Pretty much everything in that article after this sentence is redundant:The Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry (5:87–92, 21:51–52).
Everything else is down to interpretation. Modern interpretation is no less valid than ancient interpretation.
(Everything else is down to interpretation. Modern interpretation is no less valid than ancient interpretation.
Mu Dinofiddler,
Thu 6 Dec 2012, 16:55,
archived)
Wait a minute, I don't actually care.It's all nonsense anyway.
( Mu Dinofiddler,
Thu 6 Dec 2012, 16:57,
archived)
Depends what the original text actually translates asfor whether it's down to interpretation or not.
(
boris the spider,
Thu 6 Dec 2012, 16:58,
archived)
That's the thing with the Qur'an, it IS the original text.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Thu 6 Dec 2012, 17:00,
archived)
there is some doubt about that,although I wouldn't want to publicly doubt it myself.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Thu 6 Dec 2012, 17:04,
archived)
There are a lot of Hadith lower down,which the Sunnis take quite seriously. Representative art has been prohibited by some of the stricter sects, and still is.
Modern interpretation isn't necessarily any more valid than ancient interpretation, either. Well I'm no Muslim scholar so I can't comment on the validity of either.
(Modern interpretation isn't necessarily any more valid than ancient interpretation, either. Well I'm no Muslim scholar so I can't comment on the validity of either.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Thu 6 Dec 2012, 17:00,
archived)