Attack Raises Questions on Roots of Muslim Objection to Image-Making - NYT

Many Muslims upset by the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical newspaper, argue that the issue is not free speech but the insult to a religious figure revered by roughly a quarter of the world’s population.

Less clear are the precise origins of the Muslim objection to visual depictions, insulting or otherwise, of the prophet and holy persons of any faith.

That objection, which Islamist militants have cited as a reason for their deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris last week, has some roots in the Quran, which discourages image-making as a form of idol worship that demeans God.

But Islamic scholars and legal experts say that the Quran does not explicitly prohibit image-making, and that while the act is considered a sin in some branches of Islam, in others it is not — and certainly not one deserving of death. Moreover, these experts point to a rich history of Islamic art forms that include celebratory depictions of Muhammad.

The objection to images of the prophet, positive or negative, as well as all depictions of any being with a soul, animal or human, has evolved over time and has been interpreted in diverse ways.

It is based on the Hadith, a collection of traditions that contain Muhammad’s sayings and practices, and other Islamic principles, legal opinions and literature that helped form Shariah, the code of behavior that guides many aspects of Muslim life.

“There is strong Muslim cultural discomfort with images of any divinely connected creatures; these would include any of the prophets, as well as God and the angels,” said Asifa Quraishi-Landes, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who specializes in comparative Islamic and American constitutional law.

“This is strongly linked to Muslim disapproval of idol-worship, and the concern that the existence of these images will lead to worship of something other than God — the supreme act of disbelief for any Muslim,” she said.

At the same time, she said, there is no legal basis in Islam for violent reprisals like the attack against Charlie Hebdo. “Even if you believe this is punishable, it’s not something that vigilantes should do,” she said. “That’s universal across Islamic law.”

Abed Awad, a New Jersey lawyer and Rutgers University law professor who is a recognized expert in Islamic law, said the objection to imagery was far from absolute but was strongest within the Sunni branch of Islam.

“The modern Sunni argument for prohibition is that the portrayal of the prophets may contribute to demeaning them, undermine their dignity and integrity, and could be utilized as an excuse to ridicule and mock them,” he said. “The prophets are to be revered and respected; this includes Jesus, Moses and other prophets.”

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington civil liberties advocacy group, said that the prevailing view among Muslims was that all imagery of the prophets, regardless of their religion, is offensive because it promotes the idolatry discouraged by the Quran.

“It’s an established cultural and religious norm,” he said. “You don’t do visual depictions of religious figures, whether that’s a positive or negative portrayal.”

Western sensitivity to the Muslim objections has a mixed history at best, particularly concerning images that portray Muhammad favorably.

In New York, for example, an eight-foot marble statue of the prophet, created by the Mexican sculptor Charles Albert Lopez, adorned the roof of a courthouse adjoining Madison Square Park for more than 50 years until it was quietly removed in 1955. But a coalition of Muslim advocacy groups failed in a 1997 effort to seek the removal or alteration of a frieze containing a likeness of Muhammad on the north wall of the Supreme Court’s main chamber. The prophet is among 18 revered lawgivers decorating the court’s interior.  Read More at NYTimes