what the three great religions say about it

Is it possible to caricature God or religions? In France, in 2024, believers are not opposed to it, respond with one voice the religious representatives of the three major monotheistic religions joined by The Cross. Judaism and Islam are, however, known to be aniconic religions, that is to say they forbid even the representation of God. For Jews, the prohibition appears explicitly in the Pentateuch: “You shall not make an idol or any image of anything in heaven above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor worship them.” (Exodus 20, 3-4).

“To represent God is to limit him”, explains Michaël Azoulay, rabbi of Neuilly and advisor on societal affairs to the chief rabbi of France. But “the Mosaic law only concerns Jews, which necessarily creates a space of tolerance for caricatures produced by authors who are not Jewish,” he adds, also emphasizing the important place of humor in the texts of the Talmud and in all Jewish culture: “It allows us to distance ourselves and defuse violence within religions. »

“Even believers caricature in a certain way…”

In Islam, “many hadiths of the Prophet prohibit the representation of the living to avoid idolatry”, reports Tareq Oubrou, grand imam of Bordeaux. The prohibition is all the more valid for God as the image could only restrict, whereas he is absolute, transcendent and infinite. “But to the extent that God leaves humans free to believe or not, Islam has a very simple position on caricatures made by non-Muslims: a non-believer cannot blaspheme,” he continues, going even further: “In a certain way, even believers caricature God since the representation they have of Him cannot be entirely consistent with God. »

Christianity has not been an aniconic religion since the Second Council of Nicaea, in 787, “clearly distinguished the image as such and the reality it represents”, says Father David Sendrez, director of the Higher Institute of Theology of the Arts (Ista). Since this council – which had the important consequence of recognizing the legitimacy of the immense Christian sacred heritage – Christians have been quite calm about the caricatures that are made in the public space, “especially since they do not seek to impose a relationship that is based on faith”.

“All freedom implies responsibility”

Would believers never feel offended when they see their God or their religion caricatured by a drawing, an advertisement or a cultural production? To this question, more societal than religious, the answer varies from one era, from one region and from one person to another, even within each religion. Father Laurent Stalla-Bourdillon, director of the Service for Information Professionals, recalls that the only legal limits to freedom of expression are attacks on security or incitement to hatred. “However, all freedom presupposes responsibility; it is not an individual right that could be used without limits, to the extent that it is expressed in a social body. » Rather than calling for legislation on caricatures, Christians prefer to call “to the fair esteem of religions and believers in a form of social binder, and to the necessary consideration of what religions bring to society”.

The Jews, for their part, are more marked in their history by caricatures linked to their people than by religious caricatures: “I differentiate between satire, which criticizes a religion or a representation of God, and anti-Semitic caricature, which aims to dehumanize people simply because they belong to a people,” reacts Marc Knobel, historian specializing in Judaism, who notes a rise in the power of these caricatures, particularly on the Internet.

For its part, on the political level, beyond more liberal declarations, the majority Muslim world has shown in recent decades a growing concern to fight against “the defamation of religions”, particularly since the publication of Satanic verses by Salman Rushdie, which gave rise to the fatwa of Imam Khomeini. “In this matter, the legal framework for sanctions legitimized by the main Muslim schools is based, among other things, on “sayings” attributed to Mohammed in which those who insult the prophet of Islam can incur the death penalty,” says Dominique Avon, director of Irel (Institute for the Study of Religions and Secularism) (1).

Over the past half century, “among the States which refer to Islam, in a mixture of customary law, religious law and secular law, we have observed a strengthening of the legislation on blasphemy”, points out the specialist, citing Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where it is punishable by the death penalty. On the international level, the 57 states which recognize a link with Islam, united within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), have used all their weight to have a form of secularized expression of the prohibition of blasphemy.

In 2023, a resolution from the organization’s Human Rights Council “calls on States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks to address, prevent and prosecute acts and calls for religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” : “The predominantly Muslim countries welcomed it, indicates Dominique Avon. This resolution shows a state of the balance of power within an international body. »