The Muslim response to European newspapers publishing of cartoons depicting Mohammed has somewhat bewildered me. All "Sons of Abraham," Jews, Christians, and Muslims are prohibited from depicting God in image, and for the same reasons. In response to paganism, the believers of these monotheistic faiths were forbidden from idol worship. However, neither the prohibition against idolatry nor the presence of images of Mohammed is anything new. So, why the rioting now? I can only conclude that 1) The real issue is not the images themselves but other grievances, and 2) Muslim extremists are inciting riots because of images that most Muslims can accept, tolerate, or ignore.
Here is the second commandment taken from a Christian Bible: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments" (Deut 5:8-10, KJV). Notice that the prohibition is against any image. We are in fact prohibited from any figurative portrayal, not just of God, but also of say, a bowl of fruit.
Each monotheistic religion interprets the prohibition against images differently. Some conservative faiths take this forbiddance literally. For example, the Taliban forbids any images, including photographs, of any person or thing. Many synagogues share with mosques the use of highly ornate and abstract designs to the total exclusion of images. Whereas Catholic cathedrals are resplendent with images going so far as to depict God the Father in the Sistine Chapel. Actually, Catholic interpretation of the Second Commandment focuses on the Lord's pronouncement that we should worship no god but Him. Most Christians in the West, if they think of the second commandment at all, take it to mean that they shouldn't worship golden calves or Mammon, and not as a prohibition against all images--of God or otherwise. Recent versions of the Bible reflect this interpretation of the second commandment. The New International Version, for example, begins: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above. . ." In this version of Deut 5:8, "image" is replaced by "idol," a much more specific prohibition.
(It's worth noting here that implicit in the second commandment is the existence of other gods, but that is another topic.)
Muslims believe that the Biblical books common to both Christianity and Judaism have been corrupted by man. Only in the Qur'an is this corruption mended. The Qur'anic equivalent of the second commandment reads: "My Lord, make this a peaceful land, and protect me and my children from worshiping idols" (14:35). It takes a fair amount of interpretation to get from this to a prohibition against images of the prophet, and it is a long way from prohibiting all figurative images. Regardless, many Muslims have certainly come to accept and create all manner of images. Furthermore, a literal reading of the above passage from the Qur'an, would not explicitly forbid images, even images of Mohammed. It's important for westerners to understand that there is plenty of room for interpretation within Islam. In other words, the response to the cartoon images of Mohammed was not inevitable. Something else is fueling the violence.
A number of my liberal friends are claiming that the offense to Muslims is very great and that it was callous insensitivity on the part of European editors to print the cartoons depicting Mohammed. That may be, but should we tolerate the rioting, death, and destruction at the hands of Muslims that followed the publication of the cartoons? Should we endorse censorship of our media?
The Piss Christ was terribly offensive to many Christians and resulted in reduced funding for the NEA. The Piss Christ is a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. The argument against continued funding for the NEA was simple: should average, Christ loving Americans be asked to pay for sacrilege? I would answer that, yes, they should. Just like I'm taxed for a war I don't support and for farm subsidies that benefit me not at all. We should all pay for art. However, detractors of the Piss Christ didn't go rioting in the streets or pull well dress art lovers out of cafes and start beating them. No, they went through political and more or less democratic channels. And, the American version of religious maximalists, Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, did not attack the artists directly, or the artists' freedom of expression, but rather the use of public funds for something they find blasphemous.
I might point out here that our Christian maximalists also forbid idolatry and many of them are just as emphatic on this point as Islamic maximalists, some to the point of forbidding images depicting Christ. The reason that I think our version of religious maximalism is "better" than Islamic variants is that Christian conservatives understand that the prohibition against idolatry works both ways. That is, not only should you not worship false idols, but no idol (or depiction of a deity) is actually divine. Conservative Protestant Christians explicitly don't believe that an object can be considered holy, at least not to the same extent as Muslims and Catholics. So, perhaps why American Conservative Christians didn't get more bent out of shape than they did is because the Piss Christ is, after all . . . just a fucking picture! It's not like someone actually peed on Jesus. I mean, that would be crossing the line.
We liberals, and everyone else, need to ask ourselves, should we ever tolerate intolerance? I say fuck no. Muslim maximalists have no right to dictate by threat of violence what can and cannot be depicted. Free speech is a fundamental tenet of free society, no matter how imperfect is its implementation in the US, and we cannot abdicate our rights for the sake of any group. Furthermore, I suspect that the real issue isn't the images anyway, but rather is a response to a political situation that is unfavorable to many Muslims, whether in their homeland or abroad. The West should hear the legitimate grievances of Muslims, but we are under no obligation to concede our freedoms.
29 April - Post South Park Episode Update
I was disappointed that Comedy Central refused to display images of Mohammed as part of the South Park episode. Why do we have courage enough to send our men and women to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan for "freedom," but lack the fortitude to stand up for our freedom when it actually is being eroded by Islamic terrorism?
Well, I intend to do my part. I therefore give you a picture of Mohammed as Islamic maximalists have portrayed him. Be warned, if you believe that to look upon an image is to commit idolatry, then do not follow the link below. Nobody is compelling you to see what you don't want to see.
Here he is, Islam's emissary, Mohammed
And if that didn't quench your thirst for idolatry, then gaze upon this image of Mohammed
Or just use google images already.
