Drawing God
On Friday, Danish cartoonist Kurt Wetergaard’s home was attacked by an axe-wielding man. Westergaard–who has been the target of fatwas issued by Islamic clerics after drawing a series of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammad–hid with his 5-year-old granddaughter in a panic room. Alerted by a home alarm, the police arrived minutes later and shot the suspect in the leg.
Drawing God, or the prophets who are said to have served Her, is not only considered an unforgivable offense in the Muslim world. Jews also frown on the practice, and many in the Orthodox community are not even permitted to write out the word, “God,” on a piece of paper. In both religions, subjugation to God means not contemplating what he or she looks like. Why? Because humans are unworthy, perhaps.
Christians actually love depicting God in works of art. And from the countless paintings that have been produced over the centuries, they’re pretty sure He, like Santa, has a beard. Kids draw God in a variety of ways, but also tend to give him a human form. Watch:
But here’s one of the odder instances of drawing God that I have stumbled across. It’s being undertaken by another man named Kurt, professional football quarterback Kurt Warner, whose skill as an artist poses no threat to his athletic career.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by david knowles, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Drawing God http://bit.ly/5qr82m [...]
These muslims know about as much about God as my dog does….., maybe less because my dog ain’t talking
I’m almost too afraid to comment on this story. We don’t have a panic room. But the whole notion of religious leaders swearing out death warrants seems downright unreligious.
Very deep and thoughtful. In the days and weeks to come, please keep providing us with such profound stuff.
Mr. Knowles,
The key theological point for the followers of Judaism and Islam (and a few Christians) is that their god has no image available that human beings can see. It is thus impossible to “draw god” because there is literally nothing to draw. Moreover, this is not an incidental property of god of the Tanakh and the Qu’ran but rather fundamental to understanding the nature of their god. It is essential to understanding this god that he (the gender is quite specific) must be conceived with any human characteristics, or indeed physical characteristics of any kind. The invisibility of the god as a central fact of these religions would be undone by any visible representations of him.
Beyond this, both Tanakh and the Qu’ran forbid all images of not only god but all thing in heaven, on Earth, or in the sea. Both Judaism and Islam are anti-iconic and both ban idolatry of any kind, whether by direct representation or through totems. You are quite correct that Christianity differs sharply with Judaism and Islam in the matter of representations of nature in general and god in particular.
I think the incident with the Danish cartoonist has more to do with politics than theology. There is a strong sense within south west Asia and Muslim world in general that western interests are politically dominant, culturally hegemonic, and economically exploitative. Disrespect for Islam by westerners is seen as symbolic for this general situation. Some confuse the symbol with the situation it symbolizes.
davidlosangeles,
If the God of Islam and Judaism has no image, how can it be defined as a he?
Mr. Knowles,
You asked:”If the God of Islam and Judaism has no image, how can it be defined as a he?”. The answer is grammatically. In Hebrew and Arabic, nouns and verbs have gender. So when in the Tanakh or Qu’ran it says “Yahweh said X” or “Allah Said Y”, the gender of the subject of the sentence is made clear. Now you may well object and note that grammatical gender is usually not the same as biological gender. The word for “rock” in both Hebrew (tsuwr) and Arabic (hajar) is grammatically masculine but the referent is clearly not biologically masculine. The traditional response is that when applied to a person, grammatical gender always matches biological gender. If god is considered a person, then it logically follows he is masculine, whatever that might mean. The curious would of course ask “What exactly *does* that mean?” and off you go. Islamic and Judaic exegetes (mostly men) have spent centuries exploring what that might mean and it fills volumes.
However, I am sure you get the general idea.
In response to another comment. See in context »The highly popular image of Christians (and believers in general) is that we don’t explore or question anything. This essay talks down to that stereotype. Your detailed, scholarly answer was the needed response. Thanks!
In response to another comment. See in context »As a person who speaks clumsy Spanish, I certainly do.
Mr. Knowles,
As a post script, and from a somewhat more subjective angle, the voice of Yahweh, in most parts of the Tanakh anyway, seems to me to be profoundly masculine. Some might argue that that may be more reflective of how that voice was heard and recorded by human ears and hands rather than the nature of the voice itself.
In response to another comment. See in context »david,
I’m not one to put much faith in those who hear voices, anyway…
Was that supposed to be funny, or is that actually your level of understanding on display?
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] kook looking to make good on a fatwa. In an earlier post, I mused about the tradition and taboo of drawing God. After watching videos of people as they attempted to capture the essence of God on paper, it [...]