Epigraph:

And We have sent thee (Muhammad) not but as a mercy for all peoples. (Al Quran 21:108)

A frieze, designed by Adolph Weinman, on the north wall of the US Supreme Court depicts great lawgivers of the Middle Ages. This includes the Holy Prophet Muhammad

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Historical Context: Designing a Frieze of Lawgivers

When the U.S. Supreme Court got its own building in the 1930s (completed in 1935), the architects and artists sought to adorn its courtroom with symbols befitting the nation’s highest tribunal​. Cass Gilbert, the building’s architect, commissioned renowned sculptor Adolph A. Weinman (1870–1952) to design marble friezes for the courtroom walls​. Weinman’s mandate was to select figures that reflected the Supreme Court’s role and the development of law across human civilization​. Faithful to classical art principles and drawing on many cultures, Weinman created a procession of “great lawgivers of history” carved in ivory-colored Spanish marble, each representing a contribution to the evolution of legal principles​. The friezes—each about 40 feet long and 7 feet high—were installed above the courtroom’s bench and galleries when the Court’s new building opened under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in 1935​.

The purpose of this artistic program was to inspire and educate. As one contemporary account noted, from ancient Babylon’s Hammurabi to America’s John Marshall, these stone figures “commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs,” symbolizing that “while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.”​ In other words, the frieze links the United States’ constitutional justice to a rich heritage of legal ideals throughout history. Including Prophet Muhammad in this pantheon was in line with that purpose. Indeed, no objections were recorded in 1935 – at a time when American society was far less diverse than today – to honoring Muhammad among the world’s great lawgivers​. This forward-thinking inclusion reflected the learned understanding (even then) of Islam’s contributions to law, even if the general public at the time knew little about them. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration and the Justices evidently saw the friezes as an educational tribute to civilizational heritage, not a religious statement​. Weinman’s selection of history’s lawgivers stands as a remarkable early 20th-century recognition of legal pluralism at the heart of the Supreme Court’s imagery.

Description of the Frieze: Muhammad Among the Great Lawgivers

The lawgivers frieze is actually a pair of sculpted panels flanking the courtroom. One panel spans the south wall and the other the north wall, together depicting 18 illustrious figures from across epochs and cultures​. These relief sculptures gaze down from high above the Justices’ bench and the visitors’ gallery. On the south wall (to the Justices’ right side) are the lawgivers of the ancient world, including Menes of Egypt, Hammurabi of Babylon, Moses with the Ten Commandments, Solomon of Israel, the Spartan lawmaker Lycurgus, Athenian reformer Solon, the Athenian scribe Draco, the Chinese sage Confucius, and the Roman founder Octavian (Augustus)​. On the north wall (to the Justices’ left) are figures from the classical and later eras: Napoleon Bonaparte, Chief Justice John Marshall, English jurist William Blackstone, Dutch legal philosopher Hugo Grotius, the French king Louis IX, England’s King John (holding the Magna Carta), the Frankish emperor Charlemagne, Prophet Muhammad, and the Byzantine emperor Justinian​. Interspersed among them are allegorical figures (such as “Philosophy” and “Equity”) that reinforce the moral themes. Together, these figures represent the progression of law over time and geography​.

Crucially, Prophet Muhammad is included in this distinguished company. His figure appears on the north wall frieze, positioned between Justinian and Charlemagne​. In Weinman’s depiction, Muhammad is shown standing holding a copy of the Qur’an in his left hand and a sword in his right hand​. The Qur’an is portrayed as the source of law, and the sword symbolizes justice and authority – a common motif in legal iconography throughout the Court (indeed, nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom’s art as emblems of justice)​. Muhammad is depicted wearing long robes and a head covering (a turban or cap), with a calm, dignified bearing. Importantly, the sculptor did not attempt to carve Muhammad’s face in exact likeness – the features are generic and idealized​. According to the Supreme Court’s own description, “The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to [the Prophet]. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.”​ In this way, the artwork strives to respect Islamic aniconic traditions while still acknowledging Muhammad’s role in legal history.

The placement and grouping of the frieze underscore that Muhammad is being honored alongside other seminal lawgivers – not in isolation. He stands in the company of figures like Moses, who brought the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and Confucius, who taught virtue as a basis for government​. All are shown with symbols of their contributions (for example, Moses holds two Hebrew-inscribed tablets, and Hammurabi is shown receiving his code) in a continuous bas-relief panorama. The frieze’s location “above the press seating area” on the courtroom wall means that every session of the Court unfolds under the gaze of these historical lawmakers​. Thus, anyone in the chamber – from the Justices to visitors – can look up and see that the American justice system situates itself in a lineage of world legal traditions, with the Prophet of Islam recognized as one of the pillars of law. As one description notes, the frieze explicitly “recognize[s] Prophet Muhammad as one of the greatest lawgivers in the world, along with Moses, Solomon, Confucius, and Hammurabi, among others.”​ This artistic homage is remarkable not only for its historical breadth but also for its interfaith inclusivity: a Muslim, a Jew, a Confucian sage, Christian kings, and secular jurists all appear together as teachers of law.

Significance in American Legal Values

What does this recognition of Prophet Muhammad in the Supreme Court signify in the context of U.S. constitutional values? At its core, the frieze sends a powerful message that the rule of law is a universal human inheritance. By acknowledging lawgivers from diverse civilizations, the Court affirms that the ideals of justice, equity, and order are shared across cultures and ages​. In the United States, a nation built on the rule of law, this display serves as a reminder that American law did not emerge in a vacuum—it stands on the shoulders of legal traditions from around the world. The inclusion of Muhammad alongside figures like Solon, Confucius, and Blackstone reflects a recognition that Islamic law and ethics form part of the tapestry of principles that inform modern justice​. This is very much in harmony with constitutional values. The Constitution itself was influenced by Enlightenment and common-law principles, which in turn trace roots to Roman law, Judeo-Christian ethics (e.g. Moses’ commandments), and other sources. Placing an Islamic figure in the court’s iconography extends that acknowledgment to the Islamic legal tradition, underscoring values the American system holds dear: justice, the moral foundation of law, and respect for human dignity – all of which are strongly emphasized in the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad’s teachings.

Legally and symbolically, this honor is handled in a secular, inclusive spirit. The Supreme Court is careful to present Muhammad **not as a religious prophet to The Supreme Court is careful to present Muhammad not as a religious icon, but as a historical lawgiver. Former Justice John Paul Stevens explained that the Court’s display of lawgivers “from a vast array of religious, secular and cultural traditions” is meant to *symbolize a respect for justice that transcends any particular creed​. In his view, placing religious figures like Muhammad or Confucius alongside secular figures (such as Augustus, Blackstone, Napoleon, and Marshall) makes clear that the honor is for their contributions to law, not an endorsement of their religion​. Thus, Muhammad’s presence in the frieze aligns with First Amendment values: it respects world traditions of lawgiving without crossing into religious veneration. It highlights the principle of justice – a core constitutional ideal – as one that the U.S. shares with all civilizations. In sum, the Supreme Court’s recognition of Prophet Muhammad in marble affirms that the rule of law and the pursuit of justice are universal, bridging Eastern and Western, religious and secular heritage in a manner wholly consistent with American ideals of equality and pluralism.

Inspirational Reflection: A Moral and Legal Reformer’s Legacy

For Muslim Americans and people of faith around the world, seeing Prophet Muhammad honored in the halls of American justice is profoundly uplifting. It is an acknowledgment of his role as a moral, spiritual, and legal reformer on the world stage. Muhammad is not typically lauded in Western civic architecture, so his inclusion here sends a message of respect and acceptance – that the values he championed are part of humanity’s shared quest for justice. The Prophet of Islam is remembered not only for preaching about God, but also for establishing a just society. In 7th-century Arabia, he founded a community in Medina on principles of fairness, equality, and rule of law. Notably, he promulgated the Charter of Madinah – often cited as one of the earliest written constitutions – which forged an inclusive multi-religious polity.

This charter guaranteed freedom of religion and mutual rights among Muslims, Jews, and pagans, declaring them “one nation” bound by justice and common defense. As a lawgiver, Muhammad introduced reforms that uplifted the oppressed and emphasized accountability: he insisted on impartial justice (even if it was against his own family), forbade indiscriminate violence, and established standards of mercy and due process long before such concepts were commo​n.  He taught that leaders are not above the law – a principle reflected in his saying that even if his daughter were to steal, she would face the same penalty as others. His teachings and the Qur’an became the twin pillars of a legal tradition (Shari’ah) founded on compassion, equality, and human dignit​y.

This legacy as a moral lawgiver is what the Supreme Court frieze enshrines. It reminds Muslim Americans that their heritage of law and ethics is honored at the highest level of the American judiciary. In a time when misunderstandings about Islam abound, the marble image in Washington, D.C. stands as a testament to the truth that Islamic civilization, too, upholds justice and the rule of law. As one Muslim commentator observed, “the fact… remains that it is the Last Messenger of Islam who is upheld as one of the forbearers of establishing law” in the Supreme Court’s chamber – an extraordinary sight “in an un-Islamic land.”​ This recognition instills pride and a sense of belonging in American Muslims: their Prophet’s contribution to humanity’s legal and moral progress is literally carved in stone in the nation’s temple of justice. For people of all faiths, this scene is equally inspirational. It illustrates a profound interfaith harmony: a depiction of Moses holding the Torah’s tablets sits not far from Muhammad holding the Qur’an, each revered for the laws and ethics they gave to their communities. Such imagery underscores that shared ideals – justice, duty, mercy, order – unite the spiritual traditions of the world. It invites viewers of any background to reflect on the common moral ground beneath different faiths and cultures. In this way, the frieze not only educates but also uplifts, encouraging a spirit of mutual respect. The homage to Prophet Muhammad as a great lawgiver can be seen as a gesture of goodwill, affirming the place of Islamic values within the broader tapestry of human civilization and within the American experience of religious freedom. Indeed, some Muslim leaders have welcomed the frieze in this light: when a controversy once arose, a prominent Islamic scholar in North America issued a fatwa supporting the depiction, urging Muslims to “appreciate the positive gesture that is made towards Islam” in the Supreme Court’s tribut​e.

Addressing Concerns and Upholding Respect

The inclusion of a sculpture of Prophet Muhammad has not been without its concerns, but the Supreme Court has addressed these in a respectful and transparent manner. In Islamic tradition, visual depictions of Muhammad are generally discouraged to prevent any temptation toward idolatry. Thus, when word spread in the 1990s about the courtroom frieze, some in the Muslim community felt uneasy. In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims voiced objections to the statue, emphasizing that any portrayal of a Prophet is offensive to many believers and noting that the image of Muhammad holding a sword could feed misconceptions about Isla​m. CAIR acknowledged the Court’s good intentions – “We believe the court had good intention by honoring the Prophet” – yet respectfully requested modifications to the frieze, even offering to pay for alterations themselve​s. Specifically, they suggested removing or obscuring the facial features (for example, by sandblasting the face) or replacing the figure with a symbolic inscription of Muhammad’s name or a Qur’anic verse about justic​e. These requests sprang from sincere religious concern and a desire to avoid even the appearance of idolatry or defamation.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to alter the artwork. Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist responded that federal law prohibits tampering with architectural features in the Court, and that *destroying one figure would irreparably harm the artistic integrity of the whole frieze​. More fundamentally, the Court reaffirmed the intent behind the depiction. In a letter to Muslim leaders, Chief Justice Rehnquist explained that *“the depiction of Muhammad 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.”​ This clarification – now prominently noted in the Court’s public information about the friezes – makes the context unambiguous. Muhammad’s image is presented as a secular honor, not a religious icon. The sword in his hand, the Court pointed out, is a common symbol of justice in Western art (several other figures in the courtroom carry swords as well) and was not meant to imply “Islam was spread by the sword” or any negative stereotyp​e. The sculptor’s aim was to show Muhammad as a lawgiver – holding the Qur’an (the source of Islamic law) – and the sword is simply an emblem of authority and justice, just as Moses’ tablets symbolize divine la​w.

To further address sensitivities, the Supreme Court took the additional step of modifying its official literature about the frieze. Originally, some materials had described Muhammad as the “founder of Islam,” which Muslim readers felt was an inadequate description of someone they revere as a messenger of Go​d. In response, the Court agreed to change the wording to “Prophet of Islam” in its descriptions, acknowledging his revered status more accuratel​y. The information sheet was also updated to explicitly mention that the figure “bears no resemblance” to Muhammad and is a “well-intentioned attempt… to honor” him while respecting the Islamic aversion to image​. These clarifications have been welcomed as evidence of the Court’s respect for Muslim sentiments, even as it maintains the artwork for its historic and educational value.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s handling of the controversy struck a balance between respecting religious concerns and preserving artistic/historical integrity. The frieze remains in place, continuing to educate millions about the contributions of Islamic civilization to law. The Court’s explicit statement that the depiction is *“not intended as an object of worship has helped assure observers that no sacrilege is at play – the figure of Muhammad is treated with dignity, not divinity. In fact, many have come to see the continued presence of the Prophet’s image in the Supreme Court as a mark of high esteem. It stands as a permanent reminder that the American justice system, true to its ideals, honors the rule of law above all. That rule of law is a heritage shared by peoples of diverse faiths, and the frieze beautifully acknowledges this truth. In recognizing Prophet Muhammad as one of history’s great lawgivers, the U.S. Supreme Court pays tribute to the universal aspiration for justice and offers an image of hopeful unity: that from East to West, from ancient times to modern, the moral arc of the law bends toward fairness and righteousness for all humankin​d.

Suggested Additional Reading:

How the “Ban” on Images of Muhammad Came to Be

The Muslim Times’ has the best collection to teach the world about the Holy Prophet Muhammad

US Supreme Court