The term icon in my discussion therefoife pertains not just to images but to a form of relationality that binds the subject to an object or imaginary
The term icon to me means to mimic or to look up to a person or ideal and base ones life off that person instead of the religion itself.
W. J. T. Mitchell has argued that we need to reckon with images not just as inert objects but also as animated beings that exert a certain force in this world. Mitchell emphasizes that this force should not be reduced to "interpretation" but taken up as a relationship that binds the image to the spectator, object to subject, in a relationship that is transformative of the social context in which it unfolds. He argues: "[T]he complex field of visual reciprocity is not merely a by-product of social reality but actively constitutive of it. Vision is as important as language in mediating social relations, and it is not reducible to language, or sign, or to discourse. Pictures want equal rights with language, not to be turned into language."
This passage ties in the South Park episode where the Muslim community could not see images of Muhammad. This would help their argument because he tries to say that "vision is as important as language in mediating social relations, and it is not reducible to language, or sign, or to discourse." This can be so due to the world changing to a more digital age and information is easier to access and to share with anyone across the world.
The Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad,
This reminds me of when South Park depicted the prophet Muhammad in their cartoon.