Sunni Sister has an interesting entry on the pictures we are seeing on the news lately. I had comments to post, but due to content length limitations I’ve decided to put an entry here.
I understand where Sister Saraji is coming from, and since the public has generally gotten the ‘gist’ of the pictures I have not been posting to links with pictures on them. But, I am curious as to the analogy between these images and pornography, and the Islamic reasons as to not distribute them. If Islamically distribution of such pictures for education is forbidden due to any regulations over ‘pornography’, then such distribution and viewing would have been forbidden from the outset. I believe the reasons for stopping distribution are probably more complex than that.
If a Muslimah would have been the sole keeper of these pictures, should she have destroyed them as forbidden material for her personally rather than turn them as proof of abuse to the public and authorities? Without these images would there have even been any changes in the prisons of Iraq? If you look at the timeline, reports and bureaucracy were underway for some time, but it was not until these pictures were released that changes took place.
These images seem to have been the means of the fullfillment of prisoners tears, their cries, and their pleas with Allah, which finally allowed hundreds of prisoners to be released and the abuse to (inshah’Allah) end.
There is a distinction between pornography with an intent to arouse and the images we are talking about.
The purpose of such pictures has been fulfilled, and any desire to distribute them from this point on is based off of misguided intentions. Therefore, I do agree with Saraji’s conclusion that they should not be distributed on Islamic websites. Since authorities have now finally been involved and the pressure is upon them to come to some resolution, there can be nothing gained by allowing the public to continuously view these pictures.
I think moral human beings were able to acknowledge the images while also respecting the dignity of the men involved.
I find this excerpt interesting from the news:
—-
The Vatican newspaper, L?Osservatore Romano, criticized what it called a Pentagon cover-up and took sharp aim at the photograph of a soldier holding a prisoner by a leash. The paper said the soldier?s goal was clearly to dehumanize the prisoner, but the image achieved the opposite effect.
?On the contrary, it is the torturer who with her leash stifles within herself any residue of humanity,? it said.
—-
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
Salaam ‘Alaikum
The photos being promoted by Islam Online and other sites *are* pornography and were photographed with the intent to arouse people who purchased or looked at them. In add’n, there is the issue of Muslims willing to believe *anything* that makes Americans look bad, whether it’s true or not.
The photos of the men taken at Abu Ghraib were taken, in part at least, to further humiliate and degrade those men in a sexual manner. When I said that people should not be looking at them, I was talking about you, me, and Joe Muslim. I *never* said that they should not be used as evidence against the criminals by the proper authorities, but Muslims seem to believe we’re doing each other a favor by telling each other, “Hey, look at this!”
We’re not the military, we’re not the investigators. The media is only blurring out the smallest part of their genitals. Islamically, their awrah (navel to knee) is still uncovered. How can anyone say it’s okay to look at that? There’s nothing in Islam that says it’s okay to look at a man’s awrah if you’re not getting aroused by it.
What is being exposed of those men is meant for their wives only, not me, not you, not anyone else. If the pictures were of Muslim women with only the areola and the area b/t their legs blurred, no one in their right mind would say it’s okay for people to look at and pass them around.
Finally, this is not my opinion, but what I learned from the scholars, particularly Sh. Hamza, esp. the part about preserving the dignity of other Muslims.
as-salamu’alaikum,
I think we agree on the first point which is against pictures which are intended to arouse.
And I do understand that you did mean that “Joe Muslim” shouldn’t be viewing the pictures of Abu Ghraib.
You also said, “There’s nothing in Islam that says it’s okay to look at a man’s awrah if you’re not getting aroused by it.”
This is actually the only concern I had with your post. Saying that certain things are un-Islamic without exception seems too absolute to me.
I think that saying something is part or not part of Islam is dangerous, since it is so absolute. Such things can be taken to deep extremes. Let us assume everyone involved was Muslim. If it’s not allowed for me, is it allowed for him, because he’s a ‘congressman’? Is it allowed for me once, as long as I look away, but allowed for a judge repeatedly? Is it allowed for the graphic artist who is blurring or blacking out the pictures? I’m not sure the answer is so clear cut.
Maybe it is a question for Sidi Faraz at Sunnipath… but I think this may be a clear case of where actions would be judged by intention.
My point is that there are exceptions to each rule, and the question I’m raising is whether the intial display of such atrocities to the public fell under an exception of ‘alerting to atrocities’ rather than a rule against pornography.
Yes, more could have / should have been covered.
I think we both agree what the media and Muslims are doing now is excessive and not beneficial to anyone.
More probably could have been covered, but bear in mind that not only Muslims need to be offended and alerted in order for these images to take hold and make a difference. It is unfortunate it is this way, but you must fight within the guidelines of your society if you wish to have an impact. It will prove to be far more fruitful. Changing it is another issue, and is something that should be handled in parallel with the immediate needs.
Yursil as you know I am not a religious man but I hold your beliefs in very high regard. I am not inherently offended by the nakedness of the prisoners, but the shock factor is important in order to bring these atrocities to justice.
Without the exposure of just how bad it was, things wouldn’t have been handled to the degree they need to be.
I do also concur that they have served there purpose. Any further distribution of them, religious or not, is morally corrupt.
Viewing others pain for arousal is inherently wrong, and is undeniable regardless of American, Muslim, Christian ideologies!
I must admit I’m very disheartened by the apparent separation in UmmZaid post of Muslims and Americans, maybe I’m reading it wrong but it causes deep sadness.
Otherwise I’m very much on the same page. Yursil we will have to talk tomorrow about what some of the religious specific terminology means, as usual my interest is piqued.
As always thanks for sharing, and a place to discuss such important issues. I hope there is a place for a sensitive atheist like me =]
Sure we’ll talk tomorrow
Saraji, I hope I didn’t upset you, that was not my intention! I may just be nit-picking at a specific point, but I agree overall with your post.