The Frieze of Prophet Muhammad in the U.S. Supreme Court Building

by Sheila Musaji

During the current Jyllands-Posten Danish cartoon crisis.  CNN reported

The recent controversy over the cartoon depiction in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammed recalls a similar, but nonviolent, reaction directed at the Supreme Court nearly a decade ago.

Forty feet up on the walls of the courtroom are a series of friezes—carved figures of marble representing historical lawmakers. Sharing space with such men as Justinian and Charlemagne is the founder of Islam, holding a copy of the Quran.

In 1997, Muslim-American groups objected to Mohammed’s depiction, and asked that it be removed, claiming it was a form of sacrilege.  The court refused, with then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing that the depiction “was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship.”  The court, however, did update tourist brochures and official publications to acknowledge the concerns.

I have seen this frieze and find it inspirational, and am gratified that Prophet Muhammad has been honored as one of the great lawmakers.  I did not remember that there had been any objection by Muslims to the frieze, and did some research.  Here is what I found out about that incident:

In 1997, a coalition of Muslim groups petitioned to have the frieze of Prophet Muhammad in the Supreme Court building sandblasted.  This effort was led by Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper of the then newly formed CAIR. 

Here were the objections that CAIR expressed:

1. Islam discourages its followers from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword “reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors.”
3. Building documents and tourist pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is, more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus.”

Even at the time, other American Muslims were surprised at objections to the frieze.  For example, Massumaeh Farhad, associate curator of Islamic Near Eastern art at the Sackler Gallery, said that the Koran’s prohibition against idols is somewhat more ambiguous. “It depends a little bit on to whom you talk,” she said. “The fact is that the prophet is represented pictorially in art. That’s the reality. Although the convention is to depict him with a veil over his face, there are exceptions. We do have several examples of paintings without a veil in our collection. That is certainly not the norm, but precedents do exist.”  Farhad was quick to note that the Sackler has never received complaints when it displayed its paintings, emphasizing that sculptures are thought to be more idolatrous because of their three-dimensionality.

More importantly, the question was considered important enough that a FATWA was requested.  In response to a question about the permissibility of this Supreme Court frieze, a lengthy FATWA WAS ISSUED by Sheikh Taha Jaber al-Alwani which can be read in full here in PDF.  He says the fatwa is in response to the fact that some American Muslim organizations and individuals have expressed outrage” at the visual portrayal in that frieze.   

The critical section comes as part of the conclusion of this fatwa:

Still, despite these reservations, I have a great deal of gratitude and appreciation for those who insisted on including an image of our Prophet, Muhammad (SAAS), in that highly regarded site in the United States of America, in order to remind the whole world of the important contribution of the Prophet (SAAS).  It is important that in a pluralistic culture like the United States he is symbolized as one of the select illustrious lawgivers who merit being honored. 

...  In a culture whose literary heritage is replete with disdainful images of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS), it is comforting to note that those in the highest Court in the United States were able to surmount those prejudices, and display his image among those of the greatest lawgivers in human history.  Isn’t that effort a noble gesture that deserves from us, who believe in him as the Prophet and Messenger, every encouragement, esteem, and gratitude instead of disapproval, condemnation, and outrage? 

...  In following the Prophet’s (SAAS) example, we must remember that those who carved the frieze and placed it in the Supreme Court are not Muslims.  So, it should not be expected that they would express what the Muslim believers usually express when they talk about the Prophet6 in his capacity as a Messenger of God (SAAS).  As the Prophet (SAAS) himself respected freedom of conscience in his own dealings, so should we. 

...  My answer to this question is as follows:  What I have seen in the Supreme Courtroom deserves nothing but appreciation and gratitude from American Muslims.  This is a positive gesture toward Islam made by the architect and other architectural decision-makers of the highest Court in America.  God willint it will help ameliorate some of the unfortunate misinformation that has surrounded Islam and Muslims in this country.

For this reason, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the early twentieth century architect and his associates who brought, in their own way, the essence of what the Prophet (SAAS) symbolized, namely, law with justice, to the attention of the American people.  I hope that the Muslim leadership in the United States and around the world will join me in expressing this appreciation even though the frieze is over 60 years old.

I absolutely agree with Taha Jaber al-Alwani, and hope that organizations representing American Muslims will carefully consider their actions BEFORE getting involved in unnecessary controversies that have an impact on the image of all of us.

Update 2/18/2008 

I have just posted Wikipedia, Prophet Muhammad, and Muslims in need of Islam 101 in which I discuss the most recent non-issue being turned into a major incident by the thoughtless reaction of some Muslims in demanding that the Wikipedia entry on Prophet Muhammad be edited to remove paintings of Prophet Muhammad. 

Jeremy Henzell-Thomas has also weighed in on this issue with an excellent article Wikipedia and Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad: The Latest Inane Distraction.

And, we have a second round of Danish cartoons Danish Cartoons Wars, If at First You Don’t Succeed ...

Originally posted 2/2006