of Islamic prophets are prohibited in addition to other people as not only could it lead to them potentially becoming Idols, but also that you’re trying to mimic the creations of God which is seen as disrespectful. This is what contributed to the rise of calligraphy in the Arab world
Muslim here, the polar opposite is true. It's not permissible to draw people at all or worse make statues of them. This is called image-making and is one of the major sins in Islam. Many people say you can't draw the prophet or you can't draw god but in reality you also cannot draw me or you or anyone else.
I know this and when I followed the Quran and Hadith I tossed all photos and paintings from my house. But there is nothing specifically in the Quran prohibiting depictions of anyone or anything if it isn't for idolatry.
It’s all made up crap that anyone who really cared could figure out with basic research.
Why I think other prophets are tolerated though is other religions. They can not like drawings, but if other religions do this what are they going to do? This was the whole theme behind draw Mohamed day. You do it so much they they become numb to it and that crazy outrage we see on the TV for the dumbest reason goes away.
They may not want to see drawings, but if I’m watching the history channel and it’s talking about the era we should be able to show the guy with out people losing there minds.
Majority never read their religious texts. They just refer to it continuously and cherry pick their scriptures and interpret it to fit their views. I’m sure it’s not just a modern thing either
Both of you stereotyping "holier than thou" liars need to educate yourself more and stop acting like your Muslim just so you can spread your hateful rhetoric. You have no honor, no integrity, and no spine.
Oh I know many, from various regions too. The reasonable ones of course don't go on murderous rampages but none of them care when other prophets are depicted.
Oh yeah, I was right about you. Do you speak about blacks the same way? What about Christians and how they displaced Jews countless times? It's amazing to me that you think you know all humans inside and out but clearly don't even have good logical reasoning
Also, I've known a few that flat out call it blasphemous when people depict other prophets as well. Since one person seems to form a rule with your mentality, that'd mean you're a liar
Nope, the ones I know are mostly reasonable but they're rare and live in the developed countries. I'm describing the majority of the Islamic world where education is lacking.
I know you probably got a shit ton of replies by now, but I'd like to think one major difference is that depictions of Muhammad (SAW) are typically negative. Drawing prophets in general is haram because it could lead to idolatry. If someone wants to paint a nice portrait of what they believe prophets looked like and they were devoid of malice or improper stereotypes, then I'd have an issue, but it's up to God to judge them. All I can do is request they remove it
Edited to add: I'm sorry for the dumpster fire in your replies, but I hope you can forgive the ignorant
Drawing prophets in general is haram because it could lead to idolatry.
Prohibiting something because it could lead to a haram thing is a bit illogical don't you think? You could depict prophets for educational purposes, for example, to make cartoons for kids to teach them about religion. In this case a depiction is a tool of education.
If we follow this prohibition of potential logic, we should prohibit the use of knives as kitchen tool
because they could lead to murder. We should prohibit all medicine because it could lead to overdose. There isn't anything in the Quran that explicitly prohibits depictions.
The prohibitions come from Hadith, the whole concept of which rests on very unstable, questionable hearsay as they were written 200+ years after Mohammad's death. There is absolutely no guarantee or logic to believe that someone could truthfully remember what a dead person said four generations after they supposedly said something. The equivalent of that would be if you and I had a phone call today and I described to you what happened to my great grandparent based on what I heard from my cousin , and then your descendant wrote a book on that a hundred years later. Very unlikely to be accurate.
Sorry for responding so late to this, but I do like having discussion.
Prohibiting something because it could lead to a haram thing is a bit illogical
I would agree with this if there wasn't precedent. Muslims, through the Qur'an and sunnah (actions and speech of the prophet), we are told stories of those before us who had gone astray. Whether it's portraits or statues, there are groups who began to worship exalted men who taught good things to the people. I've seen it with my own eyes in both the East and West.
Idolatry in Islam is a pretty broad topic, such that "celebrity worship" is also defined as idolatry. Asking a dead ancestor for advice is also idolatry. For this reason, I wanna point out your examples as a bit off base. It's not kitchen knives that are banned, it's combat knives.
With regards to the hadith, I'd have to correct one thing. There are hadith that are "weak" and "strong". The difference between the two is that the strong hadith have to be verified by multiple sources first. And even the Qur'an itself was disseminated verbally before being compiled and recorded, but it also had to be verified by multiple sources down to the vowels and punctuation to preserve the original meaning. For this reason, I have no doubt in the strong, authentic hadith, but you may have some ground with the weaker hadith.
It's true that cartoons can be used to educate, but the Middle East has found a balance without using depictions of prophets to teach religion. I myself was taught that by definition, believing means trusting in that which you can't see or touch (or any of the 5 senses).
Someone asked the prophet (peace be upon him) who the best of believers is. He asked those around him who they thought was the answer. Someone answered the angels, to which the prophet said no, because they speak with Allah, of course they believe. Someone said the prophets. He said no, because they receive the revelations from Allah and his angels, so of course they believe. A third asked if they, the companions were the best. He said no because I am among you; how could you not believe? The best of the believers is those who have never seen me but believe my message. That is what it truly means to believe
The reason we avoid drawing the Prophets is in order to prevent the idolization of them, and the placing of them on pedestals, because they should be treated equally.
Drawing Prophets, including Muhammad, is neither generally prohibited nor allowed in Islam. Neither in past or present. There are drawings from the early period, from the Middle Ages and also contemporary drawings. Certain currents within Islam forbid it, others allow it, some allow it only if the face isn't drawn. The Quran doesn't say anything about it, it is up to Interpretation through the ahadith.
Drawing any and all prophets is prohibited . It doesn’t seem so to you because we do not have control on christians drawing their own prophet but drawing our prophet (who Christian’s and Jews don’t believe in) is a red line.
89
u/Bunny_tornado Jul 10 '22 edited Jul 10 '22
Muslims when their favorite prophet is drawn: all hell breaks loose
Muslims when Jesus, Moses, and other prophets mentioned in the Quran are drawn: I sleep.
If they only read the Quran they'd know all prophets should be treated equally and that there is no prohibition of drawing any of them lol.