Sun 6th November 2011, 7:36pm
QUOTE(anthony @ Sun 6th November 2011, 12:10pm)
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sat 5th November 2011, 6:11pm)
The article on Jesus is consistent with how Jesus is portrayed in Christian art, while the article on Muhammad is inconsistent with the way Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic art. How is that a good thing?
Well, is the Christian art portrayal of Jesus more accurate than the Islamic art portrayal of Muhammad?
Yes, in my view, because the Islamic art shown is not as representative. While Christians would have no trouble identifying with the imagery shown in the Jesus article, the same is not true for muslims looking at the Muhammad article.
If you look at the Arabic
Muhammad article, it features a lot of relevant iconic imagery that the English one
, with its focus on figurative depictions, neglected. Unlike churches, mosques are overwhelmingly decorated with calligraphy and abstract art, not figurative images.
Some editors have pointed out that the Farsi
article also contains miniatures of Muhammad. That's true, but then many of these miniatures are Persian. Iran is a Shiite country. Even nowadays, despite being an Islamic Republic, Iran has no problem with images of Muhammad, to the extent that you can buy Muhammad postcards there. See for example the story on the Muhammad "poster boy" image
that's also shown in the Farsi article.
It's interesting to compare Iran, as an Islamic Republic, to Turkey in that regard. The Turkish
article does not contain any images of Muhammad, even though Turkey is a truly secular country. But religiously, its population is predominantly Sunni. There are no Muhammad images in the Indonesian
article either; again, Indonesia is a multicultural and multireligious state, but the overwhelming majority are Sunnis. Sunnis vastly outnumber Shiites worldwide.