On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:44 PM, The Mangoe the.mangoe@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