Talk:Aniconism in the Baháʼí Faith

start

 * Since you mentioned it, the Baha'i section could use some further clarification I think. From what is written they don't seem to have a belief in aniconism - restricting who can see certain depictions of specific human beings is not prohibiting depictions of human beings. Schizombie 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they do have a prohibition against depicting the Bab and Bah'u'llah (in addition to restricting who sees the actual portraits) but I'm not a Baha'i so somerbody else should verify this. Rooster613 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Rooster613 here again -- I did a quick Google for more info on the Baha'ullah pic and guess what? I was led right back to the Baha'u'llah page on Wikipedia where there is a photo of him. Interestingly, it is at the very bottom of the page, and there is a statement to that effect at the top of the page. The reason for this statement appears to be to warn Baha'is that the pic is there. (Suggestive of the current debate about the placement of Muhammad cartoons?) Now I'm not even sure it this qualifies as aniconism, because, according to the Wiki article, Baha'is do not find the photo offensive and they do view the photo, but only on very special occasions such as on a pilgrimage. So it is more like an icon than a forbidden image. See the Baha'u'llah article for more on this. So should the Baha'i section even be here at all? Or should it be on the icon page? Rooster613 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
 * Rooster613, it's not exactly Aniconism, but is kind of related. For example, Baha'is can view the image, but only with respect (and putting the image up is not considered respectful).  I've updated the section that deals more with it.  However, Baha'is are asked not to draw or act as any of the Manifestations of God which include the Bab, and Baha'u'llah as well as Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and others since it would be lowering the station of those propehets; I would classify this as Aniconism, if I understand the term correctly. Thanks for looking into this, and trying to understand it.  --Jeff3000 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying this, Jeff3000. Since, you are a Baha'i and I am not, I'll go with whatever you decide.  Perhaps you should add a ref to the fact that although there is a pic of Bah'u'llah on the Baha'u'llah page, it is at the bottom precisely because Baha'is do not want to view it in a non-pilgrimage context?  Rooster613 15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

redirect
I redirected to Baha'u'llah. The page was only two paragraphs that repeated what was on the Baha'u'llah page about the photograph. It was only linked from that page and Aniconism. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominated redirect for deletion
Sorry, I just nominated this redirect for deletion before I noticed the history and talk pages here. Yes, I do think this issue deserves it's own page. The specific similarities and differences of the Baha'i approach to aniconism are valuable (see Jeff3000's comments above). Perhaps it would be better to restore the 14 September 2007 version, add the link to Bahá'u'lláh under the "See Also" section, and identify the article as a stub. Furthermore, even if the page reproduces content from the Bahá'u'lláh article, I think it is the culturally neutral / culturally sensitive thing to do so that members of the Baha'i Faith can learn about aniconism in their faith without being forced to view photographs of their religion's Founder, which, as the Bahá'u'lláh article's content and its Discussion pages clearly indicate, are controversial. Ryancamp1 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored 14-Sep-2007 version and added link to Bahá'u'lláh page
Please see my comment immediately above. Actually, it would probably to help address Eskimospy's concerns about audience (see Article History 20-Feb-2008) if someone could adapt the content found at Bahá'u'lláh under "Photographs and imagery" (note: currently contains a photo of Bahá'u'lláh and is thus controversial). Ryancamp1 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. There is simply not much to talk about on the subject. The issue is straightforward and whatever content could be included here should just be added to the Baha'u'llah page. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)