On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As a rule, for Christian images we have had historical
depictions from
various eras and traditions, which generally do a good job of
illustrating the varieties and development of such images. An obvious
problem with the Islamic articles is that we need corresponding images
to tell the truth about the development and variety of prohibitions
against images. I personally think that the "western depictions"
section of the "depictions" article could be dispensed with, but
there's room for disagreement there. Otherwise the use of images of
Mohammad seem relevant and helpful.
Even in the "Christian West", Muhammad still makes the short list of
"most influential people". It may be worth noting that apart from
being a prophet, he was also the founder of one of the most
influential empires in western history, a major lawgiver and the like.
If nobody had ever converted to Islam, Muhammad might fall from his
current position in the top ... five, say ... most important people in
history to a position like 30th or something, but his contributions to
Islam are not nearly the sum total of his historical importance.
Muhammad is not fictional, he's not a fairy tale Muslims parents tell
their kids. He doesn't belong to Islam the way that Loki belongs to
Norse Traditional Religion.
Cheers
WilyD