And yet there have been hundreds of images painted of Mohammed over the centuries:

See Mohammed Image Archive here:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Posted by: Mackie at August 20, 2008 10:56 AM

"acrylic"

Acrylic. How disrespectful. Not a fresco with egg tempera, in the old Arezzo manner. Not oils, good enough for the Old Masters. Not watercolors, the kind used by English girls in the nineteenth century to record their impressions of the Continent.

No.

Acrylics.

Ça ne se fait pas. Non si fa. It just isn't done.

Has the Islamic Republic of Iran no artistic sense, no finesse or Gefühl or chut'ë? Don't we keep being told by proud Persians that, contrary to the primitive desert Arabs, Iran is the center of a superior civilization, superior in its literature, in its art, in its everything. Think of all that talk about indo-persion miniatures, and Persian ceramics, and those verses by Hafiz and Sa'adi, and the roses and bulbuls of Gulistan.

And using what medium is Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, now depicted by an artist in the apparently tasteless and garish-loving Islamic Republic of Iran?

Acrylics.

Posted by: Hugh at August 20, 2008 11:00 AM

When does the "largest miniature painting" become the smallest regular painting?

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 20, 2008 11:04 AM

I dare anyone to draw glasses on Mo. :)

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at August 20, 2008 11:19 AM

>>"Islam forbids depictions of the prophet Muhammad"?

Posted by: beachhutman at August 20, 2008 11:28 AM

>>"Islam forbids depictions of the prophet Muhammad"?

Posted by: beachhutman at August 20, 2008 11:29 AM

Sorry, inadvertant HTML. The rest of the comment was

As is pointed out in the excellent "What the west needs to know about Islam", it is specifically permitted under Islam to lie, where that lie serves the purposes of the "Religion of Peace". So naturally, the claim that images are forbidden was never made, you must be mistaken, you misinterpreted it,or if it was made, was entirely excusable - for a Muslim.

Posted by: beachhutman at August 20, 2008 11:31 AM

A little off topic, but speaking of cartoon rage again, and in light of Random House's decision to buckle under to possible threats of violence, it seems a good time to review an article by Sajjad Khan in The American Muslim:

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/print/cartoons_voltaire_and_the_non_clash_of_civilisations/

He is right when he argues that there is no clash if one side is unwilling to defend itself. It reminds me of a line from T.R. Fehrenbach:

“…some American mothers had given their sons everything in the world, except a belief in themselves, their culture, and their manhood. They had, some of them, sent their sons out into a world with tigers without telling them that there were tigers, and with no moral armament.” -This Kind of War, 1963

Posted by: thiskindofwar at August 20, 2008 11:51 AM

Are they allowed to use "acrylic"??? Did they have "acrylic" in Mo's time?? Oh they probably invented it then, right? /sarc off

Posted by: gymgal at August 20, 2008 12:15 PM

My favorite islamic image is the one where that jackass working at the iranian nuclear facility pulls the lid off that thing and a flame shoots out about 5 feet and almost burns his face off.

Put that on a postage stamp you dirty son of a bitches.

JLP

Posted by: John Lee Pedimore at August 20, 2008 12:42 PM

Seems very much on-topic, thiskindofwar. Thx.

Posted by: undaunted at August 20, 2008 1:04 PM

Why don't they do a stencil kit of Mo? I remember when I was a kid, you used to get them in cereal packets. Pencil through the blank bits, rotate 90 degrees, do the same again...after 360 degrees you'd have a picture of a cow or something.

Can I claim royalties for my idea?

Posted by: Celsius at August 20, 2008 1:06 PM

Where are the blood stains on his beard, and the bloodly sword between his teeth?

Posted by: champ at August 20, 2008 1:07 PM

"When does the "largest miniature painting" become the smallest regular painting?"

Kinda like "jumbo shrimp" or "moderate Muslim" or "peaceful Islam" or "acrylic art"

Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 20, 2008 1:14 PM

"....depict Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) sitting on a horse and three angels whirling around him...."

Correction, I believe that those were demons whirling around Mohammad (blood be upon him), the same demons that Mohammad feared he was possessed by that drove him to attempt suicide. Angels? I don't think so.

Posted by: champ at August 20, 2008 1:36 PM

So naturally, the claim that images are forbidden was never made, you must be mistaken, you misinterpreted it,or if it was made, was entirely excusable - for a Muslim.
Posted by: beachhutman

You sound unsure...

If that's the case, why are there not images of Mohammad all over the place?

Posted by: duh_swami at August 20, 2008 2:38 PM

Personally, I woulda use watercolors. Less mess.

Posted by: Eversor at August 20, 2008 3:25 PM

So naturally, the claim that images are forbidden was never made, you must be mistaken, you misinterpreted it,or if it was made, was entirely excusable - for a Muslim.
Posted by: beachhutman

You sound unsure...

If that's the case, why are there not images of Mohammad all over the place?

Posted by: duh_swami

One possibility: pictures are forbidden in Islam and so there aren't enough Islamic artists. Any picture of Mohammed by a non-Muslim would be deemed disrespectful - which is why they went ape over the cartoons. So "Islam forbids depictions of the prophet Muhammad" that are not drawn in complete awe and reverence by a Muslim. And since Islam forbids art, there aren't any Muslim artists. A nice circular argument.

Second option: the shia (apostates!) don't mind pictures but the wahhabists do and the Sunnis are eighty percent (thereabout) of Islam. The Wahhabists are so afraid of material objects they've even taken to wiping out homes where Mohammed might have stayed or the neighborhoods where he lived, lest they become shrines. Mecca has been pretty much scrubbed clean of all its history, in the name of islamic purity.

Posted by: PMK at August 20, 2008 4:36 PM

The 32-year-old artist has used 70 acrylic colors to depict Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) sitting on a horse and three angels whirling around him....

70 colors, one for each virgin? Or is that 72?

PBUH = preverted b****rd unto hell

Posted by: Bigfoot at August 20, 2008 4:41 PM

Where can we see this image?

Posted by: calatrava at August 20, 2008 4:58 PM

I looked at the first set of images on the site posted by Mackie (above - thank you, Mackie), and I am finding that so far the only images of women are where they are being tortured in various, specific manners for specific crimes, except for one small image of Mo's mother.

It has been said that the art of a culture reflects its society. That certainly seems evident here, if one can call it "art."

Posted by: charlie at August 20, 2008 5:27 PM

"Where can we see this image?"
Posted by: calatrava

Yes, where is it?

Posted by: Eastview at August 20, 2008 8:07 PM

I too have done a search and cannot locate a picture

What is the use of announcing it without a picture?

-

Posted by: Joe98 at August 20, 2008 9:05 PM

I'm not that surprised.

V S Naipaul in 'among the believers' describes Iranian revolutionary poster art - over the top propaganda stuff, aimed straight at the emotions, huge doe-eyed faces with tears rolling down cheeks, worse than the very worst Catholic or Soviet kitsch one could imagine.

Marjane Satrapi's 'Persepolis' also makes it pretty clear that propaganda art was used in Khomeini's Iran.

As Mr Spencer said above, the Shi'ites didn't forbid pictures of Mohammed and they seem to have been reasonably lax about other possibilities as well. In other words: 'Persia' forcing its way up from under 'Islam', like grass through concrete.

I am convinced that if, per miraculum, Persia were to be liberated from Islam and became a mix of secular, Christian and Zoroastrian, Persian Christian art would be something to behold. The stuff that was bad would be very, very bad...but the stuff that was good, would be glorious.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 20, 2008 11:00 PM

Angels? I don't think so.

Posted by: champ at August 20, 2008 1:36 PM

I believe the angel Mo claimed to see was an "angel of light." That's Lucifer. I.e., a fallen angel. Now, that makes perfect sense!

Posted by: darcy at August 20, 2008 11:45 PM

The Wahhabists are so afraid of material objects they've even taken to wiping out homes where Mohammed might have stayed or the neighborhoods where he lived, lest they become shrines. Mecca has been pretty much scrubbed clean of all its history, in the name of islamic purity.

By PMK, above.

Well, then they're pretty stupid. They missed that square-kilometer monstrosity dedicated to Satan right smack in the middle of Mecca.

And the zombies have the nerve to call us heathens!

Posted by: boneshack at August 21, 2008 12:00 AM

The "largest miniature painting"?

LOL

"The 32-year-old artist has used 70 acrylic colors to depict Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) sitting on a horse and three angels whirling around him...."

--

Are we sure he wasn't *behind* the horse.. one of the 72 virgin livestock he was getting.. IN HELL!

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 21, 2008 12:11 AM

To:Ahmedu....Ahmedidn....Chief Igit of the Iran
Re: Painting of ol Mo

You might want to check and make sure the background isn't upside down. Wouldn't want us infidels to get the wrong idea and realize that your version of Heaven is in actuality, Hell.

Sincerely,
KMBFHGA

Posted by: Kevin at August 21, 2008 12:13 AM

So, the image of good ol' Mo depicted in paintings, pictures, etc., being forbidden is just another Islamic lie...er...uh...excuse me....mistake?

Posted by: samhein at August 21, 2008 10:05 AM

So, when does the paint-by-numbers version come out?

Posted by: Abscedere at August 21, 2008 10:18 AM

Hi all,

The point made by Iran is not to paint muhammad as it is but a message embedded within it.

We know that Iran wants the destruction of Israel for the simple fact of keeping everyone else focused.

Iran has tried many ways to deny the jews legitimacy to Israel and now this technique, to draw a picture of muhammad going to jerusalem. What better way to convey a message than a picture.

Any scholar will know that the claim from islam about the 'furthers mosque' happened after he died and claimed by his followers, not by muhammad, and while he did mention about it before, it was a comparison of the 'closest mosque' and a mosque slightly further where he constantly use while away.

So, technically, Jerusalem is not in this story. Muslims claim of this just a pretext to conquer this place, Like every other claim they have.

It is interesting to see how Israel reacts to this.

Posted by: tjwork at August 21, 2008 11:00 AM

Samhein wrote:

So, the image of good ol' Mo depicted in paintings, pictures, etc., being forbidden is just another Islamic lie...er...uh...excuse me....mistake?
.................................

It's a bit more complicated than that. I hope no one minds me re-posting part of a comment I made awhile ago:

"Many pre-Islamic societies in the Arabian peninsula had absolute or partial bans on images.

When Islamic hordes conquered Anatolia, Persia, and parts of India, they were attempting to suppress cultures with rich traditions of picture making. I myself wrote a paper on Mughal miniatures (Muslim Indian book illustrations and miniature paintings) when I was at University. Some of them are quite beautiful.

There were depictions of landscapes, gardens, animals, people, and even "the Prophet Mohammed" in all these cultures. Sometimes he was shown with a full (imagined) face, sometimes with a white veil, and sometimes with an oddly blank visage.

These traditions lasted from Islamic conquest through the Middle Ages. Like other "Islamic golden ages", these represented in large part an earlier, pre-Islamic tradition, and were eventually stamped out by more hard-line Muslims."

This tradition was--not entirely, but largely--miniature work, hence the odd reference to artist Reza Najafi-Asl having created "the largest miniature painting".

There are lots of Shi'ite paintings of saints and "martyrs", and you find a lot of ugly political "art" throughout the Muslim world--huge, wall-sized images of "leaders", for instance.

But the Wahabbi model, backed by Saudi Arabia's da'wa, with its strict ban on images, is becoming stronger all the time.

In addition, there is that huge strain of both absolutism and wild inconsistancy in Islam, where a book such as "The Jewel of Medina" might be either wildly lauded or hysterically denounced. It's the same with this image of Muhammed--Iran considerers this painting of Mo a great achievement; the Taliban might well consider it a good excuse to wipe out Najafi-Asl and his entire family.

Posted by: gravenimage at August 21, 2008 3:56 PM

Calatrava wrote:

"Where can we see this image?"
............................

The article above says that the artist, Reza Najafi-Asl, created the painting in the style of Iran's master miniaturist Mahmoud Farshchian.

So, my guess is that this isn't an original work, but a blow-up recreation of this painting, the most famous image of Mo's "ascent to paradise":

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-03/miraj-mohammed-buraq.jpg

You can see the influence of pre-Islamic Persian art, the art of India and even China in this work.

Posted by: gravenimage at August 21, 2008 4:21 PM

Ok Gravenimage, if I zoom on on the pic you linked to I can see that Mo has no facial features, as you mentioned in your previous post. But why is the 'horse' depicted with a human head wearing a big cheesy grin?

And am I misreading this, or have the two angels in the bottom left of the picture just set fire to Mo? He seems to be burning quite nicely!

Posted by: Aardvark at August 21, 2008 5:27 PM