On the dogma proscribing Prophet-image-depiction

The recent and ongoing scandal caused by Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed is a bit puzzling. Of course, as a non-Muslim, liberal and secularist, I am on Maajid’s side and find the call for his de-selection as parliamentary candidate abhorrent and stupid. Nonetheless I still want to get to the bottom of the dogma according to which prophets, and especially the prophet Mohammed, should not be depicted. I want to do this because I find it frustrating that a lot of the debate I’ve observed so far consists of one side trying to deem invalid the avowed offense felt by the other by stating that the cartoon is ‘innocuous’, when fairly obviously it’s not about the specific manner in which the prophet is depicted, but the depiction itself which is at issue. 

Now, I haven’t done a lot of research. But I googled my question and Yahoo answers delivered. There were a lot of answers, but the ‘top’ one seemed to agree with all the others I read in stating that Mohammed shouldn’t be depicted in images because this may act as a gateway to idol worship. If I’m wrong about this, let me know.

The insight I’m about to offer in regards to this probably isn’t very insightful; it’s too obvious to be that. But fuck it.

So I can understand that depicting an image of the prophet may be deemed sinful on the part of a Muslim, because the image might lead to the substitute of a direct expression of worship, through prayer, introspection, virtuous action, etc., with a mediated form of worship via obeisance to an inanimate object. At best.

At worst, the guy might go mental and think the object is his God. Worshiping a transcendent being via a corporeal object is a bit like staring at your girlfriend’s tits whilst talking to her. It’s a shoddy form of communication and your girlfriend wouldn’t like it. Hacking off her tits and forgetting about the rest of her would of course be even worse.

If the logic behind the dogma is as I’ve sketched above, then the immorality of prophet-image-depiction, or ‘PID’, and prophet-image-depiction-worship, is agent-relative; just like drinking booze, gambling, eating pork, the sin has necessary and exclusive reference to the sinner, in that sinfulness is not imparted to anyone who merely bears witness to that sin. Of course, the creators of the cartoon at the centre of this recent scandal are not Muslims, and they can hardly compound the sin of denying the one true God by depicting a prophet which potentially detracts from it. If there is any immorality attached to their cartoon, it can surely only be relative to a hyper-suggestible Muslim whose belief in Allah is shaken or consciously forsworn as a result of seeing it.

In other words, the less importance a Muslim attaches to such an image, the more he attests to a deeper, more steadfast belief in God, next to which a satirical, crudely drawn cartoon is immaterial. The opposite of idol worship is surely to attach as little religious importance as possible to physical objects. I take this to be Maajid’s meaning when in the The Big Questions debate he stressed that, as a Muslim, he doesn’t feel that his religion is ‘threatened’ by the Jesus and Mo cartoon; indeed, might it not be paradoxically erring on the side of sinfulness to suppose the One True religion could be threatened by it? That’s probably going a bit far, but still…

Alternatively, of course, a Muslim could try to convert non-believers who depict the prophet and convince them of their sinfulness. But I don’t see why this should apply any less to other sins according to Islam like the ones listed above.