Visual representation of prophets is a contentious topic that varies widely among different religious traditions. Recently in Turkey, a number of cartoonists and staff from a famous cartoon magazine LeMan have been arrested due to allegedly illustrating the Muslim and Jewish prophets. Apparently, the cartoonists pictured not the prophets but two angels flying over Gaza to represent the losses on both sides. The blurred definition of their crime in Turkish constitution paved the way for interpreting the depictions in a manner in which the cartoonists are accused of “provoking the people into enmity and hostility.” In fact, it is not clear who provoked whom. The incident has sparked discussions among artists and civil rights advocates regarding the limits
of free expression and satire in modern society.
Humor and satire in politics and religion is not a new phenomenon. Cartoons have always served as a medium for social view, challenging the boundaries in ways that may provoke thought while eliciting strong reactions. In societies where religious and cultural sensitivities are heightened, artists’ role becomes particularly contentious. Critics may argue that the illustrations of prophets, sacred figures, or other sensitive content crosses an irreparable line, while advocates for artistic freedom argue that without this sort of expression, society risks stagnation and intolerance.
Following the contentious subject particularly in Islam and Judaism, let me explore the reasons for the allowances and prohibitions of depicting these revered prophets, focusing on three major Abrahamic religions, and reflect on the theological, historical, and cultural dimensions that shape the ongoing discourse on this topic.
In Islam, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad is strictly prohibited. This prohibition is deeply rooted in the adherence to monotheism (tawhid) and the belief in the prophet’s unique status as a messenger of God. The image of Muhammad, historically, has been a contentious issue largely due to concerns that his depiction could lead to idolization or misrepresentation. Islamic teachings emphasize that Muhammad was a human being who served as an intermediary between God and humanity, and any visual illustration might detract from that. The complex dynamics surrounding the prohibition of images in Islam are often linked to the broader discussions about God’s nature and the concept of aniconism in Islamic religious art.
For sure, the Muslim conversion of the orthodox Hagia Sophia Church of the Byzantine era in Istanbul symbolized Islam as the “highest religion”. It could be, however, a controversial complex after a French monk translated the Quran into Latin in the 12th century with a red image of the prophet on the “creation” page, known as the first depiction of the Muslim prophet. The myth is encoded in the red Minared of Hagia Sophia, a symbol of revenge for iconizing the Islamic prophet in a red image. Also, the epiphenomena of finalizing an era in world history.
In contrast, Christianity has a more complex stance on depicting prophets, largely depending on the denomination. Historically, early Christianity showed a hesitation toward visual representations, reflecting a similar concern as seen in Islam regarding idolatry. However, as the faith evolved, especially in the context of the Byzantine Empire, the depiction of Christ and saints became prevalent. This acceptance allowed for the veneration of visual representations—central to the faith for both educational and devotional purposes. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 CE affirmed the use of icons, declaring that honoring an image is not the same as worshiping it. This nuanced approach underscores a key theological differentiation between seeing an image as a means of connecting with the divine rather than replacing it.
Judaism presents yet another perspective. The prohibition against idolatry exists strongly in Jewish teachings, particularly concerning God’s visual representation. In the Hebrew Bible, the Second Commandment explicitly forbids the making of graven images or likenesses. Consequently, visual depictions of prophets such as Moses are rare and often abstracted. While there is recognition of figures like Moses, the overwhelming emphasis is on textual representation in the form of writings and teachings. The tradition often interprets that understanding the message and laws set forth by the prophets is more significant than any visual representation.
Cultural factors also play a significant role in how depictions are perceived and accepted across religious boundaries. Within religious communities, debates surrounding artistic freedom and respect for sacred beliefs often emerge in response to modern events. Various incidents involving cartoon depictions of Muhammad, for example, have sparked global protests and discussions on freedom of expression juxtaposed with religious sensitivity. These dialogues usually highlight the delicate balance between tradition and modernity.
The situation in Turkey reflects not only a local response to contentious imagery but also part of a wider global tension where varying cultural interpretations of freedom of speech often clash. The arrests serve as a reminder of the delicate nature of artistic expression, particularly in politically or religiously charged contexts. The arrest of the LeMan cartoonists is far more than a singular event; it encapsulates a debate about the limits of artistic expression vis-a-vis deeply held beliefs. As societies increasingly navigate the intricacies of diversity, the lessons learned from such incidents may pave the way for more informed discussions on freedom of expression and its critical role in fostering an open and dynamic community.
The subject of visual depictions of prophets features a complex interplay of theological principles, cultural contexts, and historical narratives. While some religions strictly prohibit such depictions to maintain reverence and prevent misuse, others have embraced them as conduits for teaching and devotion.
