Generalities and disclosures aside, the substance of the dispute lies in the allegation made by Muslims, or at least some Muslims, and often repeated by the Western media, that representations of the Prophet are forbidden in Islam, and therefore that such representations as do exist, or have existed, within the Muslim world or beyond its borders are either sins or provocations. The conclusions to be drawn from such a view are obvious. Sins must be punished, and their repetition avoided; and provocations must be answered with vigor.
In reality, however, things are not so simple. In the past, and still today, pictures of the Prophet Muhammad have been produced, and are still produced, by Muslim artists for Muslim patrons. How do these images fit with the presumed existence within the Islamic world of a doctrine prohibiting all representations of living beings? To answer this last question, it is essential to understand the nature of a legal system that operates in the absence of an organization such as the church or of formal written codes of law accepted by the vast majority of those who claim to be Muslims.
From the very beginning of its existence, the Muslim world practiced and developed an elaborate legal system meant to control and to judge all aspects of life, but its totalistic ambition was often frustrated by its own sophistication and diversity. This system, known as sharia, was based on the Qur'an, an immutable divine revelation, and the hadith, a huge body of actions and statements attributed to the Prophet, whose authenticity--and reliability for believers--was discussed for centuries. The words of the Qur'an and the stories of the hadith were interpreted and re-interpreted for centuries by learned scholars and practicing judges, known respectively as fuqaha and qudat (the plural of qadi). Although a consensus was established on many issues, and was often adopted by the legal systems of Muslim states in our times, this consensus was not total or universal. With variations that arouse the passions of modern historians and politicians, the opinions and judgments of this tradition of legal interpretation can, in theory at least, range from absolute and constant to near-anarchical and open-ended.
The issue of the visual representation of human beings, and therefore of the Prophet too, belongs to the latter category. The Qur'an itself is silent on the subject. Only a single passage is usually quoted in discussions of the matter. This passage (3:43) relates the words spoken by God to Mary, the mother of Jesus, saying that her son will proclaim: "I come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will make for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, then I will breathe into it and it will become a bird, by the leave of God." This was understood by the majority of interpreters to mean that God alone can create life, and to imply that there is no point in representations other than to make them alive. Other passages that are sometimes adduced in discussions of representation refer to them as real or potential idols--which is to say, sinful less for what they are than for the behavior that they may encourage.
The fear of idolatry permeates the formative centuries (essentially the seventh and eighth of the common era) of Islamic culture, which is perfectly understandable when one recalls the importance of images in Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and whatever pagan traces had remained in the vast territory, from the Atlantic Ocean to the frontiers of China, taken over by a relatively small army of Arab Muslim conquerors and missionaries. The result of these contacts with a world replete with religious and other imagery was a refusal by Muslims to make images--what scholars now call aniconism; and the frequent substitution of writing for representation. There are occasional examples of the destruction of images, though in early times such iconoclasm is much rarer in Islamic lands than in Christian lands. Eventually--possibly as early as the end of the eighth century, according to a shaky scholarly consensus--the condemnation of all those who make images became the view of the majority of legal scholars. And yet a minority kept on maintaining that beauty pleases God and does not necessarily lead to idolatry.
The result of all these opinions and feelings was complicated: religious art, in mosques in particular, avoided and rejected images, while the secular art of princes, and later of wealthy city dwellers, ornamented their abodes and the things in their possession with all sorts of representations. In other words, and in perfect harmony with the rich legal culture of the time, a range of possible attitudes toward religious imagery was maintained. Abstinence dominated, but it never became the only Muslim attitude or practice.
On the whole, especially when compared to the contemporary Eastern Christian world, which was rocked by the crisis of iconoclasm, the question of images was secondary within the thinking of the legal scholars, largely because neither the bases on which Islamic thought rests nor the specific needs of the Muslim faithful gave it much consideration. Although I am not familiar with the legal or theological literature of later centuries, or with the jurisprudential discourse in legal and theological schools in our own day, I suspect that the same comparative absence of extended reflection on the subject of iconography remained the case until the twentieth century, when technology made visual images ubiquitous. And even then the subject provoked relatively few comments. The one exception may be the milieu of Saudi Arabian wahhabism, where a doctrine of aniconic prohibition in official and public circumstances co-existed with the relatively open practice of displaying images in the privacy of homes or as homages to ruling princes. A sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy seemed acceptable to the ruling classes, although rumbles for change could easily be felt in the few countries with forceful restrictions.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (6)
Ways to get the around the beastly problem of drawing the Prophet Muhammad:
1]
draw him with a big arrow saying, "This is NOT Muhammad"
2]
long recognized as illiterate, draw him reading the New York Times
who will know?
3]
draw him as a toddler
4]
draw him in a business suit slaying usurers on Wall Street
5]
draw a connect the dots cartoon Muhammad---let someone else do the actual connecting and catch hell
6]
post a set of instructions for drawing him in The Spine
7]
create a paint by numbers likeness and sell it in Wal Mart
8]
draw him disguised as Jesus Christ in a synagogue
9]
stick him somewhere in a rip off of the Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band cover
10]
recreate him as Picasso might....as a b ... view full comment
Ways to get the around the beastly problem of drawing the Prophet Muhammad:
1]
draw him with a big arrow saying, "This is NOT Muhammad"
2]
long recognized as illiterate, draw him reading the New York Times
who will know?
3]
draw him as a toddler
4]
draw him in a business suit slaying usurers on Wall Street
5]
draw a connect the dots cartoon Muhammad---let someone else do the actual connecting and catch hell
6]
post a set of instructions for drawing him in The Spine
7]
create a paint by numbers likeness and sell it in Wal Mart
8]
draw him disguised as Jesus Christ in a synagogue
9]
stick him somewhere in a rip off of the Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band cover
10]
recreate him as Picasso might....as a bunch of cubes, maybe
gw
Another worthless and stupid comment by the self advertising dunce George Walton.
This is another one of his compulsive posts;
Walton posts are a cry for attention: In them he says: "I post therefore I am."
Another worthless and stupid comment by the self advertising dunce George Walton.
This is another one of his compulsive posts;
Walton posts are a cry for attention: In them he says: "I post therefore I am."
Chip Johnson, a columnist at sfgate, commenting on the alleged gang rape of a 15-year-old girl, stated "Human compassion is the key ingredient that separates man from beast."
That stopped me, because I've come to think that the key ingredient that separates man from beast is the human's capacity to create abstract interpretations of reality--Hamlet, porn, Kind of Blue, Gilligan's Island--for better or for worse.
The belief by (some) Muslims that it's okay to create abstract interpretations of some parts of reality but not of the Prophet implies another degree of separation: between earthly reality and the aforementioned Prophet. None of this trinitarian malarkey for Muhammad...no Facebook page ... view full comment
Chip Johnson, a columnist at sfgate, commenting on the alleged gang rape of a 15-year-old girl, stated "Human compassion is the key ingredient that separates man from beast."
That stopped me, because I've come to think that the key ingredient that separates man from beast is the human's capacity to create abstract interpretations of reality--Hamlet, porn, Kind of Blue, Gilligan's Island--for better or for worse.
The belief by (some) Muslims that it's okay to create abstract interpretations of some parts of reality but not of the Prophet implies another degree of separation: between earthly reality and the aforementioned Prophet. None of this trinitarian malarkey for Muhammad...no Facebook page, either. (Lucky him.)
The fear of idolatry, as with other fundamentalist tenets (regardless of sect), may indicate a crisis of faith. Somewhat of a corollary to Jesus' "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"--that perception somehow degrades or cheapens belief.
It's tough to think critically about something that's out of sight, out of mind. So invisibility as a deity's preferred state dovetails with the nagging suspicions of those of us who wonder if religion is mostly a human construct whose primary function is as a tool of oppression. (Y'think?)
Me, I'm hoping against hope that we are all Leo G. Carroll as Cosmo Topper, inhabiting a reality where our deities manifest as George and Marion Kerby--Anne Jeffreys in her prime being far more of a hottie than Muhammad or any of the others could ever hope to be.
Either that or the Divine should somehow turn out to be even more hopelessly banal--Joe Buck, maybe, or a tuna sandwich on white with a little mayo. In other words, we should get what we deserve, in deities as in other things.
The whole "religion is mostly a human construct whose primary function is as a tool of oppression" is a shibboleth from the 60s that it's time to retire. Oppressive regimes in recent history have been far more likely to be skeptical of or violent towards religion than to try to use it in any way. The vast majority of religions aren't being used in such a way. When religion is used as a tool of oppression, it's used in the same way that any other ideology or idea is used. So basically the above quotation is about as accurate and serious as saying "ideas are mainly tools of oppression".
It may have been a useful catchphrase in a propaganda war between a global atheistic left-ish totalitaria ... view full comment
The whole "religion is mostly a human construct whose primary function is as a tool of oppression" is a shibboleth from the 60s that it's time to retire. Oppressive regimes in recent history have been far more likely to be skeptical of or violent towards religion than to try to use it in any way. The vast majority of religions aren't being used in such a way. When religion is used as a tool of oppression, it's used in the same way that any other ideology or idea is used. So basically the above quotation is about as accurate and serious as saying "ideas are mainly tools of oppression".
It may have been a useful catchphrase in a propaganda war between a global atheistic left-ish totalitarian movement and a pretty religious right, but those days are over and history has revealed how inane and untrue it is.
Simon, allow me clarify; I wrote hastily and in fact essentially agree with you. I don't mean "tool to oppress" in the 60's, structural sense; I mean it in the personal sense. I'm coming around to the idea that all religion, like all politics, is local--from one person's mind, a lens through which to see the Other. Religion is the ultimate hammer--it can build a homeless family a home or bash their brains in. I fear it when it's used as a shortcut to truth, a cheat sheet for our daily, never-ending final exam about how to treat others. We have minds, but we're lazy. Enter religion. (Actually, religionS--they all line up at the velvet rope, seeking admission. It is our minds that chose which ... view full comment
Simon, allow me clarify; I wrote hastily and in fact essentially agree with you. I don't mean "tool to oppress" in the 60's, structural sense; I mean it in the personal sense. I'm coming around to the idea that all religion, like all politics, is local--from one person's mind, a lens through which to see the Other. Religion is the ultimate hammer--it can build a homeless family a home or bash their brains in. I fear it when it's used as a shortcut to truth, a cheat sheet for our daily, never-ending final exam about how to treat others. We have minds, but we're lazy. Enter religion. (Actually, religionS--they all line up at the velvet rope, seeking admission. It is our minds that chose which one to allow past the bouncer.)
I'm also flirting with the idea that sobriety is truth, the most elusive state. Anything that interferes with sobriety--any chemical, any unsubstantiated myth--is to be avoided. Truth is the sun; why block it? I have so much standing between my mind and truth at any given moment that I have my hands full removing all the obstacles. I doubt I will succeed before I die but purging the obstacles still seems the right thing to do. And of these obstacles, religion seems to be one of the more obvious.
>the lack of taste is not a legal category
True, but aren't you overlooking the fact that blasphemy IS a legal category, particularly in the context of a theocracy, or at least a theocratic mindset?
Aren't you overlooking the fact that within Islam generally, the rules which apply to believers are quite different from the rules which apply to non-believers?
This distinction regarding which rules apply to whom, is not something which is simply an outgrowth of later legal interpretation or opinion, it is made perfectly explicit in the Koran in numerous places.
To say that muslim outrage over these cartoons is a simple product of ignorance and incompetence is, I think, a gross oversimplification, w ... view full comment
>the lack of taste is not a legal category
True, but aren't you overlooking the fact that blasphemy IS a legal category, particularly in the context of a theocracy, or at least a theocratic mindset?
Aren't you overlooking the fact that within Islam generally, the rules which apply to believers are quite different from the rules which apply to non-believers?
This distinction regarding which rules apply to whom, is not something which is simply an outgrowth of later legal interpretation or opinion, it is made perfectly explicit in the Koran in numerous places.
To say that muslim outrage over these cartoons is a simple product of ignorance and incompetence is, I think, a gross oversimplification, which contains within it a strong undercurrent of wishful thinking.
I find implicit in this article, and in much writing of this kind, the rather patronizing notion that there is a certain subset of (mostly secular) scholars in the West, who are more familiar with the history of Islam, and who have a clearer picture of what enlightened Islam should be, than the many thousands scholars in the Islamic world who actually live and breathe the Koran on a daily basis.
And then there is the corollary notion that, if only the muslim world weren't held in the grip of, to use your own words, an almost "universal ignorance and incompetence", then we could all get along, and "they" would be just like "us", except perhaps when it comes to minor details like manner of dress, speech, and particular details of worship habits.
It's nice to imagine that this notion flows from a comprehensive, enlightened understanding of Islam. But are you really so sure that you have a better understanding of Islam than do so many of the people who practice it?
It seems to me that a position like yours, is most easily arrived at by focusing too much on fine historical details known to very few, while overlooking much that is self evident to many (at least from the perspective of those living in the muslim world).