[odds]

Very good article - "Islamic Art" is a fallacy.

And, looking at Islam itself, it is more accurate to say that "Islamic Art" survived in spite of Islam rather than because of it.

Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created. (Sahih Muslim vol.3, no.5268)

The last paragraph may explain why Shia sect of Islam, influenced more by pre-Islamic Iranian (Persian) culture, post-Safavid dynasty (15 to 17 century AD), allows display of paintings, including that of Mohamad, and the Shia 12ers imams, whereas Sunnis don't.

Btw, Genghis Khan (the Monghol) was a brute; the Monghol savagery in Iran was infinitely worse than preceding Arab-Moslem invaders.

[Fred Nerks]

Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?

The Photographic Evidence

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

[1010RD]

So the Shia have no problem depicting Mohammad?