The Politics of Graven Images

The King James version of the second commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth." This is widely interpreted as an admonition against idol worship: the golden calf, fertility gods, trees, Jimi Hendrix, or Eric Clapton. Or even Chaka Khan. You get the idea. "Graven" in this usage is understood as in the word "engraved," meaning carved, sculpted. It has broadened to include drawn or painted as well although I really like the Andy Warhol Jimi Hendrix pieces. And man, Eric Clapton! I like the King James version of the Bible because one of my mother's way distant great, great, great, etc., 37th cousins was Lancelot Andrews who was appointed by King James, yes, that King James, to oversee the translation of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. So the way I look at it, my uncle wrote the first five books of the Bible, which include the Ten Commandments. So one question is "Are Islamic prohibitions of portrayals of Muhammad somewhat in line with this 2nd Commandment?" My answer would be yeah, somewhat. A few years ago, an "An Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" was promoted on Facebook and other social media as a response to abrogations of freedom of expression and was both praised and criticized. It was both praised as a blow for freedom of artistic thought and expression and criticized as a gratuitous slur against millions of Muslims, the vast majority of whom just want to go to work and make a living and raise their kids in peace. Pakistan, for example, was quite offended and Facebook was blocked by the Pakistani government. Much ado ensued and the originator of the idea eventually had to change her name and go into hiding. So here I am adding my two cents to this senseless issue. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo in Paris is the latest incarnation (idea made flesh)of the politics of graven images.

Personally, I think the attack was directed by Al Quaeda as a tactical move so France and other countries would turn rightward in their politics, thus alienating and radicalizing even more disaffected Muslim youth, from which Al Quaeda recruits, and on which Al Quaeda depends. So Rene Magritte's gentle surrealist satire on images and perception, "The Treachery of Images" (and by the way, I've always admired Magritte's ability to make a living selling his forged paintings as Picasso's and Braque's and Chrico's) asking how can an image so strongly be misidentified as the actual thing since it is far removed from the referent, the pipe, to me is an important question. It is an image of a pipe, not a pipe. And then to take it even further, how can a graven image of Muhammad be understood as the referent itself? How can an image of the unknowable be assumed to be known? If I paint a picture of a smiling carrot and call it "The Prophet Muhammad" is that really a graven image? What if I paint a picture of a smiling carrot and say "This is not the Prophet Muhammad"? How can such outrage be generated by an image that is not the referent and could never be the referent or even explicitly says "This is not the referent"? I don't know. Don't claim to know. Okay. I'm done now. I doubt if I've contributed anything positive to the whole discussion, but I'm trying. I'm going to go listen to some Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix music. Maybe some Rufus.