red eagle

2y

Why are u lying like u give a f*** about afghans 🤣🤣

Gojira

2y

Why you lying like you give a f*** about Palestine 😂😂😂

red eagle

2y

Unlike u I actually do 😃

Gojira

2y

No you’re just antisemitic 😂😂😂

ModerateDrakeFan

2y

Any visual depiction of a living conscious entity, including animals btw, is haram according to the more orthodox sunni traditions.

Depictions of Hussein are done by Shia who don't consider the fatwas which forbid painting and photography to hold a real merit.

FranquitoReynolds

2y

But Shias forbid painting the prophet face too. It's hella confusing.

So according to orthodox Islam all paintings are haram? I remember reading a hadith that someone gave Muhammad a ring with a gem on it that had something embeded on it and the prophet scratched it off the ring. Is that why the fundementalist muslims are against art in general?

red eagle

2y

Why are u lying like u give a f*** about afghans 🤣🤣

ModerateDrakeFan

2y

This is the hadith which seems to be referenced the most in these fatwas. There are probably some others too.
https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1680

FranquitoReynolds

2y

Thanks for that.

I personally believe hadiths are full of s*** and Islam needs a reform.
And this hadith here is a good example why!

ASAKI

2y

This is because Christians have a different perspective on the lineage of the Holy Word. In their eyes, the Qu'ran is a complete set of lies created after the Bible, while in the eyes of Islam, the Bible and Old Testament are corrupted versions of what the Qu'ran is. In the perspective of Christians, our depiction of Jesus is heretical, while in our perspective, their depiction and theological biography of Isa (as) is shirk, but the fundamental outline of who he was is not.

If we're talking about historicity that's an entirely different issue entirely, because there's very little known about Prophet Isa. But I'm just saying they're supposed to be the same people (as we follow the same God), it's just that their interpretation is muddled and not correct in Islamic lore.

However, I don't think it's a normalization. I think the professor believed "I know this may be offensive to some, but it's an important part of how art and culture changed throughout the Islamic world." Even in the article itself, the professor explains that she doesn't want to paint a portrait (hehe) that the Islamic world is one monoculture. And, to be frank, there is quite a bit of animosity that Muslims outside the Arab sphere feel almost isolated as their cultures and traditions may not seem entirely orthodox to Arab culture, and thus seen as "less Muslim".

In regards to the painting, of course, yes, it's a sin to depict Prophet Muhammad. We can all agree on this. It is also entirely your right to be offended, as I initially was. But, when we live in a multicultural society, and when we especially intentionally and knowingly go into a class that discusses the historicity of art and culture and that may include pieces from Islamic cultures that are not strictly Arab-- there is a certain responsibility set that you must know your own comfort whether or not you want to see that content.

Likewise, I'm not going to berate a Christian student if they believe discussing the historicity of Jesus is offensive (which is a class taught in MANY universities), but I will berate them if they willingly choose to go into a class that will discuss it and call for the lecturer to be fired, even when that discussion is taking part in an academic environment where it is commonly accepted that the students are seeing it within a different lens than that of religion.

My wrist is f***ing killing me typing this on a Pro Max, so I will end my argument here. I see your perspective entirely, but I just wished to input mine as a fellow Muslim.

Huge bmass Fan

2y

I really don’t understand. The teacher gave fair warning about what she was about to show (historical art in an art class) and people decided to stick around to be offended anyway?

It’s like if I told my vegan friend that there’s chicken in a dish I cooked, they decided to eat it anyway and then called me a monster for feeding them meat.

How anyone can argue against the teacher ITT is beyond me.

No Future Awarded

2y

That’s society in 2023

necromancer

2y

· edited

This isn’t even “wokeness”, i’ve seen plenty of leftists and liberals criticizing this

This is a more of an expression of religious conservatism than anything

The funny thing with the American right-wing criticizing this is that they fundamentally agree on the underlying principles of religious blasphemy in secular institutions but don’t care about consistency in their own beliefs

No Future Awarded

2y

That’s society in 2023

ASAKI

2y

You're saying that people are ignoring the context but you're quite literally ignoring the context this entire thread.

This is not a theological class. This is a class on religion based on academic historicity. There is a massive difference. The professor did not "draw" Prophet Muhammad, The art shown by the professor was drawn by Muslims centuries ago. It is an art history class. Where the professor even warned students multiple times that it would be shown, only for students to just sit there dumbfounded when it actually happened.

Saying there is no inherent value or significance to the history of how Islamic culture developed is asinine and you would garner the same response whether it was Hamline University or the UAEU.

All they could have done is bring the issue up with the professor, explain their greivances, and ask her to show paintings from history that had blotted Prophet Muhammad's face out at least.

ModerateDrakeFan

2y

Yeah I agree with that. The methodology behind the collection of these hadiths is sketchy asf.
Plenty of self-contradictory accounts and a clear political manipulation by the Umayyads in there. Also a lot of morally abhorrent stuff and other absurdities that are simply incompatible with common sense.

I think a reformulation of Islam is entirely feasible under the Mu'tazila's "Quranic Createdness" doctrine. Even if I think some of their findings are silly in other areas, it's pretty undeniable that we'd be in an infinitely better place if we've adopted their approach to Islamic tradition. (Basically a primordial emphasis on reason against the blind following of religious heritage)

ASAKI

2y

This is because Christians have a different perspective on the lineage of the Holy Word. In their eyes, the Qu'ran is a complete set of lies created after the Bible, while in the eyes of Islam, the Bible and Old Testament are corrupted versions of what the Qu'ran is. In the perspective of Christians, our depiction of Jesus is heretical, while in our perspective, their depiction and theological biography of Isa (as) is shirk, but the fundamental outline of who he was is not.

If we're talking about historicity that's an entirely different issue entirely, because there's very little known about Prophet Isa. But I'm just saying they're supposed to be the same people (as we follow the same God), it's just that their interpretation is muddled and not correct in Islamic lore.

However, I don't think it's a normalization. I think the professor believed "I know this may be offensive to some, but it's an important part of how art and culture changed throughout the Islamic world." Even in the article itself, the professor explains that she doesn't want to paint a portrait (hehe) that the Islamic world is one monoculture. And, to be frank, there is quite a bit of animosity that Muslims outside the Arab sphere feel almost isolated as their cultures and traditions may not seem entirely orthodox to Arab culture, and thus seen as "less Muslim".

In regards to the painting, of course, yes, it's a sin to depict Prophet Muhammad. We can all agree on this. It is also entirely your right to be offended, as I initially was. But, when we live in a multicultural society, and when we especially intentionally and knowingly go into a class that discusses the historicity of art and culture and that may include pieces from Islamic cultures that are not strictly Arab-- there is a certain responsibility set that you must know your own comfort whether or not you want to see that content.

Likewise, I'm not going to berate a Christian student if they believe discussing the historicity of Jesus is offensive (which is a class taught in MANY universities), but I will berate them if they willingly choose to go into a class that will discuss it and call for the lecturer to be fired, even when that discussion is taking part in an academic environment where it is commonly accepted that the students are seeing it within a different lens than that of religion.

My wrist is f***ing killing me typing this on a Pro Max, so I will end my argument here. I see your perspective entirely, but I just wished to input mine as a fellow Muslim.

FranquitoReynolds

2y

Can you post the painting please