Understanding idolatry
Anyway…how do they even know it is an image of Mohammed? Are they thinking all images of Mo are literally actually likenesses of him? Even though they don’t all look alike, to put it mildly?
What makes them think the image in the medieval Persian painting is of Mohammed as opposed to being the artist’s idea of Mohammed?
If I type
:)
and label it Mohammed, does that make it an image of Mohammed? What if I say it’s not that Mohammed but the lovely neighborhood UPS guy who recognizes me from a block away and waves hello?
In short what is the thinking here? If it can be called thinking?
And then what are they going to do with all the images of the millions of people named “Mohammed,” or variations thereof? Or about the millions of people who are walking, talking blasphemies because they have “Mohammed” as a name? How more pretentious and blasphemous and idolatrous can you get than naming your family or your child the same name as the prophet no one is supposed to depict in any way, because idolatry is forbidden?
And what about the photos of all those Mohammeds??? It’s a nightmare!
Now you’ve done it! :(
I think the idea is that if a depiction is either intended to represent Mo or can be interpreted as representing Mo, then it’s a problem. It’s similar to the reasoning behind interpreting various images as transphobic, homophobic, racist, or sexist on the basis of mind reading or symbolism. Say we’re looking at a stock photo, and everyone in it is X, or all the Xs are doing Y. There’s always going to be some way to problematize the depicted scene. Likewise, there is always a way to problematize a depiction of Mohammed, whether by imputing motive, finding symbolism, or appealing to how others might do the same.
So yes, Ophelia, your depiction of Mohammed (peace be upon him) is offensive blasphemy, and you should be ashamed of your obvious Islamophobia. You should make an effort never to put a colon adjacent to a parenthesis in the future.
From a religious perspective I can understand the prohibition on idolatry. After all, you want your adherents to worship God, not manufactured items. I say good on them, right up to the point where they start trying to force people who do not adhere to their religion (or their particular branch) to conform. After all, the Catholics think the Orthodox are idolators. The Protestants think the Catholics are idolatrous. Some protestants think that High Anglicans are, and pretty much everyone thinks evangelicals worship money as a proxy for God.
No-one can prove that their religion is ‘right’ so therefore everyone is ‘wrong’ according to someone else. There are really only two solutions. My preferred one is that everyone behave as their own belief a conscience dictates, while leaving everyone else the fuck alone. The alternative ends in religious war.
Re all the people named Muhammad:
In 2007, a British teacher of six-year-olds in Sudan was convicted of insulting Islam. She had asked the class to pick a name for a teddy bear, and the class chose Muhammad, the name of a popular boy in the class and one of the most popular names in Sudan. She served a 15 day sentence (less than the maximum) and was deported. The judge who sentenced her was named Mohammed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case
I remember commenting on that. (Yes, I’ve been doing this for a long time.)
I remember that! Best joke at the time was that the teacher should have called the bear Winnie-the-PBUH.
Back..uhhh…way back, I think first Bush administration, GHW Bush made the flag a wedge issue during his campaign, and once he was elected Republicans started agitating to amend the constitution to make “flag desecration” a crime.
One of the NY Times columnists (Maureen Dowd?) explained the problem with this. Republicans think the flag is an object to be venerated, but it’s not. The flag is a *symbol*, and as such, the reference/referent distinction breaks down. A picture of a flag is itself a flag and would therefore be protected by a flag amendment, and where does it all end?