I’ve been approached by a few people for thoughts and discussion about a petition going around regarding the Wikipedia entry on the Prophet (Sallahu’alaihiwassalam). I did scan the article on Wikipedia, and of course it has numerous mistakes, but certainly not the level that requires such a blunt response against, of all things in the article, the pictures.

Only two ancient illustrations on the article are showing something supposedly representing the Prophet’s (S) face. The rest of the illustrations of the Prophet (S) are from Sunni artists, who were careful about concealing the Prophet’s (S) face and even hands.

The flattened look, the lack of perspective and depth of the artists of the centuries long past was quite intentional. The ulema of the time understood that the art was not intended to be realistic, not approach anything akin to an idol, nor should it be any aggression against Allah’s authority as the Creator. This avoidance of true realism is the reason why traditional Islamic art was based in calligraphy (a calligraphic lion, bird, etc are all part of the tradition) or the Ottoman/Persian miniature style.

It is from the illustrated text “Seyr-i Nabi” that the first picture was taken for the Wikipedia article.

It is impossible to find one ’scholar’ who criticized Sultan Murad III, the Shaikh ul Islam of the time, or other religious authorities for ordering the illustration of Seyr-i Nabi, the authoritative work of Seerat in Ottoman times. The work which Seyr-i Nabi is based from has been used in contemporary Seerah’s including Martin Ling’s popular “Muhummad”.

For those who have an issue with how 13th and 15th century artists could represent the Prophet (S) in the first place, covered or not, in the scenes and situations of his life, then one only has to think about the very well established fact that the Prophet (S) spoke about being seen in dreams:

“He who sees me in a dream has certainly seen me, because Satan can not take my form.”
(Bukhari, Muslim)

As this text and other art was widely known and accepted well until the actual fitnah of disunity and the abandonment of Muslims from the Khalipha of Islam for western imitation, I see no reason why we are so quick to judge this Seerat book, the pictures within it, or its free distribution of one of its pages on Wikipedia. Rather I find the exception that people take to this a representation of a revisionist mentality towards Islam.

Illustrated Seerat books like this are still housed in Topkapi palace in Istanbul, along with the Prophet’s (S) turban and other artifacts representing Islam.

If there is an particular picture the petitioners have an issue with, then it would be better to address it specifically and with proper reason and context. Personally I take issue with the attempt to wipe out Seyr-i Nabi from the history books.

This should be recognized as a more sectarian issue regarding particulars of Islamic art rather than some broad affront against Muslims.