Some logical-theological observations, amid all the Charlie
Hebdo brouhaha:
It is not so much satirical caricature of the Prophet Muhammad that traditional Muslims object
to (though of course that does add insult to injury), but the mere visual depiction. Such a mode of thought is familiar to Jews and
Christians: “Thou shalt make no graven images”, and the Iconoclasts. Theologically,
if you were to depict the Prophet looking like Charles Atlas, it would still be
an offense.
The idea behind it has a couple of strands -- on their own terms, both quite
sound:
(1) Do not
attempt to compete with the Creator, in the ‘creation’ (depiction) of rational
beings.
(2) Do not
deify that which is not divine.
As a further application of (1), the Saudi authorities
discourage even simple drawings of imaginary human beings. I have seen KSA schoolbooks which
-- necessarily depicting people in the course of instructing the very young --
yet conscientiously slice-away a jagged section of the neck, so as to spoil any
alleged perfection, and not to infringe on the monopoly of God. Again, the idea is familiar from the Bible: Man is made “in His image”. To interpret that injunction as pictorial rather than (actually) functorial, is primitive, but -- To Each, According to his
Understanding.
(We have ourselves diffidently put forth a subtler interpretation
of “image” here: Man as the homomorphic image of
the ultimate, via a morphism in the sense of Universal Algebra -- a “quotient
space” of the Creator:
The ban indeed goes beyond human depiction; a hadith
transmitted by al-Bukhari and by Muslim
states: “Angels do not
enter a house which contains dogs or pictures.”
Point (2) is the principle bone of contention between Islam and Christianity: Muslims are down with Jesus (upon whom be peace), they just don’t think he’s God. And within Islam itself, (2) has also become quite contentious of late, with Salafists skewering Shiites (sometimes literally) for exalting the Prophet (who, in the orthodox view, was purely and merely human) and `Ali ibn Abi-Tâleb, beyond their human due. Thus, Yemeni al-Qaeda recently slaughtered a bunch of Huthis (including numerous schoolchildren) who had gathered to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday. Salafists consider that idolatrous, like Christmas.
(As a kind of compromise, we ourselves celebrate Meinong’sbirthday.)
~
Taking the thought-stream up a notch:
It is characteristic of Sunni Islam, to make a very sharp
distinction between Man (whether prophets or street-vendors) and God (there’s
just One of Him, mind). And,
further, in the culture in general, rather to deprecate images of any sort
(even acoustic ones). By
contrast -- somewhat like Presbyterians, or the Gospel of St John -- Muslim
theologians do truly exalt The Word.
Which means, in particular, with relevance to the present
political context:
The amateurish drawings of the Jyllands-Posten or of Charlie
Hebdo, snarky and uninsightful, do not really go deeply towards scratching
the Islamic skin (though the populace, excitable and of limited understanding,
may of course react violently).
The appropriate response of a Muslim of culture and understanding would
be to take no notice, or to give a frown of distaste, as at the vulgarities of urchins
in the street. But the Word -- ah, that is quite
another matter.
And in fact there have been such desecrations, which you can
view on the Web if you know where to look, besides which the sniggerings of the Charlies pale: provocations that -- the mirror-image of the ISIL beheading
videos -- go out of their way to be the nec plus ultra of Vile.
(I have alluded to these indirectly, in earlier essays, but
in the current climate, shall say no more. Else literally, heads might roll.)
[Update 13 January 2015] The post-attack cover of Charlie Hebdo is actually quite affecting; we reproduce it here in all reverence. As a Christian -- and one who sees the tale of Jean Valjean
and the Bishop, as the pinnacle of world literature -- I bow my head -- nay,
almost kneel -- before this highly unexpected headline, “All is forgiven.”
Lacrimae mundi |
For that, compare the second-finest
lines in all literature, from Faust:
“Ist gerichtet.”
-- “Ist gerettet !!!”
~
And yet and yet … alas, the point of our post is only too
incisively verified. This
genuine olive-branch of a cover, since it does involve an image, threatens to evoke yet further
violence:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/world/europe/new-charlie-hebdo-has-muhammad-cartoon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2015/01/13/01003-20150113ARTFIG00349-le-grand-mufti-d-egypte-juge-raciste-la-une-de-charlie-hebdo.php
Miserere nobis, domine.
[Update 14 January 2015] Judiciously treading a fine line:
In Muslim-majority Turkey, the
police stopped trucks of a pro-secular Turkish newspaper, Cumhuriyet, after it
decided to follow the lead of a number of global newspapers and republish
images from the new edition of Charlie Hebdo.
Turkish authorities finally allowed
distribution, according to the Associated Press, after verifying it had not
printed the newspaper's cover.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/parisians-line-for-blocks-for-new-charlie-hebdo-authorities-detain-comedian/2015/01/14/5a25ad74-9bc8-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html
Oof, and this:
Ch’suis moi Charlie
(Banned in KSA) |
[Update 11 March 2015]
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/10/muslim-action-forum-seeks-to-brand-depictions-of-the-prophet-mohammed-as-hate-speech/
No comments:
Post a Comment