Secondly, what is behind the idea that pictures are now allowed of other people in Islam but still forbidded of any prophet?

the fact that Muslims do take pictures . They appear on Tv .they are pictures of people living now .We cannot create a picture of someone we have never seen .The Prophet told his companions he resembles Abraham .he wasnt telling them to create an image of him in their minds ,because they have also never seen Abraham. So teee me why must we be creating Images when we do not know how our Prophet looked liked?

Thirdly, one must not miss the real issue here: it is not about the pictures or images of any prophets; but rather about the pictures of ANY human being or animals. To narrow it down to just about "prophets" is to circumvent the hadiths.

we are muslims but we are also humans . the world is changing and so are times .muslims do take pictures now .but i have never once seen a picture of any Prophet .

Can you please explain why Muhammad did not denounce whoever showed him Aisha's picture (which the same Muhammad "uncovered"?? Or why he did not threaten the person with the severest punishment for having shown him Aisha's picture?? What is wrong here in real life is wrong in one's dreams. If it is wrong to steal or commit adultery in real life, then dreaming about them doesn't make them any less a serious matter.

you answered urself on this one

Narrated 'Aisha: That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice
in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me).
'This is your wife.'When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said,
'If this is from Allah, it will be done"

So, what's the difference between painting a picture in your mind, then projecting that mental picture into someone else's mind?

this is funny

how can you paint a picture in ur mind of someone you have never seen?

.

@mukina2,

mukina2:

the fact that Muslims do take pictures . They appear on Tv .they are pictures of people living now .We cannot create a picture of someone we have never seen .The Prophet told his companions he resembles Abraham .he wasnt telling them to create an image of him in their minds ,because they have also never seen Abraham. So teee me why must we be creating Images when we do not know how our Prophet looked liked?

You're beginning to be as predictable as babs787.

First, I noted that the pictures or artistic impressions of any person at all - Biblical or Qur'anic - are not to be fior worship. 

Anyhow, it's like reharshing the same set of arguments again. Please mukina2, show me just 1 verse in the Hadith where the reason for taking pictures is as you stated: "they are pictures of people living now"! On the contrary, I've offered the reason stated in the Hadith for the injunction against any pictures (whether of human beings or animals) - and it has nothing to do with whether or not the people were living in the present or the past! Let me remind you once again of a few:

Narrated Abu Talha: I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter
a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being
or an animal)."
-----------------------------------------------
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Num. 448).

Infact, so that we don't argue in a circle, could you please provide me with the texts in the hadiths where concessions were given for some types of pictures of human beings (dead or alive). That is, is it stated anywhere that Muslims are permitted to take pictures of themselves (or "make" pictures) of any human being (except [/b]prophets[/b])??

The prohibition of picture in Islam has nothing to do with whether or not the people being pictured are alive or dead. There's just no sort of pictures permitted by Muhammad. 

mukina2:

we are muslims but we are also humans . the world is changing and so are times .muslims do take pictures now .but i have never once seen a picture of any Prophet .

Of course, Muslims take pictures now - and indeed they should! 

However, change or not, do you think Muhammad would have relaxed his prohibition against pictures of any kind - whether of human beings or animals??

mukina2:

you answered yourself  on this one

Narrated 'Aisha: That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice
      in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me).
      'This is your wife.'When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said,
      'If this is from Allah, it will be done"

That does not answer my question; and if anything, it contradicts Muhammad's prohibition. The hadiths I already gave prohibited any kind of pictures without room for any concession. If there's not even one case for any type of pictures in the Hadiths, then saying that the last line above answers my question is simply saying that Muhammad made laws for others that he himself was unable to keep.

If you wonder at this, I could serve you some instances - and they are many. _{That would be after this guy here let me rest!} 

mukina2:

how can you paint  a picture in your mind of someone you  have never seen?

That should make us all wonder at what Muhammad was trying to do when he told his companions that he resembled Abraham more than anyone else. had they seen Abraham? Then what was Muhammad trying to inject into the minds of his listeners? 

so what is your point?are you now saying that Jesus Christ never exist or what?if you think you can use this stupid issue to make us renounce our faith in Christ you,ve got another think coming,NOTHING in the world can make us doubt the existence of Christ and what we read about him in the bible,foto or no foto our faith in Christ is UNSHAKEN and we are proud to be FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST,join us if you want or forever remain in YOUR TOTAL DARKNESS

There is nowhere in either the Qur'an or Hadith where the prohibition against making pictures was relaxed, abrogated, or annulled. Muhammad's prohibitions against pictures (of human beings or animals) leaves no room for the slightest concession.

If all Muslims are to heed the warning of Muhammad, then there would be no pictures, no cameras/ photographers, no painters/paintings, no newpapers photos, no TV programmes with any human face or animal imagery, . . . and the tourist industry in the Islamic world would perhaps be faceless.

The one question then would be: what kind of world would we have been living in with no pictures of any kind??

Having said all that,we love the moderates.
Let them take all the pictures they want.
It is my prayers that no one follows Mohammeds lifestyle and commands to the T

The fact that most of them do not,is the reason many Muslims are peaceful.
Back in Mohammeds days,someone like our dear Muslim sister would have been lashed with 1000 strokes of the cain for chatting with a man innocently,no strings attached.

babyosisi:

Back in Mohammeds days,someone like our dear Muslim sister would have been lashed with 1000 strokes of the cain for chatting with a man innocently,no strings attached.

I was coming to that, but there.

mohammed no take foto during his time because him NO FINE,simple.Monkey no fine but him KHADIJAT like am

may allah fo give you for what you just said amin.

would this be an issue if they had cameras in those days?

thesilent1:

would this be an issue if they had cameras in those days?

It definitely would!

Back in Muhammad's day, there were artists - painters, sculptors, graphic artists, etc. The bottomline is that Muhammad forbade ALL types of pictures of human beings and animals - whether they were dead or not; or whether they were those of prophets or paupers.

@mukina, and other muslims on this thread:

Mukina, you made a statement that went something like this:

"that's funny. How can you create a picture/artistic impression of someone you've never met?"

Let me let you in on something: i'm an artist. Over the years, I do mostly imaginative composition. I have also made artistic impressions of Jesus based on the mental pictures i have of him which are in turn based on how i perceive Jews back then would look like.

Pictures of Jesus and other "prophets" are just what they are: artistic impressions. Just an artist expressing what he/she feels Jesus would or could look like. It(the pictures) doesn't state that this is Jesus, it's just self- expression at work.

So do away with that mindset that artistic pictures of Jesus and other prophets state that they are truly J.C and the prophets.

Having said this, such pictures are by no means ridiculing JC and other prophets, muslims shouldn't see pictures of those they revere in a bad light, rather they should see it as a welcomed development and something positive the artist is doing. Take it from me mukina, i'm an artist and i know what goes in my mind when i sketch pictures of Jesus. I do not want to ridicule him or undermine him in any sort of way. Rather it is only the inquisitive and curious mind of an artist at work.

Another point is that none of the pictures or paintings that Muhammad prohibited were purposely made for worship. We should constantly keep in mind that it was about HUMAN BEINGS and ANIMALS that he made those prohibitions.

For those who are arguing that the prohibitions were only for prophets, what has animals got to do with prophets??

@ Telly B:

thanks for adding that.

@ mukina:

let me take this issue a lil' bit further and a bit personal. When i sketch something or someone whom i've never seen e.g. Jesus, as an artist i'm always curious and inquisitive. The question in my mind is: what did he look like? What height was he? What weight? What length of hair did he have? My mind forms mental pictures of his physical features according to what i think or perceive he'd be like. In that same way, liken it to those artists that sketch JC and the prophets then you'll get the picture.

@Gwaine
thats right

Revelation 1:14-15 describes Jesus’ hair texture which is like lamb’s wool as well as in 1 Corinthians 11:14 where it states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. This goes to show you that the image of Jesus with long hair could not be the true image of the true Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Horus:

This goes to show you that the image of Jesus with long hair could not be the true image of the true Son of God, Jesus Christ.

It is enough that you confessed that and acknowledged Him as "the true Son of God, Jesus Christ". After that, it does not really matter that you come back to deny your confession and seek to misrepresent Him by offering another 'Jesus'.

What you next should understand is that the Book of Revelation was given in symbolic language; and the references you're quoting were not meant to be taken literally.

What you next should understand is that the Book of Revelation was given in symbolic language; and the references you're quoting were not meant to be taken literally.

oh no, i am sure i read somewhere that it is REAL lamb's wool that was a hair piece

oh no, i am sure i read somewhere that it is REAL lamb's wool that was a hair piece

EXACT,and Caucasians do not have hair texture which is like lamb’s wool.
Only blacks peoples have hair texture which is like lamb wool;Jesus (Real name Yashua) was Black.

Horus:

Jesus (Real name Yashua) was Black.

White or Black, Jesus Christ was crucified and died for my sins; He rose again from the dead, and I rejoice that He loves every person regardless of skin colour!

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

horus has finally said what i suspected all along, your view is racist and is born out of you thinking that Jesus being black somehow changes things and makes it right.

now, if you were told the same stories in the bible but told that all the characters were black; would this change anything for you?

White or Black, Jesus Christ was crucified and died for my sins; He rose again from the dead, and I rejoice that He loves every person regardless of skin colour!

the Topic here is:One Question For All Christians.
And this question is related to the physical appearence of Yashua (Jesus).
Here again,PLEASE GO TO READ 1 Corinthians 11:14 where it states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. This goes to show you that the image of Jesus with long hair could not be the true image of the true Son of God, Jesus Christ who is in Fact Yashua a Black man.



The Ethiopian-Egyptian Mother (St. Maryum Sion) and Child (The Black Messiah) is the
Original Black Madonna and Child.

you mean the same mother and child symbol used by sun and pagan worshippers long before Christ?

horus, do you think being a RASTA is the right way?!

horus has finally said what i suspected all along, your view is racist and is born out of you thinking that Jesus being black somehow changes things and makes it right.

now, if you were told the same stories in the bible but told that all the characters were black; would this change anything for you?

Countries Where The original and Real Black Madonna is worshiped:
 
Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil,
Canada, Costa Rica,
Czechoslovakia, Ecuador,
Ethiopia-Egypt (home of original
Black Virgin), England, France
(who has more Black Virgin
sites than any other country),
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, The
Netherlands, The Phillipines,
Poland, Portugal (the slave
capital of the world), Romania,
Russia, Spain, Switzerland,
Turkey, USA.
Now question for all Chirstians:Do all this Millions of people who worship The original and Real Black Madonna (oldest representation on earth) are RACIST.

Horus:

the Topic here is:One Question For All Christians.
And this question is related to the physical appearence of Yashua (Jesus).
Here again,PLEASE GO TO READ 1 Corinthians 11:14 where it states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. This goes to show you that the image of Jesus with long hair could not be the true image of the true Son of God, Jesus Christ who is in Fact Yashua a Black man.

Again my answer is:

White or Black, Jesus Christ was crucified and died for my sins; He rose again from the dead, and I rejoice that He loves every person regardless of skin colour!

As long as you have confessed Him as the true Son of God is enough for me; and that is why I rejoice that Jesus Christ does not care what skin colour we are before we can trust in Him for God's blessings. I am no worshipper of any Madonna - white, blue, black or pink.

the comment is to you and not them. i have not heard them speak but i have heard you

horus, do you think being a RASTA is the right way?!

The Rastafarian organisation is recent,(less than 70 years old) but The original and Real Black Madonna IS NEAR 2000 year old.You are mixing everything,so MILLION of worshiper of The original and Real Black Madonna are Rasta?? are you crazy??

Horus:

The Rastafarian organisation is recent,(less than 70 years old) but The original and Real Black Madonna IS NEAR 2000 year old.You are mixing everything,so MILLION of worshiper of The original and Real Black Madonna are Rasta?? are you crazy??

While no disrespect to Rastafarianism (I just knew that was where you were getting your doses from), it is NOT the same thing as reading issues with a balanced mind. If the idea behind your arguments was to call attention to Madonna worship by presenting a "black" Jesus, we can smile at that.

However, the Biblical Jesus Christ is NOT a racist Rastafarian. He loves people across all boundaries - whether they are WHITE or BLACK, Rastafari or Rosicrucian, or whoever else there may be.

Arguing perennially about a black 'Jesus' has not helped those who vend the racist undertones in their often baseless arguments; especially so because they do not carefully examine issues and get their facst right before opening their mouth.

Jesus is NOT inclined to racism or the Rastafari movement. It is easy to denounce extreme groups like the KKK; but doing so does not make the Rastafari racist tendencies any better either.

telly b, my thoughts eaxctly. i had the inclination that Horus was coming from a "black" point of view that sees itself as victims but for how long

get over it and "CLAIM" back the knowledge that we "gave" to them, right?!?!

thesilent1:

get over it and "CLAIM" back the knowledge that we "gave" to them, right?!?!

Another toast, my guy!!




_{Got to run to work briefly now. Catch y'all later.}

(I just knew that was where you were getting your doses from), it is NOT the same thing as reading issues with a balanced mind. If the idea behind your arguments was to call attention to Madonna worship by presenting a "black" Jesus, we can smile at that.

No,here again The original Black Madonna is the oldest representation of Madonna on earth and have NO CONNECTION with Rasta even if rastafarians  worship her also.It is not question of arguments it is question of dealing with Facts.
After these subliminal pictures of a white Jesus have been stamped in the minds of our children by Hollywood, we have to make this a full time effort to explain what Jesus looked like and we must all agree on one story and one picture. As it stands now whenever our children see a black picture or drawing of Christ they are forced to say, “look mommy a black Jesus.” That is because in their sub-conscious mind Jesus is white. It is the same as a black Santa Claus.If you go to Vatican you might realise that the Pope is worshiping this same Black Original Madonna.She is Know Worldwide to be the original.The only place in the world where The Black Original Madonna is not accepted and some time unknow is in AFRICA,because if you talk about her they call you a racist;this is ridiculous because there is some caucasians who have picture of this Madonna on the wall of their owns home because they know the Facts about her.France is the country in the world where you will find more Black Madonna worshiper,so why in Africa if you talk about her they call you racist and say that you hate whites??I just cannot understand.

@Horus,

While still waiting for a friend to pick me up, let me rush this response:

#1. I may have been wrong with the inference to you about the Rastafari connection. Please forgive me on that. The reason why I made that faulty inference earlier was because I had read so much about them, and most of your posts are typically Rastafari-flavoured; not to mention the fact that the site from where you quoted the article in the other locked thread was from a Rastafari website!

#2. That said, I must remark yet again that you're basing your judgements of a black 'Jesus' on issues that have not basis other than the slants of people who wish them so - especially the Rastafarians. When I return from work later today, I'll offer you the links upon request, just to go through and convince yourself about my persuasions.

#3. Please seek to answer this question for yourself (you don't have to answer on the Forum if you don't want to):

         Are Jews 'BLACKS' - how "black" must the Jews be to qualify Jesus as "black"??

In other words, where do you draw the lines between who is "WHITE" and who is "BLACK"??

Besides, this again would lead to many other questions:


         # why the push so much for the racist undertones in your posts?

         # how does the picture of a "black" Jesus make you a better person than if he were
            of another skin colour?

         # does your salvation depend on skin colour?

         # if what it takes to be saved is being committed to a "black" Jesus,
            where does this take you beyond your arguments?

         # why is it that in all your arguments, you have sought only to make assertions
            that have no balanced, objective reference of FACTS - the same FACTS you've
            been asking and cannot produce in your debates??


Ahh - there. My pal is here. Where I get back in the evening, I'll come ask a few more.

Cheers - and be more broad minded than then "black thing".