Isn't that the same tenet, it's just interpreted differently? That is Christians historically treating it as idols dedicated to other deities, with inconsistent although not completely absent application to Christian figures (like IIRC one Protestant grievance against Catholics had to do with their use of idols, particularly idols of saints).
It also has to be said that Islam is not unique nor monolithic in terms of how rigidly its followers adhere to its tenets nor even what those tenets are assumed to mean, and historically Muslim depictions of Muhammad in religious art did happen and were accepted in some places and at some times. The modern extremeness of the issue is a combination of the unusually hardline and extreme interpretation pushed by Saudi Arabia - which US intelligence has helped it export globally because salafist militants both tend to do the sort of reactionary violence that furthers American interests and have provided a casual pretext for the US to roll in and start occupying whomever it pleases whenever it pleases - and the fact that it's basically just a racist airhorn used by blowhards who want to say "I hate you and hold you in complete contempt, so I'm publicly thumbing my nose at you and daring you to try something" in a way that invites retaliation from aggrieved and impulsive young men who already feel disaffected and targeted by racism.
This is the full picture, thank you for elaborating
It's important to note that while Christians largely interpret the iconoclasm differently, they do still have hard and fast rules that clash with contemporary culture, and are cited by extremists as justification for acts of terror and murder. The fact that those extremists are largely seen as aberrations while Muslim extremists are seen as inherent to the faith is the result of islamophobic bigotry
This is only tangentially related, but now I'm imagining a bunch of America first chuds assaulting people who wear American flag print clothing bacause it's a flag code violation.
I'm pretty sure you can find historical examples of paintings of Muhammad online like right now. There's also plenty that just hide his face behind a ball of light surrounded by his companions who all look the same so it's fair to guess what the artist would have put there if not for the iconoclasm.
A lot of the paintings are really cool. There's been debate and speculation among art historians about Islamic art influencing the Renaissance. Different painting techniques could have originated in the Middle East before getting exported back to Europe during the Crusades.
One piece of evidence for this is with etching. The etching of metal was first used by Arabs to mark their equipment so if they died, their stuff could be taken back to their families. Europeans learned of this technique and applied it to metal plates. Copper is much more durable than woodblocks and you can make more copies before the master gets damaged or destroyed. This led to more effective printing because crews could work faster not worrying about damaging their tools.
Just to add to what she said, Eastern Orthodox Christians have an interesting rule where they allow flat icons only. Statues are prohibited because they're too close to the real form of the objects they represent. They also tend to take on a more abstract style with their icons, while Catholic icons have a more realistic style that I believe later influenced romanticism.
Isn’t that the same tenet, it’s just interpreted differently?
It's the same, but christianity abandoned it entirely because without pictures, figures etc it would not be much attractive for potential pagan converts. Some orthodox tried to return to it later, but failed and were declared heretics (look iconoclasm). To be fair a lot of muslims also don't give a shit, some denominations officially, some not.
![[CW: Islamophobia] .World fully embracing their Islamophobic reddit heritage](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/a5783505-bb45-439f-b361-454685693ffd.png){kind=link}
Isn't that the same tenet, it's just interpreted differently? That is Christians historically treating it as idols dedicated to other deities, with inconsistent although not completely absent application to Christian figures (like IIRC one Protestant grievance against Catholics had to do with their use of idols, particularly idols of saints).
It also has to be said that Islam is not unique nor monolithic in terms of how rigidly its followers adhere to its tenets nor even what those tenets are assumed to mean, and historically Muslim depictions of Muhammad in religious art did happen and were accepted in some places and at some times. The modern extremeness of the issue is a combination of the unusually hardline and extreme interpretation pushed by Saudi Arabia - which US intelligence has helped it export globally because salafist militants both tend to do the sort of reactionary violence that furthers American interests and have provided a casual pretext for the US to roll in and start occupying whomever it pleases whenever it pleases - and the fact that it's basically just a racist airhorn used by blowhards who want to say "I hate you and hold you in complete contempt, so I'm publicly thumbing my nose at you and daring you to try something" in a way that invites retaliation from aggrieved and impulsive young men who already feel disaffected and targeted by racism.
This is the full picture, thank you for elaborating
It's important to note that while Christians largely interpret the iconoclasm differently, they do still have hard and fast rules that clash with contemporary culture, and are cited by extremists as justification for acts of terror and murder. The fact that those extremists are largely seen as aberrations while Muslim extremists are seen as inherent to the faith is the result of islamophobic bigotry
This is only tangentially related, but now I'm imagining a bunch of America first chuds assaulting people who wear American flag print clothing bacause it's a flag code violation.
I'm pretty sure you can find historical examples of paintings of Muhammad online like right now. There's also plenty that just hide his face behind a ball of light surrounded by his companions who all look the same so it's fair to guess what the artist would have put there if not for the iconoclasm.
A lot of the paintings are really cool. There's been debate and speculation among art historians about Islamic art influencing the Renaissance. Different painting techniques could have originated in the Middle East before getting exported back to Europe during the Crusades.
One piece of evidence for this is with etching. The etching of metal was first used by Arabs to mark their equipment so if they died, their stuff could be taken back to their families. Europeans learned of this technique and applied it to metal plates. Copper is much more durable than woodblocks and you can make more copies before the master gets damaged or destroyed. This led to more effective printing because crews could work faster not worrying about damaging their tools.
Damn that is so cool. The cultural and technological exchange part of history is always the most fascinating part.
Thank you for going into detail on this
I was just speaking as a guy who paid close attention in Sunday school and has an interest in destroying Mormonism
Fuckin' White Pharoah
Just to add to what she said, Eastern Orthodox Christians have an interesting rule where they allow flat icons only. Statues are prohibited because they're too close to the real form of the objects they represent. They also tend to take on a more abstract style with their icons, while Catholic icons have a more realistic style that I believe later influenced romanticism.
It's the same, but christianity abandoned it entirely because without pictures, figures etc it would not be much attractive for potential pagan converts. Some orthodox tried to return to it later, but failed and were declared heretics (look iconoclasm). To be fair a lot of muslims also don't give a shit, some denominations officially, some not.