Mel: "Paintings show us how MUHAMMAD EVOLVED"!

Mel is developing a whole new genre for us to look at to see just how wrong the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN) really is, in this case, paintings and images of Muhammad. According to SIN no images or paintings were permitted of any person, or of any living creature, and especially no images depicting Muhammad's face. Yet, according to the many paintings we find on palaces from the 7th - the 16th centuries we can find many images of Muhammad's body and even his face, proving that they were not only common, but that they were in some cases quite artistic. In the 7th century, we don't find any images of Muhammad (which is also revealing), but we do find a Chinese painting which depict the ambassador to China from Mu'awiya's court as a Tayaye Christian Nestorian monk, from "Fu-Lin" (Chinese for Byzantine), supporting what we find on the coins. Another Chinese painting from the same time shows a person in the Chinese courts who is named 'Da-shi from Tayaye' wearing a Phrygian cap, which was from what is Turkey today, supporting the coins as well. As the paintings progressed into the later centuries we begin to find, for instance in the 10th century, images of Muhammad with a halo surrounding his head, and even at times with Chinese features. Interestingly, in a painting of Muhammad preaching his last sermon from around 1000 AD, his audience included two Africans. When that same painting is reproduced in the 13th century, the two Africans have been replaced by Arabs, suggesting an 'Arabization' around that time. In 1040 in the "Chansons des Jeste" (Songs of Deeds, or heroism) there is reference to the fact that people worshiped Muhammad by hoisting his image. What image were they hoisting? In 1118 AD, after the first Crusade, we may find the answer in a report by Ralph of Caen, who referred to a large statue of Muhammad which was so heavy 11 men were required to carry it. Muhammad was dressed in purple, seated upon a thrown in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the Crusaders 13 years earlier, suggesting that he was taking on royal status and was seated on the 'holy of holies' (perhaps the reason it was destroyed by the Crusaders). This increasing deification of Muhammad parallels research by Lloyd DeYoung who has found in the many Siras an increasing deification of Muhammad as well. In 1307 AD we find an image of a young Muhammad being worshiped by Bahira the Monk, as well as by other animals and sages, and even being anointed by an angel. That same year we find another image of Muhammad at the Ka'aba, hoisting the 'black stone' on a cloth, so as not to touch it, proving not only that the black stone was around in Mecca from the 14th century, but that it was already being considered holy back then as well. These paintings were a sort of comic book for that time, employed to create and tell the theology to the common people. In 1317-1330 AD we find a painting of Muhammad seated on a throne at the Dome of the Rock (it has the Sacra rock below it) wearing purple, suggesting that this was a depiction of the statue of Muhammad which had earlier been destroyed by the Crusaders. In 1430 Muhammad no longer has a halo around his head, but flames, suggesting that the light emanates from him, a sort of divine figure. In that same year another painting of Muhammad's birth has the same flames surrounding his head. In all of these pictures and images Muhammad's face can be seen quite clearly. Then in the 1500s the face of Muhammad is veiled, and this continues with all of the paintings showing him. But why? Mel believes this could be due to Gnostic influences. Jay believes this was due to the fact that the increasing devotion the Muslims were giving him he now was so superior to any other human that, much like Christians cannot see God's face, so the Muslims were now borrowing that same idea with Muhammad, and out of respect and honour to him were now covering his face, elevating him above all other humans. It is interesting that the earliest extant copies we have for Al Bukhari's Hadith are from this same time as well. Could it be that this banning of Muhammad's image could have been created at this time, included into these earliest copies of the Hadith, but redacted back to the 9th century, with references to the notion that this ban existed at the time of Muhammad as well, suggesting that the prohibition of Muhammad's image is a 16th century invention? The paintings seem to suggest so, and images don't lie... © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2021 (56,860) Music: "Country Girl" by aleksound, from filmmusic-io