Question on the bannage of pictures of Muhammad

the_syco

Hi,
I know that pictures of Muhammad before his conversion are allowed (a "young" Muhammad picture is allowed to be sold, but an "old" Muhammad picture isn't), but my question is why?

The christains have many diferent versions of the face of their god, and I was wondering if the Islamic people afraid that someone will paint an unworthy picture, and name it Muhammad, or what?

Cabaal

I'm always woundered this as well I have to say, I always imagined that not picture would be good enough or something

DinoBot

the_syco wrote:

Hi,
I know that pictures of Muhammad before his conversion are allowed (a "young" Muhammad picture is allowed to be sold, but an "old" Muhammad picture isn't), but my question is why?

The christains have many diferent versions of the face of their god, and I was wondering if the Islamic people afraid that someone will paint an unworthy picture, and name it Muhammad, or what?

From my understanding its to stop any confusion. Muslims worship Allah, not His messenger. I think its felt that if images are allowed of the prophet it could lead to people looking at this image and praying.
Its not only restricted to the Prophet, no images of any man, woman or animal is allowed in the Mosque. This is also the same in the Jewish faith. As it was true for christianity until it reached Rome.

the_syco

DinoBot wrote:

From my understanding its to stop any confusion. Muslims worship Allah, not His messenger. I think its felt that if images are allowed of the prophet it could lead to people looking at this image and praying.
Its not only restricted to the Prophet, no images of any man, woman or animal is allowed in the Mosque. This is also the same in the Jewish faith. As it was true for christianity until it reached Rome.

Gotcha. Are they allowed to draw pictures of Allah?

wes

We don't know what God looks like so we couldn't even draw a picture of him if we wanted. Also even if we did I don't think we would to prevent idolatary etc.

the_new_mr

Hi the_syco and Cabaal. Thanks for your question. Although you've already received some answers, I would like to expand on them a little if I may?

the_syco wrote:

Hi,
I know that pictures of Muhammad before his conversion are allowed (a "young" Muhammad picture is allowed to be sold, but an "old" Muhammad picture isn't), but my question is why?

Honestly, this is news to me. I must check on this to be sure but I doubt this is okay. Also, the word "conversion" here should be replaced with "first revelation" since Muslims believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) first received revelation at the age of 40 and did not "convert" as such.

the_syco wrote:

The christains have many diferent versions of the face of their god, and I was wondering if the Islamic people afraid that someone will paint an unworthy picture, and name it Muhammad, or what?

As DinoBot already mentioned, Muslims worship God (Allah in arabic) and not Mohamed (peace be upon him). We believe that he is a messenger of God like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah (peace be upon them all). Also, as DinoBot mentioned, it's to prevent false idolatry.

the_syco wrote:

Gotcha. Are they allowed to draw pictures of Allah?

As Wes said, we don't know what He looks like. God is beyond all comprehension.

Hope that this answers your question well guys.

By the way, that's a quality machine you've got there syco. Nice

the_syco

the_new_mr wrote:

Honestly, this is news to me. I must check on this to be sure but I doubt this is okay. Also, the word "conversion" here should be replaced with "first revelation" since Muslims believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) first received revelation at the age of 40 and did not "convert" as such.

I remember reading about it at the time of the cartoons. Someone sold a picture of the young Mohammad (spelt with an "o", rather than a "u", I think), and there was uproar, but then it was pointed out that the picture was before he has his revelation.

I think the technicality of it is that a picture of Mohammad is allowed, but a picture of the prophet Mohammad is banned. IIRC, the picture is still being sold.

the_new_mr

Well, like I said, it's the first time for me to hear about anything like that. Have to say, I personally don't see a difference between having a picture of a young Mohamed (peace be upon him) or an older one. God knows best.

RiderOnTheStorm

this is very interesting indeed. The more I learn of other religions, the more I think that they all have so much in common.....
In the strict Christian religion (not Catholisism) images of God or Jesus are still not permitted. Its not so much the idolotary, but drawing a pic of God (or making a statue) is to limit His appearance in 2 (or 3) dimensions. Having these pictures around will change how you think of God and make Him a more limited 'person'. This is outlawed by the 1st commandment in King James bible, but not in some other versions.

edit:
In the Jewish religion, isnt the name of God, or even the word 'God' not permitted to be written down? If it must be written down, then the paper beocmes a holy article, and when it has to be disposed of, it has to be ritually destoryed/burried.

Mick86

the_syco wrote:

Gotcha. Are they allowed to draw pictures of Allah?

http://www.zindagee.co.uk/religion/allah.htm

God is without form, so:

God is neither male nor female
God can neither be seen nor heard.
God does not resemble anything that he created
God shares few, if any, characteristics with human beings.
God has never been incarnate in any human being.

It is impossible to represent Allah in a drawing under these conditions.

RiderOnTheStorm

if God cannot be seen or heard, how did he communicate with Mohammad (peace be upon him)?

I have not read the Q'uran (and therein is prob the answer to my question) but I am familiar with the Christian Old Testament (and there are many simular accounts there and in Q'uran and Talmud), but didnt God walk with Adam in the beginning?

And if Allah cannt be represented in any form (including a picture...which I agree with), then no picture claiming to be Allah can be 'wrong'?

the_new_mr

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

this is very interesting indeed. The more I learn of other religions, the more I think that they all have so much in common.....

Absolutely.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

In the Jewish religion, isnt the name of God, or even the word 'God' not permitted to be written down? If it must be written down, then the paper beocmes a holy article, and when it has to be disposed of, it has to be ritually destoryed/burried.

Well, I can't speak for Judaism but in Islam, God in Arabic (Allah) is perfectly allowed to be written down and there's nothing wrong with that. As I understand, this does mean that the paper can't be just thrown away in the rubbish though and must also be burnt if it is to be disposed of. Sames goes for any verses of the Quran. Must do some research on this some time.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

if God cannot be seen or heard, how did he communicate with Mohammad (peace be upon him)?

Well, He can be heard if He so wishes as He did speak directly to Moses (peace be upon him). Mohamed (peace be upon him) received the revelation as God's literal word over a 23 year period through the angel Gabriel.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

I have not read the Q'uran (and therein is prob the answer to my question) but I am familiar with the Christian Old Testament (and there are many simular accounts there and in Q'uran and Talmud), but didnt God walk with Adam in the beginning?

No mention of this in the Quran as far as I know.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

And if Allah cannt be represented in any form (including a picture...which I agree with), then no picture claiming to be Allah can be 'wrong'?

As you said:

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

drawing a pic of God (or making a statue) is to limit His appearance in 2 (or 3) dimensions.

Drawing a picture of Him is to insult His greatness and He is above anything that we can imagine or create.

RiderOnTheStorm

Mick86 wrote:

God can neither be seen nor heard.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, He can be heard if He so wishes as He did speak directly to Moses (peace be upon him).

thats what I believe also. Thx new_mr for clearing that up.

the_new_mr wrote:

As I understand, this does mean that the paper can't be just thrown away in the rubbish though and must also be burnt if it is to be disposed of. Sames goes for any verses of the Quran.

yes, i remember something about this during one of the football world cups. McDonalds wanted to have burger wrappings with the flags of all the nations that were playing. There was objection to this as the flag of Saudi Arabia contains verses from Qu'ran and it would not have been right for people to throw this away as rubbish.

Mick86

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

thats what I believe also. Thx new_mr for clearing that up.

Moses heard a voice coming from a burning bush. That doesn't mean that God spoke to him directly. Being omnipotent, God can cause a voice to emanate from anything. God, according to the Koran has no form or corporeal entity. Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

if God cannot be seen or heard, how did he communicate with Mohammad (peace be upon him)?

Via the Angel Gabriel.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

I have not read the Q'uran (and therein is prob the answer to my question) but I am familiar with the Christian Old Testament (and there are many simular accounts there and in Q'uran and Talmud), but didnt God walk with Adam in the beginning?

I know nothing of the Talmud but the Bible and the Koran appear to contradict each other on the appearance of God since the Bible says God created man in his own image but the Koran says that God resembles nothing that he created.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

And if Allah cannt be represented in any form (including a picture...which I agree with), then no picture claiming to be Allah can be 'wrong'?

Allah resembles nothing in creation therefore a human being cannot make a representation of Allah.

Wibbs

Mick86 wrote:

Moses heard a voice coming from a burning bush. That doesn't mean that God spoke to him directly. Being omnipotent, God can cause a voice to emanate from anything. God, according to the Koran has no form or corporeal entity. Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak.

This is the bit I don't get. This would apply to most religions out there. They all seem to say God is omnipotent, but then seek to limit his power, which is a contradiction surely? If God is omnipotent surely He can do what He likes if he chooses to? Nothing is impossible corporeal or not. In that case he could be anything at all. Surely He could just walk up to you else on the street looking like everyone and go "how's yourself?" As for representing him in art, I'm not sure God would be best pleased with the whole old guy with big beard sitting on a cloud bit.:) Maybe the Muslim idea of just "portraying" him by means of beautiful caligraphy is the best way to go.

Mick86

Wibbs wrote:

This is the bit I don't get. This would apply to most religions out there. They all seem to say God is omnipotent, but then seek to limit his power, which is a contradiction surely? ...

The Muslim theory apparently is that God is omnipotent but by adopting any corporeal form he sets limits for himself. He would no longer be omnipotent and therefore no longer God. So he could do it but doesn't. And I know God is not a He or a She.:D

the_new_mr

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

thats what I believe also. Thx new_mr for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

Oriel

This post was kinda funny (though not that funny) but hardly appropriate.

Oriel

Aw no fair!

Hobbes

Sinecurea warned.

RiderOnTheStorm

Mick86 wrote:

Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak.

nothing is impossible for God

However, I do agree, in basic. God cannot be represended in a picture.

.......... But what if a kid draws a stick man and says 'that is Allah' or Michaelangelo paints an old white man on a celing and says 'thats God' .... we know that neither are true, but are either forbidden? and if they are, then why? Is it because (as I believe) to draw Him is to limit Him in your mind, and it may limit Him in the minds of others? The more pics there are of an old bearded men on a cloud (thx Wibbs) the more people think that thats what He is like and then he becomes a 'person' and subject to our laws of resason & physics & biology, etc

babyvaio

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

nothing is impossible for God

However, I do agree, in basic. God cannot be represended in a picture.

.......... But what if a kid draws a stick man and says 'that is Allah' or Michaelangelo paints an old white man on a celing and says 'thats God' .... we know that neither are true, but are either forbidden? and if they are, then why? Is it because (as I believe) to draw Him is to limit Him in your mind, and it may limit Him in the minds of others? The more pics there are of an old bearded men on a cloud (thx Wibbs) the more people think that thats what He is like and then he becomes a 'person' and subject to our laws of resason & physics & biology, etc

Just think about this reason - Michaelangelo paintings are - bottom line - ugly and disgusting, probably to a lot of people. It depends on the taste I suppose. Now don't you think God Almighty is above and beyond any such painting?
Also, would you not think that God Almighty is the most beautiful although He is not a creature, He is the Creator, and there is none besides Him.

And Muslims do not believe that God created man in His image. That's saying a lie on God...

PS Muslim kids are taught that they cannot draw God, so that can happen only in non-Muslim families or in those where parents never explained this to their kids.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

Just think about this reason - Michaelangelo paintings are - bottom line - ugly and disgusting, probably to a lot of people.

Huh? Are you serious? I mean, one may not like them, but to write off one of the greatest artists/sculptors in historys often sublime works as "ugly" and most especially "disgusting" is frankly unreal and boggles the mind. Is that the case for most artists works in your opinion?

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Huh? Are you serious? I mean, one may not like them, but to write off one of the greatest artists/sculptors in historys often sublime works as "ugly" and most especially "disgusting" is frankly unreal and boggles the mind. Is that the case for most artists works in your opinion?

1st ? N/A
2nd ? Yes I am. They're ugly and disgusting to me.
3rd ? I don't consider those who paint creatures with soul artists, do my answer would be irrelevant in that case. And especially not those who in their minds are painting the image of Creator - they are far astray.

Yes, I'm deadly serious. These are things that should not be taken as a joke. It's forbidden in Islam to paint/draw creatures with soul and also to make their statues. BTW, there are not statues of Almighty Allah anywhere - all those statues that people think represent Him are their own false invention and that has nothing to do with Almighty God - He is above and beyond all of that.

Schuhart

Mick86 wrote:

Without corporeal entity it is impossible to speak......
Via the Angel Gabriel.

How did Angel Gabriel hear him? Has he both a corporeal and incorporeal aspect?

babyvaio wrote:

Also, would you not think that God Almighty is the most beautiful although He is not a creature, He is the Creator, and there is none besides Him.

If God’s beyond our comprehension, what does ‘beauty’ mean in this context?

More generally, I still find I’m puzzled at the general concept that people cannot choose whatever method of communicating their view of God. I take that Michealangelo or any other religious artist would agree they are not actually painting God, but would simply say this is their way of expressing something about the divine nature.

Can someone write a poem about God? Surely that poses the same problems – how do you frame words that catch the divine nature, if it is so much beyond us, without insulting the deity? If poems are not allowed, can someone write or speak a sermon describing what they think is God’s word? Does that not pose the same risk of divine offence?

Psychologists say most communication is non-verbal. Why would a deity place a limit on how the divine message can be spread?

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

2nd ? Yes I am. They're ugly and disgusting to me.

Mind boggling. Truly mind boggling.

3rd ? I don't consider those who paint creatures with soul artists, do my answer would be irrelevant in that case.

What about landscape painters? Do they fall into the same category? What about all the art throughout history. Would you hide or destroy it given the chance? In the world you seem to want there would be no music, no art, no dance, even poetry might be an issue. The only thing would be recitation of the Quran. Would I be right in that view? I'm honestly trying to guage yout view that is so removed from mine(and most peoples)

Yes, I'm deadly serious. These are things that should not be taken as a joke. It's forbidden in Islam to paint/draw creatures with soul and also to make their statues.

This is the kind of thinking that robbed the world of the Afghani Buddhas. Also Muslim artists were doing that knid of thing from early on(sometimes with cuts through the neck of the animal to show it wasn't alive. Very inventive)

He is above and beyond all of that.

Schuharts thoughts sum it up for me.

Can someone write a poem about God? Surely that poses the same problems – how do you frame words that catch the divine nature, if it is so much beyond us, without insulting the deity? If poems are not allowed, can someone write or speak a sermon describing what they think is God’s word? Does that not pose the same risk of divine offence?

Psychologists say most communication is non-verbal. Why would a deity place a limit on how the divine message can be spread?

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Mind boggling. Truly mind boggling.
What about landscape painters? Do they fall into the same category? What about all the art throughout history. Would you hide or destroy it given the chance? In the world you seem to want there would be no music, no art, no dance, even poetry might be an issue. The only thing would be recitation of the Quran. Would I be right in that view? I'm honestly trying to guage yout view that is so removed from mine(and most peoples)

This is the kind of thinking that robbed the world of the Afghani Buddhas. Also Muslim artists were doing that knid of thing from early on(sometimes with cuts through the neck of the animal to show it wasn't alive. Very inventive)
Schuharts thoughts sum it up for me.

About your so called artists.
I don't like that. You do. So why all of the sudden you have a problem with that? Do I have to like "art"? If so, why so? Would that not be pushing me into something I don't like?
Who mentioned world without "art", "music", etc.? You or did I? I think it was you. So again, your pushing something into my mouth. Correct? Yes.
In an annoying way BTW. Just because you're not happy with what you hear (read: read).

And BTW yes, you can write a poem about God, however it is a risky thing to do cos you might end up saying something about God which He has never said about Himself.

God revealed His Word to us, so we have the book of Revelation. He chose a form that would suit us. He also created that form for us. We didn't create a single language or paper or CD or DVD stuff, everything we create is actually His Creation, not ours.

Of course you "artist M" could not catch how God looks like. But since "artist M" did it and God never said that about Himself, "M" has a big problem, cos he produced something which is not how God described Himself.

So if I say "Allah is the Most Merciful" that is because (in translation into English) Allah had said this long before about Himself (although in Arabic language, for Aramaic or others I would not know). So He chose the way for us to understand some of His attributes in the way He did, but that does not mean that He limited Himself or that we are limiting Him by using our tongues and saying exactly what He said. Actually if one says in original language of Revelation "Allah is the Most Merciful" that is doing a good deed, that is also remembering Allah, cos you're using the exact way to describe Him as He described Himself.
But if you say (or better to say: use something to define Allah) something which Allah has never said/revealed about himself, then you're in big trouble, cos you're lying on Allah. Simple as that.
You don't have to start swimming in waters of deep thinking - a lot of them ended up going astray because they thought too much about Almighty God and not much about His creations. Of course our limited minds cannot really understand many things about God.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

About your so called artists.

No nothing to do with "my" so called artists. I'm talking of all art throughout history from all cultures that is not caligraphy. From the cave paintings through ancient India, including the incredible stuff from the ancient Arabic lands and indeed the sublime Quranic caligraphy, believe it or not.

I don't like that. You do. So why all of the sudden you have a problem with that?

I find it an unsually extreme position to describe art as disgusting. That's more than dislike.

Do I have to like "art"? If so, why so? Would that not be pushing me into something I don't like?

Hey there's much of art I may not like. I can appreciate it though.

Who mentioned world without "art", "music", etc.? You or did I? I think it was you. So again, your pushing something into my mouth. Correct? Yes.

Well on the art front at least if you come from the position of finding most if not all of it ugly and disgusting then it follows that in your perfect world it shouldn't have been created.

In an annoying way BTW. Just because you're not happy with what you hear (read: read).

Only annoying if you take such a defensive position. I merely asked of your further opinion. Re read the post.

me wrote:

Would I be right in that view? I'm honestly trying to guage yout view that is so removed from mine(and most peoples)

You see. It's a question, not a statement of what you think.

And BTW yes, you can write a poem about God, however it is a risky thing to do cos you might end up saying something about God which He has never said about Himself.

What about a poem about something other than God. Is that allowed as it's a representation in some way(though not visual). Genuine question.

everything we create is actually His Creation, not ours.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does that include the bad stuff, even Michaelangelos works?

Of course you "artist M" could not catch how God looks like. But since "artist M" did it and God never said that about Himself, "M" has a big problem, cos he produced something which is not how God described Himself.

It is to "M" as he being Christian would believe that God created people in his own image. So for him at least (if not a Muslim) the view is defensible.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

No nothing to do with "my" so called artists. I'm talking of all art throughout history from all cultures that is not caligraphy. From the cave paintings through ancient India, including the incredible stuff from the ancient Arabic lands and indeed the sublime Quranic caligraphy, believe it or not.
I find it an unsually extreme position to describe art as disgusting. That's more than dislike. Hey there's much of art I may not like. I can appreciate it though.
Well on the art front at least if you come from the position of finding most if not all of it ugly and disgusting then it follows that in your perfect world it shouldn't have been created.
Only annoying if you take such a defensive position. I merely asked of your further opinion. Re read the post. You see. It's a question, not a statement of what you think.
What about a poem about something other than God. Is that allowed as it's a representation in some way(though not visual). Genuine question.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does that include the bad stuff, even Michaelangelos works?

It is to "M" as he being Christian would believe that God created people in his own image. So for him at least (if not a Muslim) the view is defensible.

From all the things I believe I said the "M works" are ugly and disgusting. Did I say anything like that about music, etc.? Or caligraphy? No.

I say that I don't like paintings or sculptures (a.k.a. idols) when human body or any other creature is painted or "sculptured". I didn't comment music or anything outside what I just said in my previous sentence. So let's stay in those limits.

If you appreciate that "art" well I don't. I don't have to. There's nothing useful in it except a warning that this is something believers should not be doing. By this I don't mean "M" cos I wouldn't know that.

Oh yeah, the "M" stuff is something he had wanted to do so God let him do that. Whoever chooses path of evil God will help him and whoever chooses path of good God will also help him. Nothing happens if God does not will it and all that He wills, does happen.

Wibbs wrote:

What about a poem about something other than God. Is that allowed as it's a representation in some way(though not visual). Genuine question.

If there's no evil in the poem, then I'd say no problem whatsoever. Allah (swt) knows best.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

From all the things I believe I said the "M works" are ugly and disgusting. Did I say anything like that about music, etc.? Or caligraphy? No.

Well caligraphy is allowed under Islam is it not? I just mentioned it for completeness. Judging from your posts all art that is representative is evil/against God(except caligraphy as it's outside that obviously, though abstract forms of nature do play a part in much of it)

I say that I don't like paintings or sculptures (a.k.a. idols) when human body or any other creature is painted or "sculptured". I didn't comment music or anything outside what I just said in my previous sentence. So let's stay in those limits.

Ok Lets. So that's pretty much all art then, with the exception of pure landscape painting I suppose? Music or anything else we can contend with again.

If you appreciate that "art" well I don't. I don't have to. There's nothing useful in it except a warning that this is something believers should not be doing.

Personally I would have worries about someone who says pretty much all art has nothing useful in it, especially as it's apparently created by God in the end anyway. But that's just a purely personal view. To each their own.

So you would prefer that none of that art would have been created? In an ideal world as it were, not you or someone who belives same actively seeking to rid the world of representative art of course. Or am I wrong in that? Hypothetically of course, would you if you could remove such ugly and disgusting art from the world?

By this I don't mean "M" cos I wouldn't know that.

Well that's fair enough. I take from that you're not trying to stop Michaelangelo or anyone else creating same. I was honestly wondering about that TBH.

Oh yeah, the "M" stuff is something he had wanted to do so God let him do that. Whoever chooses path of evil God will help him and whoever chooses path of good God will also help him. Nothing happens if God does not will it and all that He wills, does happen.

Riiiight. Let me get this straight if you don't mind. So God in your opinion helps those who chose the path of evil? Does this extend beyond art? It seems it does as nothing happens without His will.

So the butchery of someone like Stalin or Pol Pot was "helped by God? Again, are you serious? In that view God is both evil and good. I mean, if He helps those who choose evil as well as good then it can be no other way. You would think that God would be trying to help his creation back to the path of good, not evil.

Where's Satan's place in all this? He seems to be not required if God helps those who choose evil. If he helps evil in those who "choose" it then he must be evil when He does so. It seems this version of God is hard to equate with love of His creations if He's willing to help both the destruction as well as the building of it. Very capricious and apparently eternally beyond any human reason as even the "choice" of His creations is his will.

Lets look at it another way;

If as by the earlier example someone writes a poem about God that contains something that God didn't say in the Quran. Fine so far. That's bad. Now if God creates everything it means therefore that ultimately God did say it about himself. Yet God may punish the poet with eternal pain for something God did? Where's the reason, mercy or love in that?

If there's no evil in the poem, then I'd say no problem whatsoever. Allah (swt) knows best.

I suppose that's where the grey areas come into it. A rigid road I would imagine.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

"...

To cut this short, 1stly, you're twisting some of my words the way you like it. So regarding art - end of discussion for me.

2ndly, Almighty Allah gave each one of us free will. If he had wanted to stop Stalin or Hitler i.e. He would have done it. So they expressed their "views" with "a huge bit of force and injustice, etc.". And they will have to answer to God for that. The same applies to me & you and everybody else.
However, letting them do that doesn't mean that God committed those evil things, right? I hope that you can understand what I'm saying. By the word "helped them" I should have said "make it easier for them". So, decisions were theirs. If God was forcing somebody to do something, then on the Day of Judgement it wouldn't be fair to have trials for those things "that one had to do cos one was forced by God." It doesn't make sense. Nobody is forced by Almighty to do anything, we've got our free will and we make our choices, but without God's Power, we can't move even our baby finger.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

If as by the earlier example someone writes a poem about God that contains something that God didn't say in the Quran. Fine so far. That's bad. Now if God creates everything it means therefore that ultimately God did say it about himself. Yet God may punish the poet with eternal pain for something God did? Where's the reason, mercy or love in that?

Wibbs, I think your post shows a complete lack of understanding how things work. I wish Allah guides you to the straight Path.

If you accidentally say (read: guess) something about Allah, and have no bad intentions, then I suppose it's not an evil thing. But if you say something which is not true about Allah, then it's different. Your intention counts as well here. God creating everything is about His creations/creatures, right, not really about His Being? I hope you can see the difference. So, regarding this poem, we're not discussing the creations of Allah, but Allah Himself. There's a huge difference. About creations you shouldn't speak bad anyway, like cursing the wind or something. Or in fact, not even about Stalin or Hitler. You can however say they did something terrible and evil, this also is different. You cannot even say they were evil, you don't really know that, but you can say that for a specific evil they committed.

And no Wibbs, the painting/sculpture was a product of "your artist" not God's product, they chose to do that with their own free will, like Hitler chose to erase Jews from the face of the Earth.

In my opinion, God's Mercy is when He shows you the straight Path, which is only one, like the Truth is only one, but there are many lies and many false paths. God's Love is also the fact that you were nothing/nil and He created you from nothing. So here you are, etc.

I guess there are countless examples of God's Mercy and Love and they certainly are not limited, you can't measure them, you can't count them, like you can measure Allah's Mercy nor His Love.

Hobbes

I am not sure why someone would find M's works ugly. I guess its a matter of taste. But I personally wouldn't see it as affront to God. (imho).

For example. I wrote a computer program one time that could learn and build another program from what it learnt from various data. The program created the new program and was pretty cool what it did, however it would not of existed if I had not given that gift to the first program to begin with.

If the first program had not at worked at all I would of been more upset.

Thats my analogy take on things.

babyvaio

Hobbes wrote:

I am not sure why someone would find M's works ugly. I guess its a matter of taste. But I personally wouldn't see it as affront to God. (imho).

For example. I wrote a computer program one time that could learn and build another program from what it learnt from various data. The program created the new program and was pretty cool what it did, however it would not of existed if I had not given that gift to the first program to begin with.

If the first program had not at worked at all I would of been more upset.

Thats my analogy take on things.

Well done Hobbes! (prolog maybe?)

PS I hope that problem is not called Multithreaded Boards.ie Talking Engine? (just kidding) (I mean, people here learn new stuff every day...)

the_new_mr

babyvaio wrote:

It's forbidden in Islam to paint/draw creatures with soul and also to make their statues.

There is a large difference of opinion on this topic... even more so than music as I understand. I believe the intention of the drawer/painter is important. Of course, drawing God is still out of the question.

I too do not like Michaelangelo's works of divine representations etc. I do like another Michaelangelo though. He used to wear an orange mask, had an "M" on his belt and shout COWABUNGA!!

In terms of the philosophical question posed about evil and its source. God is very clear about this in the Quran.

An-Nisa:47
"Whatever of good befalleth thee ( O man ) it is from Allah, and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself. We have sent thee ( Muhammad ) as a messenger unto mankind and Allah is sufficient as witness."

The idea that nothing happens without God letting it happen is of course true but, as babyvaio mentioned, the free will that God has given us lets us decide what to do. God would never make us do something bad and then punish us for it. So, with our free will, we may choose one way or the other. Thought we all agreed on this concept before in another thread.

As babyvaio corrected from an earlier post, God doesn't help someone do something bad, He only may let someone do something bad if they want to do it. Guidance is always there, waiting for when they want it.

Anyway, this has already been discussed in this thread so I would recommend that any further discussion on fate in Islam continues in there. This is is actually one of my favourite topics to talk about.

Hobbes wrote:

For example. I wrote a computer program one time that could learn and build another program from what it learnt from various data. The program created the new program and was pretty cool what it did, however it would not of existed if I had not given that gift to the first program to begin with.

Sounds very cool!! I'm interested in that kind of malarky myself actually although don't know much about it to be honest. Careful with the use of the word "gift" though Hobbes. Maybe you could say "ability" instead of "gift"? Illusions of grandeur and all that :P

Also, I know who to hold responsible if SkyNet ever becomes a reality

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

I too do not like Michaelangelo's works of divine representations etc. I do like another Michaelangelo though. He used to wear an orange mask, had an "M" on his belt and shout COWABUNGA!!

There's always one. You had to didn't you? the temptation was too much...

the_new_mr

You know it

RiderOnTheStorm

"I can resist anything, except temptation" Oscar Wilde

RiderOnTheStorm

what i dont't get, and what hasn't been answered yet is:

If its impossible to draw a pic of Allah, then why is it banned?

babyvaio

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

what i dont't get, and what hasn't been answered yet is:

If its impossible to draw a pic of Allah, then why is it banned?

Because whoever is the one actually painting the picture would be claiming or suggesting that he's drawing a picture of Allah, but that would in fact mean lying on Allah, cos "the so-called" artist knows that he cannot make such a picture.

the_new_mr

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

If its impossible to draw a pic of Allah, then why is it banned?

Well, there are a number of reasons.

The first of which is the one mentioned by babyvaio that it would be like lying about God since the artist doesn't know what God looks like (as indeed the human mind can't comprehend God). Even if the artist openly states that they don't know what God looks like.

Another possibility is that of accidental worship over a long period of time. If someone paints/draws a picture of what they think of God and this is placed somewhere where everyone can see it. Generation after generation (and only God knows how much longer we have on this earth), there is a danger that these pictures can be revered in an excessive way to the point of worship. This is also one of the reasons why pictures of Prophets are not allowed as they may, over time, be overly revered.

Another reason is that such imagery greatly limits the idea of God that people may have in their minds. No doubt, partly the reason that people have this image of God as an old man with a white beard etc is down to imagery. This means that on the sub-conscious level, people may find themselves limiting their idea of God to this overly simple representation.

And God knows best.

RiderOnTheStorm

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, there are a number of reasons.

...ah, that makse sense. I had posted before that I thought it was because of the limiting effect of His power and that it would limit our idea of Him ........ but then all the posts about it not being possible made me think again.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Another reason is that such imagery greatly limits the idea of God that people may have in their minds. No doubt, partly the reason that people have this image of God as an old man with a white beard etc is down to imagery. This means that on the sub-conscious level, people may find themselves limiting their idea of God to this overly simple representation.

That’s a helpful post in explaining the attitude behind the idea. But I was reflecting on this, asking the obvious question of whether a written image does not pose exactly the same risks.

I might want to communicate the idea of God deciding whether or not someone is saved. So I might say ‘God will judge you’. Now, the word ‘judge’ might make people think of law and courts and all that goes with the idea of criminal justice. But presumably that’s what human justice is like, and this might have nothing to do with how divine justice works. So the statement ‘God will judge you’ is just as misleading as painting an image depicting a god, say, sitting on a throne ordering sinners off to damnation.

In fact, arguably the painting is less misleading because we all know that the artist does not actually know what god looks like. If someone uses a word like ‘justice’, it’s actually less obvious that the same illusion is being created with words instead of pictures.

Also, the same mistake of veneration of the object is possible. As I understand it, there are rules about the handling of the Quran, as the actual object is venerated in addition to the meaning it contains.

The sense I’m left with is that the reason images are not permitted is simply because the religions that Islam was competing with in its early years tended to be idol cults, hence the need to make a taboo out of anything that looked like worship of an idol. The tradition remains, even though the need for it has largely vanished.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

But I was reflecting on this, asking the obvious question of whether a written image does not pose exactly the same risks.

I believe you mentioned this already but anyway...

Schuhart wrote:

I might want to communicate the idea of God deciding whether or not someone is saved. So I might say ‘God will judge you’. Now, the word ‘judge’ might make people think of law and courts and all that goes with the idea of criminal justice. But presumably that’s what human justice is like, and this might have nothing to do with how divine justice works. So the statement ‘God will judge you’ is just as misleading as painting an image depicting a god, say, sitting on a throne ordering sinners off to damnation.

As talked about in another thread, God describes Himself as the Most Just. There is no reason for Him to have a different definition of justice to what every human feels as perfect justice. Why would He do that?

dictionary.com defines justice as:

dictionary.com wrote:

jus‧tice  /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.

Essentially, being dealt justly means not being treated unfairly (just and unfair are opposites) so if someone describes God in written form in a way that God Himself describes Himself then what could possibly be the problem there?

The lying in written form would be when people come up with ideas without backing from the Quran or authentic hadith (traditions of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him)).

Schuhart wrote:

In fact, arguably the painting is less misleading because we all know that the artist does not actually know what god looks like. If someone uses a word like ‘justice’, it’s actually less obvious that the same illusion is being created with words instead of pictures.

Completely disagree with you there. If an artist who claims that they don't know what God looks like goes ahead and paints a picture of God judging people then he has to include the image of God. He can tell everyone that it's not God and everyone should know that but the image has been made and this is not okay as the reasons given already (and maybe some others).

Aside from this, the way a picture may be understood could be compeltely false. Someone may find it very difficult to get a certain image out of their heads and they may find it unknowingly influencing them. A picture says a thousand words and all that.

Schuhart wrote:

Also, the same mistake of veneration of the object is possible. As I understand it, there are rules about the handling of the Quran, as the actual object is venerated in addition to the meaning it contains.

Think you've misunderstood this a little. The rules are for respecting the Quran since it contains the words of God. It's never venerated in the sense an idol would be.

Schuhart wrote:

The sense I’m left with is that the reason images are not permitted is simply because the religions that Islam was competing with in its early years tended to be idol cults, hence the need to make a taboo out of anything that looked like worship of an idol. The tradition remains, even though the need for it has largely vanished.

Well, first of all, I'd like to address your use of the word "competing". Such a phrase would imply that Islam is a man-made religion which of course is contrary to any Muslim's belief.

Another important point to note is that when God sent messengers to guide people to monotheism throughout time, there were nearly always pagans and idol worshippers in the vicinity. Take Abraham (peace be upon him) as one example.

Now, I don't mean to get into an inter-religious debate or to attack any other religion so I hope my statements are not misinterpreted in that way but there is a very important point to make here. Other religions have received much criticism (including Christianity from fellow Christians) for allowing pictures and statues of important figures in their religion which has often lead to worship of these pictures/statues.

There are some people that say that having a statue/model of any kind is forbidden based upon a hadith forbidding it. There are three opinions on this.

1) The hadith is authentic and it is indeed forbidden
2) The hadith is authentic but doesn't apply as long as there is no intention to worship the statue as an idol
3) The hadith is unauthentic

I'm with the opinion that it's either 2 or 3 (but probably 2). Only God knows for sure.

Anyway, none of this changes any of the reasons why it's not correct to represent God as an image.

And in the end, as always, God knows best.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

I believe you mentioned this already

Indeed, and I’ll try to avoid repeating the same thing endlessly. But I don’t share your confidence that a word like ‘justice’ has the same clear meaning to all people.

Ultimately, it seems to come down to whether someone believes that the written word is less prone to error and misinterpretation than an image. Given the extent to which different people take different meanings from the same religious text, I think my case is made.

I’ll illustrate the point with this specific doctrine regarding idols. As we know some believe this obliges them to destroy all idols. I’d expect most would disagree with that interpretation. Both sides are presumably looking at the same words, but attaching very different meanings to them. So, in reality, words seem to be prone to error and misinterpretation and the idea they are significantly more reliable than images does not seem credible. (I’d guess that what’s at issue here is probably the Hadith you mention, and whether option 1 or 2 applies.)

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers on March 12 rejected the arguments of leading Islamic scholars and protests from around the world and said they were obliterating the last traces of the country's ancient Buddhist statues……

Mutmaen said the OIC scholars could give no religious justification for preserving the statues and had argued only that the time was not right for such a course of action.

"The Afghan ulama replied that for us the present time is right and suitable," AIP quoted Mutmaen as saying. It said the Afghan ulama had insisted that Islam orders the destruction of all idols.

If your view was correct, I would expect that there would be far fewer disagreements over the meaning and significance of religious texts.

the_new_mr wrote:

The rules are for respecting the Quran since it contains the words of God. It's never venerated in the sense an idol would be.

That’s sort of my point. It’s respect of the thing that contains the message, rather than the message itself. Put another way, if we were sitting on the North Pole with only a big pile of Qurans, would you have a problem if I gave you one to pray with and burned the rest to stay warm?

the_new_mr wrote:

Other religions have received much criticism (including Christianity from fellow Christians) for allowing pictures and statues of important figures in their religion which has often lead to worship of these pictures/statues.

Just to be clear on a point of detail, Catholics are indeed criticised as idolators by some other Christians. However, Catholics are clearly taught that statues are just that – statutes – and should not be confused with the thing represented.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, and I’ll try to avoid repeating the same thing endlessly. But I don’t share your confidence that a word like ‘justice’ has the same clear meaning to all people.

I'm curious to know what other possible definitions of justice someone could have? Keeping in mind that we are looking for the definition of justice and not "real-life" examples of peoples' idea of justice since their point of view can be influenced by many things and therefore may not be right.

As an example, two people may have a different idea of what is the just thing to do in a particular situation but neither of them will disagree what justice in itself is. It is complete fairness.

Schuhart wrote:

Ultimately, it seems to come down to whether someone believes that the written word is less prone to error and misinterpretation than an image. Given the extent to which different people take different meanings from the same religious text, I think my case is made.

Honestly don't mean to seem rude... but no it doesn't. There's more to it than that. I refer you to the reasons I posted earlier (lying about God, danger of overly revering, limiting of peoples' concept of God and possibly other reasons).

I believe this discussion was with reference to the interpretation of the concept of God and not the interpretation of religious texts. There's no question that there are indeed different interpretations of religious texts in all religions. This is unavoidable as different limited human minds can come up with different interpretations.

This is however somewhat different to the question of whether or not it's okay to represent God in picture form. As I've already mentioned a number of times now, God names Himself using particular names so for sure there's nothing wrong with using those names. Despite the difference of opinion between the Afgan scholars and the others whether or not they should destroy the idols, I don't think any of them would differ that God can and should be called The Just, The Loving One, The Subduer, The Only One, The Forgiver etc.

By the way, the example you mentioned about the idols in Afghanistan show more of a difference of opinion rather than a misinterpretation (as do many other differences in religious opinions). For sure, actual different interpretations do exist but it's mostly a difference of opinion on the same interpretation. A slight difference but an important one. Anyway, things like this are always going to happen. Humans have disagreed with eachother almost since the beginning.

Schuhart wrote:

If your view was correct, I would expect that there would be far fewer disagreements over the meaning and significance of religious texts.

Once again, we're talking about the representation of the concept of God.

Schuhart wrote:

That’s sort of my point. It’s respect of the thing that contains the message, rather than the message itself.

What do you mean? Anyone who respects the Quran but not it's words can't call themselves a Muslim. If you do respect (believe) the message then you should respect the book because you believe it contains the Word of God. The respect for the book is a long long loooooooong way away from idol worship so such a comparison is pointless really. People should respect other religious texts even if they don't believe or agree with them anyway.

Schuhart wrote:

Put another way, if we were sitting on the North Pole with only a big pile of Qurans, would you have a problem if I gave you one to pray with and burned the rest to stay warm?

Very interesting question. I guess the right thing to do would be to burn all of them but one and maybe even that last one if absolutely necessary. Only God knows so I hope I'm not saying anything incorrect and may God forgive me if I am. I'm using the concept that necessity overrides such a situation. I'm thinking of the following verse.

Al-Ma'ida:3
"Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine flesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL- ISLAM. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Remind me never to go to the north pole without a few spare walkie talkies

Schuhart wrote:

Just to be clear on a point of detail, Catholics are indeed criticised as idolators by some other Christians. However, Catholics are clearly taught that statues are just that – statutes – and should not be confused with the thing represented.

You missed my point. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough.

Some religions (including Christianity) actually ended up worshipping some of their important religious figures because there were statues of them. Once again, without meaning to offend anyone. In the example of Christianity, Jesus (peace be upon him) was not originally considered divine before the first council of nicea and having statues/pictures of him may have contributed to this change in doctrine.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Two people may have a different idea of what is the just thing to do in a particular situation but neither of them will disagree what justice in itself is.

But if two people have a different idea of what is just in a particular situation, it suggest that they do disagree on what justice means. The fact they might both agree that the word ‘justice’ could be defined by the words ‘complete fairness’ only illustrates what I’m saying – words cloak differences, and the idea they are so much more precise than images is an illusion.

the_new_mr wrote:

Despite the difference of opinion between the Afgan scholars and the others whether or not they should destroy the idols, I don't think any of them would differ that God can and should be called The Just, The Loving One, The Subduer, The Only One, The Forgiver etc.

But quite clearly they disagree on what justice, loving, subduing and forgiving means if they cannot agree on whether the statutes should be left standing, and probably disagree and many other things as well. Hence, the idea that a clear idea of the nature of God is communicated by words is shown to be incorrect.

the_new_mr wrote:

By the way, the example you mentioned about the idols in Afghanistan show more of a difference of opinion rather than a misinterpretation

Fine, but it still amounts to a significant difference in the practice of a faith. That means the written word does not actually supply certainty. A picture of a god smiling down on a Muslim and a Buddhist might actually get the point across a lot clearer – assuming that the point we wanted to get across was to leave the other guy’s stuff alone.

the_new_mr wrote:

Jesus (peace be upon him) was not originally considered divine before the first council of nicea and having statues/pictures of him may have contributed to this change in doctrine.

You’d need a practicing Christian to answer that question fully. But I’d imagine that one would say that Jesus was always regarded as divine, and the Council of Nicea just confirmed this. I’m no expert, but I would not have associated the early Christian church with statutes so I would not be confident in suggesting that as a factor in spreading the idea that Jesus was divine. Is this a suggestion you have seen documented anywhere?

the_new_mr wrote:

Remind me never to go to the north pole without a few spare walkie talkies

And a woolly hat.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

But if two people have a different idea of what is just in a particular situation, it suggest that they do disagree on what justice means. The fact they might both agree that the word ‘justice’ could be defined by the words ‘complete fairness’ only illustrates what I’m saying – words cloak differences, and the idea they are so much more precise than images is an illusion.

Think you missed my point Schuhart.

If two people disagree with each other on what is the just thing to do in a given situation (and this happens on a daily basis even between two people of the same faith (or no faith)) then this is because each one has a different list of pros and cons in their head and is trying to communicate this list to the other and why they think they are right.

However, they will still agree that justice is the fairest thing to do in any situation. So, if God is described as The Most Just, then on the day of Judgement, who is going to argue with God? You can argue with a fellow human because maybe they just don't get you and you believe that if they did, they'd agree with you. But if God knows everything and describes Himself as The Most Just then that's that, isn't it?

Schuhart wrote:

But quite clearly they disagree on what justice, loving, subduing and forgiving means if they cannot agree on whether the statutes should be left standing, and probably disagree and many other things as well. Hence, the idea that a clear idea of the nature of God is communicated by words is shown to be incorrect.

Well, not quite. Such decisions are based on hadith with clear cut words (no idols). So, the interpretation of that text and its authenticity comes into play here. This is off-topic to the current thread concerning the medium by which to express the nature God.

Schuhart wrote:

Fine, but it still amounts to a significant difference in the practice of a faith. That means the written word does not actually supply certainty. A picture of a god smiling down on a Muslim and a Buddhist might actually get the point across a lot clearer – assuming that the point we wanted to get across was to leave the other guy’s stuff alone.

As I said, the difference of opinion on the practice of the faith here (and in other cases) is to do with the interpretation of text other than the nature of God. Also, in your example of the picture of God smiling, who is supposed to have drawn such a picture and, therefore, who is to say it is right? Know what I mean? Unless something like this appeared in the Quran (which of course it hasn't) then its value of religious authority is quite low.

And that's something that has just ocurred to me now. If God wanted people to represent Him in image form then He would have placed a picture of Himself in the Quran. He of course didn't but did choose to express Himself using the written word. A wise decision from The Most Wise.

And I know you're discussing the principle of representing God in image form in general and not specfically in Islam but since I'm a Muslim and this is the Islam forum, I'm sure you'll understand my stance on this

Schuhart wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Remind me never to go to the north pole without a few spare walkie talkies

And a woolly hat.

And a helicopter (with sufficient knowledge of flying and fuel).

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

However, they will still agree that justice is the fairest thing to do in any situation. So, if God is described as The Most Just, then on the day of Judgement, who is going to argue with God?

I think I’m clear on your point that two people may think they share a belief in justice and/or love because they can use similar words to describe it. But if two people with very different pictures of justice agree on the same words of a definition, it means that those words have not said what justice really means to those people.

Take an extreme case of a racist and a Buddhist. You ask each of them if we should treat all people justly. They both say yes. You ask if they agree that justice is fair. They both say yes. You might go away convinced that they both share a common belief in justice, because those words don’t reveal that the racist thinks its just and fair to treat people differently according to their race.

That’s my essential point. Simply asserting God is loving, compassionate, whatever, does not actually point to a common understanding of the nature of God.

Compassion could mean leaving statues standing because you realise others see some value in them, or it could mean that you destroy them because you think compassion means you must prevent people from seeing a value in statues that might lead them into what you think is error. People of both views might say compassion is concern for others. The difference is one see it as concern for others that prevents you from doing them any hurt. The other is concern for others that obliges you to hurt them if they do things you think are wrong, but they think are perfectly fine. The same words do not mean the same things to all people. So describing God as Most Just still leaves an amount of doubt over what that actually means.

the_new_mr wrote:

As I said, the difference of opinion on the practice of the faith here (and in other cases) is to do with the interpretation of text other than the nature of God.

I think the distinction is artificial. If we agree that language is imprecise, then that is something that applies to discussion of the nature of God as much as anything else. If people hold different perceptions of what compassion is, it means they have a different picture of what it means to say God is compassionate.

the_new_mr wrote:

who is supposed to have drawn such a picture and, therefore, who is to say it is right?

Surely exactly the same question is raised by the written word. Take the extent to which the authenticity of particular Hadiths comes into discussions.

the_new_mr wrote:

And I know you're discussing the principle of representing God in image form in general and not specfically in Islam but since I'm a Muslim and this is the Islam forum, I'm sure you'll understand my stance on this.

Indeed. I suppose I’m really exploring my feeling that the reason for the prohibition on images is simply tradition – its not that there’s actually any real world advantage to the rule.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Take an extreme case of a racist and a Buddhist. You ask each of them if we should treat all people justly. They both say yes. You ask if they agree that justice is fair. They both say yes. You might go away convinced that they both share a common belief in justice, because those words don’t reveal that the racist thinks its just and fair to treat people differently according to their race.

An extreme case indeed and not really reflective of the true nature of God. I see your point but don't agree with it. It would be more accurate to give each of the individuals examples and ask them if they think it is just.

Schuhart wrote:

I think the distinction is artificial. If we agree that language is imprecise, then that is something that applies to discussion of the nature of God as much as anything else. If people hold different perceptions of what compassion is, it means they have a different picture of what it means to say God is compassionate.

Once again, I see your point but don't agree with it. Words are always going to be somewhat imprecise since the human mind is not perfect. But, if I describe God as The Most Just then regardless of what you think is Just, you can know that you will be dealt with justly on the day of judgement. Nobody should ever make the mistake of playing God. There are clear instructions in the Quran to be followed on the very serious issues and guidance for everything else. In the end, the belief of any person who follows Islam, Christianity or Judaism is that the life of this world is a test. Maybe we won't receive justice in it but we will be compensated for any injustice done.

I believe that everyone has an innate sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to big things.

Schuhart wrote:

Surely exactly the same question is raised by the written word. Take the extent to which the authenticity of particular Hadiths comes into discussions.

Well, the debate on hadiths are ongoing but all Muslims agree on the authenticity of the Quran without exceptions.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed. I suppose I’m really exploring my feeling that the reason for the prohibition on images is simply tradition – its not that there’s actually any real world advantage to the rule.

Well, that's fine. You're free to your opinion and we can agree to disagree.