So, now everybody knows that Islam has no great lawgiver!!

Submitted by Rachel Garber (United States), Feb 28, 2008 at 11:02

Well, that effort in the '50s may have succeeded in having the stature removed, but it seems to have the effect of informing New Yorkers that the Muslim religion had no contribution to lawmaking. I mean really, where would anyone get the idea that Islam had anything to add to any body of law. His absence is proof to me that they had and still have nothing to contribute.

What would have been the more logical thing to do, and I have seen this in many pictures depicting Mohammed, is to have his face covered with a white veil. If the Muslim community had any sense at all, which they don't seem to have, they might have requested that the statue depicted that way. Or they could have requested that the sculptor remove his features from the statue.

Having the statue removed just makes him a non-entity in the body of law-giving. So, they cut off their nose to spite their face. Makes sense to me. Let them have the statue in storage, who cares if they aren't represented. By the way, since he is a prophet, it would seem to me that Islam is not a monotheistic religion. Else, why would the treat him the same way they treat HaShem, or as they say Allah. Our faith says we make no graven images of Him. Moses, Abraham, and the rest of the great men of the Scriptures, they are not gods, thus they are depicted in art. To forbid depiction of Mohammed seems to me to put him on the same footing as Allah, which makes that a dual-theistic religion, not monotheistic, religion.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".