Why Is Mohammed Faceless?
Why Is Mohammed Faceless?
By: The Truth Detector
Never mind what they say, Idolatry or Monolatry; the fact is that
all gods have some representative pictures or statues of the holy
one, who is adored and revered by the follow-ers of the creed;
except of course the creed of the Arabs and blind non-Arab
followers.
Let us look at Christianity. The most visible are of course Jesus
and his mother, Virgin Mary. There are umpteen statues and
pictures of them all over the world. Since it is in the human
nature, the adoring people desire to see the adored to be one of
them; at least not too far removed as an alien.
Thus the same Jesus in Sweden has blond hair, blue eyes, a fine
nose, thin lips and a white skin. Now let us go to Africa. There
too many pray to Jesus. What does Jesus look like in Africa? He is
dark-skinned, has curly black hair, black eyes, a flat nose, thick
lips and so on. This transformation enables Jesus to be close to
those who pray before him. Jesus becomes one of them. No doubt,
the worshippers feel comfortable with their own kind of Jesus.
Now let us have a look at Buddha. Buddhism is a great religion
with many devoted fol-lowers. Buddhism was born many years before
Christianity and Mohammedanism. Buddha was the son of a Kshatriya
king of India. He was born in the State of Bihar. He looked like
an Indian prince. If one visits the numerous Buddhist temples (and
even Hindu temples, for Buddha is considered to be an incarnation
of the Hindu God Vishnu), one would find Buddha a handsome Hindu
man of north India. Tall, slender, with fair skin, a fine nose,
thin lips, black but not curly hair, and so on.
There are millions of practicing Buddhists in many countries where
people of Mongolian descent reside, such as in China, Japan, Korea
(South Korea has recently been largely
Christianized, which will no doubt eventually produce
Chinese-looking idols of Jesus there). Look at Tibet for instance.
Tibetan Buddhism is a special kind of Buddhism and there are many
statues of Buddha in Tibet as well as in China, Japan and many
other Asian countries, which the westerners steal and the
Mohammedans break. Do the idols of Buddha that the Asians worship,
look like the idols of Buddha wor-shipped in India? Not at all.
The Buddhas of the East look more Chinese than Indian. The Buddhas
there are short, fat and happy faced. They have slit eyes like the
Chinese and the transformation goes to prove the inherent tendency
in humans to worship a God who they can, however remotely,
identify with. Man and God come closer!
But such is NOT the case with Mohammedanism or Islam, as they call
it these days. Does it mean that no one has ever seen Mohammed,
ever? That cannot be true! Let us look at Mohammed as described by
Muhammad Husayn Haykal, well-known Egyptian scholar and writer, in
his book The Life of Muhammad, page 63. There, Haykal describes
the physical attributes of Mohammed thus: "...Muhammad was
handsome of face and of medium build, and neither conspicuously
tall nor inconspicuously short. He had a large head with very
black thick hair, wide forehead, heavy eyebrows, and large black
eyes with a slight redness on their sides and long eye-lashes to
add to their attractiveness. He had a fine nose, well spaced
teeth, a thick beard, a long handsome neck, wide chest and
shoul-ders, light colored skin, and thick palms and feet. He
walked resolutely with firm steps. His appearance was always one
of deep thought and contemplation. In his eyes there lurked the
authority of a commander of men..."
It is clear that there are enough elements here for a fairly
precise composite mental picture of Mohammed for his adorers. And
no doubt such a composite picture would be very pleasing to the
eyes of his followers. Then why did Mohammed, the Prophet, deny
them, his followers, this good fortune? What was the harm? That
alone would not make them sinful!
It is true, Mohammed was against idolatry; he had destroyed many
idols of other faiths. The Christians too did the same and then
in-stalled in the destroyed houses of worship of the vanquished
peoples, their own statues, not so much for idolatry as such but
as repre-sentatives of the God of Jesus, the eternal Father. Why
didn't the handsome Mohammed do the same? Here is a question for
which there is no easy answer.
But then for every phenomenon there is a reason and it has
intrigued human mind why indeed Mohammed didn't want any of his
own or his Allah's, physical attributes to be dis-played to his
followers! It should be borne in mind that the handsome Mohammed,
as described by Haykal, was a young man. Although chosen by
Khadija, he was not yet chosen by Allah to be His Prophet.
Becoming a Prophet is a long drawn out process. Gibril's approach
to Moham-med only started the process. There were many battles to
be fought. And in battles one does not win always; sometimes,
Mohammed lost. Then he surely had scars on his face. His wounds
were deliberately kept a secret. Descriptions of the cuts and
damages done to his body are not known. But it is reasonable to
imagine that the handsome Mohammed of the early days was no longer
all that handsome. He was aging too. Old men, are no longer
handsome!
So, it is assumed that Mohammed decided not to have his physical
attributes to be repro-duced to remind his followers how he looked
like when he had become the Prophet, already at an advanced age.
And so, in the end, it is believed that the idea of preservation
of the Prophet's own image, was finally abandoned, unlike the
pharaohs of Egypt, who mummified their bodies. It was not to
display their likenesses but to preserve the bodies and they were
not even objects of prayer. In the case of Mohammed also, the
ultimate object of prayer is Allah and not Mohammed. But whoever
has studied the Koran and the Hadis carefully, will dis-
cover that in Mohammedanism, Allah has a somewhat lower profile
than the Prophet. Mohammed is the one who decides, on the final
day of judgment (or qiyamat), who will and who will not, go to
jannat or heaven. Allah has no say in the matter. The Koran has
thus made it quite clear, unlike all other religions, that the
Prophet has a special place vis à vis God or Allah Himself.
It appears therefore that Mohammed wanted that no one, but no one,
could damage or insult him after his death, by disfiguring his
statues or images, if such statues or images were permitted to be
made and preserved after his death. After all, he himself had
destroyed many statues of others' Gods and objects of devotion;
there was no certainty that the same fate would not befall his
statues too.
That explains, in short, the underlying reason for Mohammedanism
not having any statue or idol, even pictures. Even his burial
place is unknown. Later, much later, the idea of geometrical
pictures came to abound in Mohammedanic sketches and pictures.
That was because Mohammed's followers eventually dis-covered that
sketches and pictures permitted human mind to focus their thoughts
more pre-cisely and accurately. But then again, when we come to
think of pictures of men and animals, as they are reproduced in
books and magazines today, such representations are nothing but a
conglomeration of dots and lines, which when put together in a
certain fashion, make the final product look like a picture. The
whole thing is representation!
Mohammed could not read, had no education. He was no Aristotle. It
is probable that if Mohammed had been educated, he might have
permitted such reproductions to be made. But his followers, the
camel drivers, are so afraid of doing anything original, that they
have literally frozen the creed. Mohammedanism forbids even
drawing of birds and animals, not to speak of men and women. How
stupid can one be? Here is a creed that has willingly put itself
in a blind lane. Like gold fish, it is doomed to swim for ever in
the same bowl. [
If
you enjoyed this article, please visit: http://www.hinduunity.org
|
