Yitro 5766
by Rabbi Dr. Barry Leff
Congregation B'nai Israel
Toledo, OH
Earlier this morning we rose as the Ten Commandments were read from the
Torah.
The Ten Commandments – a set of God-given laws that are considered by many
to be the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Yes, I include Islam in that list. There are passages in the Quran that
affirm the Ten Commandments, although the Quran itself says that one of
them, the commandment to observe the Sabbath, is only binding on Jews.
Half the people in the world, over three billion people, consider these
commandments given by God to Moses and the Jewish people to be sacred.
Despite their privileged status, some of the commandments sound a little
dated to a modern Western ear. Idol worship? Gee, not many of our neighbors
bow down to rocks—although, on the other hand, as we know, there are many
other kinds of idols, including money.
One of the commandments, the second one, is not to make “graven images.” I
have sometimes wondered how Christians who profess fidelity to the Ten
Commandments could allow something like the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican,
Michelangelo’s masterpiece, which among other things shows God Himself
touching Adam. And if Jesus is a manifestation of God, how could it be
permissible to make an image of Jesus, cross or no cross?
The Jewish interpretation of the second Commandment has actually been
somewhat flexible over time. As pointed out in a fascinating essay by Carl
Ehrlich of York University, during periods of history that idolatry was
rampant, when it was thought there was a threat from idolatry, Jewish
interpretations tended to be pretty narrowing, forbidding all kinds of
representational art. In other periods of history, when the representational
arts were no longer viewed as a religious threat, interpretations of this
commandment have been much more liberal and accommodating. When the Jews
lived under Christians who liberally used iconography, Jews also were less
restrictive. A fascinating case study is the “Bird’s Head Haggadah,” an
illuminated Haggadah of the 13th century in which all the central figures in
the story, like Moses and Pharaoh, are depicted with human bodies and bird
heads, so as not to make an image of a human. Yet in the same Haggadah a
human-looking hand (only the hand) of God is shown giving the tablets of law
to Moses: shades of the Sistine Chapel!
What the Torah says is “Do not make a graven image (statue) or any picture
of that which is in the heavens above and that is on the earth below and
that is in the water beneath the earth.” Interpreted broadly, this statement
could seem to be prohibiting any kind of statue or painting of any people or
animals. That is NOT the way the commandment has generally been understood,
however. We look at this verse in its context: the preceding verse says “you
shall have no other gods before me.” So we understand that the commandment
is talking about a prohibition against creating idols, things that we might
worship.
This is illustrated by a story that is told in the Talmud about how Rabban
Gamliel went to relax in a bathhouse that had a statue of the Greek god
Aphrodite. One of his students asked, “Rabbi, how can you go bathe in such a
place?” Rabban Gamliel pointed out that no one goes naked into the bathhouse
to pray to the statue. Aphrodite is there as an adornment to the bathhouse,
the bathhouse is not an adornment to Aphrodite. Hence there was no problem
going there. No concern about a violation of the second commandment.
The Talmud does record a dispute about how the same Rabban Gamliel had a
chart depicting the moon on his wall that he used in interrogating witnesses
to the new moon, which was an important function back then as it determined
when the new month started. There was a question about whether this was
appropriate, given that in the psalms the heavenly bodies are spoken of as
servants of the Holy One. Wasn’t this a violation of the rule against having
pictures of things in the heavens above? One opinion brought forth in the
Talmud says it was OK because someone else made it for him—and of course it
was not used for idol worship purposes.
When Jews lived in times and places under Muslim rule, such as Moorish
Spain, the Jewish practice followed the lead of the dominant culture, and
representational art was avoided in favor of abstract geometric patterns.
Jewish practice today would generally not allow anything that is to be used
for idol worship purposes, or anything that would constitute an attempt to
make an “image” or picture of God. We don’t have anything like the Sistine
Chapel—God creating Man—in synagogues. Or pictures of God giving Moses the
Ten Commandments. We have Moses and the Tablets--but NOT God.
Moses and Mohammed play similar roles in their respective religions –
“lawgiver,” and greatest prophet. The Jewish tradition was concerned that
Moses himself could be turned into an object of veneration—hence the hidden
nature of where he is buried, and his background presence in the Haggadah.
Islam had a similar concern about Mohammed – hence they prohibited pictures
and statues of the prophet, lest they become objects of worship.
The seeming Muslim sensitivity to this commandment, however, is hard for us
Westerners to understand. We look at what is happening in a few Muslim
countries, and we find ourselves asking, “Have these people gone entirely
crazy?”
Those of us who live in America can only watch in disbelief as thousands of
Muslims around the world, mostly in Arab or Asian countries, riot in protest
over cartoons that were disrespectful to the prophet Mohammed. We are
relieved, I suppose, that for once the main target does not seem to be the
US or Israel. Yet it still strikes us as very strange that people are
literally dying—a number of protesters have been killed by police trying to
keep order—for the sake of a cartoon.
They aren’t even such really outrageously offensive cartoons. At least not
to Western eyes. Yes, it’s in poor taste to show Mohammed with a turban
that’s a bomb. But is it worth dying for?
To understand the situation, we need to understand what Islam has to say
about the Second Commandment. To start with, the Koran itself, the Islamic
equivalent of the Torah, does NOT contain a prohibition on images of any
kind. There are a few oblique references that are used to provide a
connection to the Koran, but there is no explicit ban in the Koran on
images, graven or otherwise. There is a clear prohibition against idol
worship in the Koran, however: “When Abraham said to his father and
tribe,”What are these images that you sit around? They said, “we found our
ancestors worshipping them. (Abraham) said, “Verily, you and your ancestors
were in open error (21:52 -54).”
The Islamic prohibition comes from the hadith, which is a collection of
sayings attributed to Mohammed—sort of analogous to the Talmud for Jews. One
hadith says that making images of living beings is like trying to copy God:
it’s great hubris on our part. Another says: "The most severely punished of
people on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of
Allah's creation." This is taken by most Muslims as referring to creatures
that have a soul.
But, as in every religion, there are few universals. Even in Islam, there
are many examples of representations of not only average people, but the
prophet Mohammed himself and his famous steed. The only thing that seems
universal in Islam is the same thing that is universally accepted in
Judaism—no images for purpose of idol worship, and no image of God, Allah,
himself.
In Islamic art, particularly medieval and from Iran and Turkey, there are
depictions of Muhammad riding on his horse, Borak, and getting a glimpse of
heaven, talking to the angel Gabriel and receiving the revelation of the
Koran.
Even in contemporary times, and even in Pakistan—site of some of the worst
rioting—you can find pictures of Mohammed astride the heavenly creature
Borak, ascending into heaven. Yet the Pakistanis have not been worked up
into a frenzy about the images in their own backyard.
Here in America, we have a statue of Mohammed, as lawgiver, in the Supreme
Court. I’m not sure why that statue has survived so long without
protest—back in 1955 a statue of Mohammed that was on a Manhattan courthouse
was removed when ambassadors from several Muslim countries suggested it be
destroyed rather than renovated. Note that they made that request politely,
not with rocks and Molotov cocktails.
No, it is clear that what has the Muslims so worked up is not the fact that
the cartoons were an image of Mohammed per se. If the images were
positive—Mohammed feeding the poor or something like that—I doubt anyone
would have rioted. Yes, there probably would have been a few letters to the
editor. But people in Iran would still be eating Danish pastries, instead of
the “Roses of the Prophet Mohammed” they are now consuming—analogous to our
“freedom fries.” Same product, different name.
Look at the places where the deadliest riots have broken out—Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon. Look where some of the most noise is coming
from: Iran. Two dictatorships, one semi-dictatorial theocracy (Iran’s
mullahs decide who can run in the elections) and two fledgling democracies
torn by partisan strife. They are all countries where large parts of the
population are pushed around by others, where illiteracy is rampant, where
poverty is widespread. Nothing to distract a restless population from
problems at home like a little rage directed at someone else—Danes for
instance, or Jews. It aggravates me to no end that the Danes do something
the Iranians find offensive, so they decide to take it out on the Jews by
sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon contest. Talk about having a bad day at work
and going home and kicking the dog!
What we have to remember is the difference between what triggers a violent
response, and what fuels it. Ariel Sharon’s stroll on the Temple Mount in
September 2000 triggered the Intifada which resulted in thousands of deaths.
But it didn’t come out of nowhere—it was the result of long planning and
cynical manipulation by the Palestinian government which rejected the
negotiating table—and longstanding frustration of the Palestinians living in
poverty under a corrupt government, freedom to come and go controlled by
Israel, and with few civil liberties at home. The race riots in Los Angeles
were triggered by the beating of Rodney King, but they were caused by the
underlying racial tensions, unemployment, etc., in the black community
there.
The cartoons were a trigger – just like Rodney King and Ariel Sharon. They
weren’t the real underlying cause.
I thought Ariel Sharon’s walk was a mistake, and I think publishing those
cartoons was a mistake. I would have been offended if the Danes published
anti-Semitic cartoons. A recent article in the NY Times points out that we
have NOT seen things like "a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed
into sticks of TNT after an abortion clinic bombing." Surely it occurred to
some cartoonist—but it never was published because of concerns about
offending people.
But if a cartoon like that was published, it would not set off riots and
destruction. It would set off a volley of letters to the editor, and perhaps
someone would lose their job.
Until the underlying causes are addressed, there will continue to be
problems. If all newspapers in the West promise to never publish another
cartoon of Mohammed, it will not be the end of the story. It just means
something else will come along and trigger the riots and violence.
I certainly do not have the answer as to how to win this battle of
civilizations. I don’t know how we—or anyone—is going to replace oppression,
hatred, poverty, and bigotry in much of the Islamic world with love, peace,
harmony, and prosperity. But I’m sure until that change takes place, people
will continue to die for the stupidest of reasons – whether it’s cartoons or
a stroll at the wrong place and time.
The battle of civilizations is perhaps a misnomer. This is not a struggle
between Islam and the West. It’s a struggle between people filled with hate
who subjugate their own people for their own egos or pockets and the West.
If the leadership in the Islamic world were transformed into people who were
loving, caring, and tolerant, Islam would be as positive a force as
Christianity or Judaism. If the leaders of certain countries in the Middle
East decided to tackle their domestic problems head on, and accept
responsibility for them instead of blaming others – Jews, Americans, or
Danish cartoonists – they could bring about a new world in a generation or
two.
May God help that glorious day come into being, and soon!
