Blog Archive

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Images of the Prophet(s)


The Abrahamic faiths have something against imagery as used in worship. Thou Shalt not make Graven Images was put right into the decalogue about 4 places before murder. SO we should know that this is serious business. By the way, graven means carved. As in statues which were often used as devotional objects, but it is typically taken to mean any image used for religious purposes. Anyway this seems to be extended to all representations. So, Charlton Heston dressed as Moses in a movie? Bad idea.

Chuck, you are holding the dang thing in your hand, at least read it!



And a huge statue of Jesus in Rio?


You see how mad Yahweh gets at graven images! Or maybe Jupiter is mad that people calling themselves Latin are worshiping a Middle Eastern god and not a slightly more Northernly one.


Now, most Christian sects embrace the graven image and Western art is full of examples of church sponsored ones. Judaism meanwhile has reached a lack of care provided that they aren't used for devotional purposes. At this point I suspect there are people who will go at lengths to point out various Christian groups that reject the use of images for devotion. Fine, whatever, it is beside the point. Finally we come to the third and final (because I am lumping Mormonism in with Christianity) of the Abrahamic religions, Islam. The reaction of Muslim groups to the use of imagery is varied.

Here are some images depicting the life and times of Muhammad made by Muslims many centuries ago.





But here are the relevant Qur'an and Hadith passages on the use of images.


By these readings and the interpretation on the site we would have to assume that photography, cinematography and videography are also out.

But here is a counter argument to the banning of images, from a Muslim and professor of religious studies no less. I find his words however to be less compelling than the very simple, ones of the Qur'an. Of course we are talking about a system of belief founded on the idea of that book being the dictated words of a messenger from god, so we should always, at least fundamentalists and I suppose, take the source text as the top authority.


That the recent string of news reports on images of Muhammad seem to particularly enrage the Muslim community that the media chooses to portray Should come as little surprise. Of course, controversy and the creation thereof is what news media is all about, why spend time seeking out new stories when you can create next weeks headlines with the things you print today.

Anyway, the inflated controversy of a few people who were not of a religion breaking the taboos of that religion, has been fueled by unreasonable and violent responses by a few zealot groups. Which led to counter responses of solidarity by others, which sparked a counter counter response. All of this is a dialog, in the crudest use of the term. One which seems to digress into the base idea of "us" versus "them" whichever side you happen to be on.


And here, as I mentioned I might in a previous post, is the original form of the Danish cartoons.

Consider that my show of solidarity.



I think I will stop here for now. But I plan to mention more about the idea of blasphemy versus freedom of speech, in a future post.






No comments:

Post a Comment