In matters of idolatry (and, I suppose "graven images,") is it the image that counts, or the label assigned to the image? The concept is bothering me, and I hope my readers will forgive me if I attempt to use this blog to figure it out.

Let me see if I can get this straight. No one who is alive has ever seen the prophet Muhammad, who was never known to have sat for any sort of portrait, right? In logic, except for a few details (such as the fact that the man had a large head, dark eyes and wore a beard), that means that no one is in a position to know what he looked like, and therefore no one can declare that any particular drawing either does or does not look like Muhammad. We have only an artist's depiction of a person whose appearance is totally up to the individual artist's imagination.

In other words, whether a particular image of a bearded man with dark eyes dressed in 7th century attire is Muhammad depends on whether the label of "Muhammad" is affixed onto it. Even then, how are we to know that this is the Prophet Muhammad, unless the word "prophet" too, is affixed?

This means, does it not, that the argument is not over a depiction, but over the fact that a given depiction has been given a certain label? How can an image of something unknown have an appearance of being anything without a label?

Christians have very little idea what Jesus looked like. The stereotyped image so often seen in religious paintings and icons is little more than an image cooked up by the medieval (mostly European) Christian imagination.

Earlier Roman depictions of Jesus (and Rome was where Christianity was put on the map) show him as clean-shaven, with short hair cropped in the Roman style, and wearing a Roman tunic. Korean Christians depicted him with Asian features, while African denominations (as well as certain African American churches) have portrayed a black Jesus.

The complexion of Jesus's skin, how wore his hair, whether he dressed in the traditional Jewish manner, the Hellenistic Jewish style, or even the Roman style is open to dispute, because details of the historical Jesus are sketchy.

Here's one of the earliest known depictions of Jesus, from the Roman Catacombs, mid Third Century A.D.

I don't think that settles the matter of how the historical Jesus looked, but in matters of idolatry, the accuracy of the depiction is irrelevant. In theory, a depiction of a clean cut man wearing a modern business suit could just as reasonably be called an image of Jesus Christ as could a medieval man with Nordic features.

I don't know how many people have examined Zombietime's Mohammad image archive in detail, but I just can't stop thinking about the fact that our own government features a depiction of Muhammad -- right smack on the the United States Supreme Court building itself!

Here it is -- the North Frieze:

Muhammad (that's the Prophet Muhammad himself, folks) stands on the wall of our beloved United States Supreme Court building -- holding the sword and the Koran.

Not wanting to be caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar, our government seems to have made a deliberately sloppy effort to muddy the waters and declare that this depiction of Muhammad really does not depict Muhammad at all:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

[The Supreme Court website pdf states: Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.]

At the risk of arguing with the Supreme Court, I feel compelled to repeat, it's not the appearance that counts; it's the label.

To more fully demonstrate my point, I'll close with a couple of images.

From Zombietime, here's Muhammad:

And from another site, here's, well I'll let you guess:

Give up?

OK, that last one is Jesus.

But if you ask me, I'd swear that the Jesus looks quite similar to the Muhammad.

If I switched the labels, would anyone care?

Why?

* The prophet Moses, who lived many centuries before Muhammad, is also depicted. The Supreme Court website, however does not say that the sculpture "bears no resemblance to Moses."

AFTERTHOUGHT: Is Google going to get in trouble for displaying any of these images in Mideastern countries? Just thought I'd ask....

UPDATE: j.d. at evolution asks some good questions:

The central issue in all of this is, I feel, the question of who controls the meaning of words and symbols. Is it individuals who control them, each interpreting them for themselves and leaving others to determine their own interpretations? Or should some group control them instead, defining “acceptable” interpretations that the rest of us either look to for guidance or are compelled to accept?

Perhaps this accounts for the resurgence in primitivism -- both here and abroad.

I hope not.