Were the Ulema in earlier times issue different fatwas on representing the Prophet (pbuh) in images that today’s scholars?
The British Library has a manuscript from Herat, part of today’s Afghanistan, produced in the late 1400s when Herat was a major city of the muslim Timurid Empire. The document contains a drawing which is the artist’s impression of the prophet.
I would guess that the Ulema of the day would not have disallowed such a document, given how it survived in the Muslim word for centuries before being taken from the Mughals by the British.
Or is this simply a case of ulema in the past having deviated from Islam and today’s ulema rectifying the mistakes of the past?
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
^^
MS, you are well aware of the deviant behaviour of the south Asian Muslims…You yourself are a Mahajir and the practices, at least in my family, were in no way affiliated with Islam…
It was particularly this type of deviancy that Hz. Abdul Wahhab :rehm: came with his message of discarding every falsehood and garbage from Islam…
From your post, I would say it’s definitely the case of the latter…
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
South Asian were definately deviant, due to many influences from crossing Islam with the previous religions present.
But Herat was part of the Timurid empire - in fact was a province that I believe was conquered by none other than Khalifah Umer Ibn Al-Khattab (ra) himself, since he had defeated Persia This meant that Herat was Islamic for almost as long as Arabia itself, yet scholars there allowed such imagery to be made.
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
Well at any rate, my point in bringing this up was to raise awareness that there's a new slant from which "they" are going to attack Islam and try to create images of the Prophet (pbuh) in future.
There was an article in a Canadian newspaper that I read this week, which published a similar historical document from the Muslim world, which had a 500 year old drawing of Al-Buraq with the prophet (pbuh) on his back.
The newspaper had blacked out the face of the prophet, with the caption stating that this was done to avoid offending Muslims.
However, the remainder of the article was a very sarcastic attack basically saying that if pictures of the Prophet were accepted by and created by Muslims in the past, it should be fine to do it today.
The article neatly sidestepped the fact that such images were only tolerated for a period for around 300 years before orthodoxy was restored. However, past tolerance by ulema for such things is going to come back to be used against us in the near future.
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
That may be, but you must remember the Safavid influence, even up to this day…
And the result of that deviant influence not only influenced Afghanistan but the Mughal court as well…They too drew depictions of the Holy Prophet :saw: through the Chughtai art but had enough sense not to draw the face or put a veil in front…
The result of scholars ridding many parts of the world where Islam resides is the result that we have the knowledge that depictions of the Prophets (pbut) is Haram and totally unIslamic…
However those areas and regions where the deviancy still pervades today, many deviant behaviours still persist and the Muslims aren’t willing to accept the knowledge from true sources…As a result, today you can buy pictures of the depictions of the Holy Prophet :saw:, Ali, Hussain, Hassan, Fatima, Zainab in Iran as an act of devotion…
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
The Safavid influence wasn’t a factor at the time the manuscript was written, however. The Safavid rebellion against Sunni rule had not begun in the mid 1490s; and certainly Herat did not come under their control until 1510. The manuscript was produced in the last decade of Sunni-majority Persia in a major Sunni administrative centre - the Safaviyeh’s influence must surely have been limited. And at the end of the day, sunni scholars must have dominated Herat and thus implicitly or explicitly condoned such drawing.
Meaning it came from a deviancy from within Sunni Islam, and a deviancy which Islam’s enemies today are already trying to exploit. A Canadian guy wrote to that newspaper today saying that by censoring out the face of the Prophet (pbuh) from the picture, the newspaper was violating his right to freely view 15th century Muslim art.
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
Lajjo Jee,
So Abdul Wahab is your messenger? No wonder…
Why dont u guys do a little bit of reading on Islamic history then u maybe able to come out of this inferiority complex of belonging to the Sub-Continent and not of pure Arabic stock. Wahab preached Arabization of Islam, his message was refuted by his own (Arabs) people, not just the Indian scholars. Islam was Gods message to ALL people of this earth, before, then and after. It was the sad people like Wahab who wished to restrict membership to Arabs only and that too was further limited based on tribal associations.
Pictures of the Prophet have been around for centuries, it may surprise you, but it was the Arabs who came up with the first images.
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
No…Abdul Wahhab is not my messenger but he is someone whom I take a scholar…
See, the problem with me is that I am a Muslim…For whatever reason I cannot be made to hate someone or dislike someone because someone tells me to…
The elders of the Jews started a propaganda against Christ to make people hate him and they succeeded…They made people hate the Christ so much that they had him crucified all because someone told them believe it…
Today, in the media, many Muslims are being trained like Pavlov’s dogs to dislike many aspects of Islam which include hatred for scholars and pious people such as Abdul Wahab :rehm:…Because his teachings forbid the inclusion of even the tineiest innovaton, this gives trouble to the Kuffar to train the Muslims or slip into Islam things that will benefit them through Muslims…
In Islam we do not hate or dislike those scholars who have a history of great sacrifices and pure, proven knowledge that guides…
Today Muslims are trained to dislike Wahabbism and Abdul Wahhab :rehm: and obviously many Muslims were quick to be trained…I was trained, but thankfully I broke free from my mental shackles and realized what the truth is…
Tomorrow if the Kuffar train the Muslims to dislike Hamza Yusuf, dislike Cat Stevens, dislike Quran, dislike the Holy Prophet :saw:, I have no doubt many will be quick in training to receive new doctrines…
So, just because Wahabbism and Abdul Wahhab :rehm: are considered bad by the kuffar is in no way going to make me change what I believe and think about them.
You are free to choose your guides…Whether they are the Kuffar training the Muslims who to bark after or the scholars who guide to the Truth…
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
[quote=Lajawab]
…
I am sure you are aware of the level of cooperation between brits and saudis in WW1 and even later.Or the favors given to them by FDR and the americans I dont think they thought of them as a threat
The revolt against ottomans with the blessing of the british empire was that justified? was this an attempt to establish a islamic state or just opportunistic landgrabbing
If saudis are sincerely interested in establishing a islamic state then the first thing to do is abolish kingship surely you know how much Umar(ra) hated the this idea and title of king
Re: Past fatwas (about 500 years ago) on pictures of the Prophet (pbuh)
It was particularly this type of deviancy that Hz. Abdul Wahhab came with his message of discarding every falsehood and garbage from Islam...
Abdul Wahhab? The betrayer of the Islamic empire? It takes gall to respectfully refer to that scoundrel...his complicity in the fitnah of the Saud's against Islam is having negative repercussions to this day.
The claim that we dislike this man is for our desire to appease non-Muslims is a weak attempt at coping out over his own anti-Muslim activities.
I have no idea why you bring up Abdul Wahhab...graven images is frowned upon by all schools of Sunni thought. Traditional schools, not these neo-protestant innovations of two centuries ago.
If there was a deviancy, it was no doubt because the ulema were not being consulted.
In any case, scholars make opinions...and the fact is, most contemprary scholars frown upon the act. If one wants to challenge the notion, then inshallah they will make a sound acedmeic case to put their point forward.
Central Asian Islam was heavily influenced by the acedmeics of Arabs, so I highly doubt the art was commisioned without some sort of debate...unless of course it was by the misguided whim of the ruler (which we can't rule out).
in Iran as an act of devotion…