Some Unrecognizable Forbidden Image of Some Unknown Somebody or Other

Sowing Seeds of Light
(Not Really Mohammad)

Memri
Mohammad Sabaaneh's Cartoon
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, PA
February 1, 2015

I'm ever again surprised when the editors of a Muslim news source publish an image even purported to be of Muhammad - as though they don't realize that Islam forbids images of Muhammad! The Shia branch of Islam has often depicted images of Muhammad, of course, but I thought that Sunni Muslims didn't and that they would even avoid even seeming to, so I was surprised to see the Memri report for February 3, 2015 (Inquiry and Analysis Series, Report No. 1142), by R. Green, "In Palestinian Authority, Outrage Follows PA Daily's Publication Of Muhammad Cartoon," even if the image is merely interpreted to be of Muhammad. I was not alone in my surprise:

On February 1, 2015, the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida published a cartoon by illustrator Mohammad Sabaaneh of a man with a heart-shaped shoulder bag standing in an aura of light atop the Earth and scattering droplets of light. The cartoon is titled "Our Master Muhammad" in Arabic and "Prophet Muhammad" in English.

As is well-known, Islamic law forbids any depiction whatsoever of the Prophet Muhammad or of any other prophet.

But apparently not known well enough for even Sunni Muslims to avoid even seeming to depict Muhammad!

The publication of the cartoon in a newspaper belonging to the Palestinian Authority (PA) sparked an uproar. The daily quickly removed the cartoon from its website and deleted the page from the PDF version. Two days after its publication, on February 3, the daily issued an apology:

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida apologizes to readers for a cartoon published Sunday, February 1, 2015, and completely rejects any suspicion or interpretation that the illustration is a depiction of the Prophets and Messengers. In its respect for the sanctity of the exalted divine religions and its professionalism, the newspaper has established a board of inquiry to investigate the published cartoon, whose interpretation is in doubt. This is in addition to [the newspaper's] announcement that its intent in publishing [the cartoon] was to defend religions and the message of love and peace.

It should be mentioned that the cartoon appears neither on Sabaaneh's social media accounts nor on websites that publish cartoons from Arab publications. Since February 1, Saba'aneh's personal website has been offline.

The rest can be read on your own, and those who do read further will see that radical groups are already calling for Sabaaneh's execution!

But Sabaaneh is dealing with a religion expressing a "message of love and peace," so nothing barbaric will happen to him. After all, the cartoon's "interpretation is in doubt." It might not really be an image of Mohammad at all!

Imagine that! But not too clearly . . .

The Arab Spring Springs into Action -- Against Christians?

Rached Ghannouchi

AFP Photo

Now Lebanon

On Friday, a friend of mine sent me a link to Hussein Ibish's article "Leave room for the unbelievers" (Now Lebanon, April 11, 2012), in which Ibish laments the turn toward Islamism in the lands of the Arab Spring, especially for the security of unbelievers:

What is most disturbing is that it is almost impossible to imagine an Islamist-influenced system protecting the religious rights of skeptics, agnostics and atheists. Blasphemy, satire, independent scholarly investigation of early Islamic history, or merely a profession of fundamental skepticism about faith in general (and not simply Islam) are all likely to remain criminal offenses. Protection for apostasy and conversion are another key test of real religious freedom.

He's right about the extreme danger for such individuals, but he's perhaps too easy on the Islamists' treatment of the Dhimmis:

[S]ince Islam traditionally regards Judaism and Christianity as legitimate, though imprecise, monotheistic faiths, it is not hard to imagine an Islamist-influenced Arab political order protecting the religious and civic rights of these relatively small minorities, even if the most extreme Islamists won't want to do this.

Some weeks ago, I blogged on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's warning about Islamism's worldwide war on Christians, and just today, I received a new article on this very topic from the Spectator, a piece written by Douglas Davis and titled "Out of the east" (The Spectator, April 7, 2012), an ironic line with a double-entendre signifying both that Christianity came to the West from "out of the east" and that it is now being forced "out of the east"!

A few weeks ago, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Amdullah, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, responded to a question posed by a visiting Kuwaiti delegation. Would sharia permit churches to exist in their emirate? The sheikh's response was categorical. Kuwait is part of the Arabian Peninsula, he said, and 'therefore it is necessary to destroy all the churches of the region'.

The Sheikh based his ruling on a Hadith which recorded the Prophet's deathbed declaration that, 'There are not to be two religions in the Peninsula', a command that has been interpreted to mean that only Islam may be practised in the region.

Now, the Grand Mufti is not just another swivel-eyed fanatic. He is the most senior Islamic authority in Saudi Arabia, president of the Supreme Council of Ulema [Islamic scholars] and chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas. His views do not make him an isolated extremist.

Of course, this is Saudi Arabia, so what does one expect of the region's religious authorities? But the 'Arab Spring' lands offer little better:

Last year, some 200,000 Coptic Christians -- such Christians once made up about 10 per cent of Egypt's 80 million population -- fled their homes after being subjected to killing, beatings and church-burnings in Alexandria, Luxor and Cairo. On New Year's Day last year, 21 Copts were slaughtered in their church in Alexandria; a further 27 died in clashes with police in Cairo.

This week, the Coptic Orthodox Church announced that it was withdrawing from talks on a new Egyptian constitution because Islamist domination of the process has made its participation 'pointless'.

Not a good omen, for Egypt is home to the largest Christian community in Arab lands. Scholars and bloggers may debate whether Islam was traditionally tolerant -- and I have come to have my doubts -- but current-day Islam looks to be so permeated by Islamism that the question is less one of relative tolerance that of relative intolerance, namely, which strain of Islam is the least intolerant?

Yes, things have come to that, and people may find that even the least intolerant versions of sharia are more than many expected, as Joel Brinkley implies . . .

Sheikh Abdallah Kamal: Defending the Indefensible?

Sheikh Abdallah Kamal
"None so blind as he who will not see."

Memri Special Dispatch Nr. 4465

Sheikh Abdallah Kamal, an Egpytian cleric who is probably a Salafi but perhaps a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (is there truly any difference), and at any rate an Islamist, seems to raise questions that even trouble him about the hadith attributed to Imam Al-Bukhari concerning the Muslim prophet Muhammad's relationship to Aisha.

Noting that "the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine years old," he admits that some "might raise an eyebrow and ask how such a thing could be," which implies that his own eyebrow was raised, as well as the eyebrows of his Muslim audience, for he was speaking on a Muslim religious program presented by Safa TV on January 9, 2012. In his further remarks, he admits that this "hadith has been taken, by . . . even some Muslims[,] . . . [as] a falsehood . . . [passed along by] Imam Al-Bukhari." Such Muslims "denied that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha . . . at such a young age." Kamal then acknowledges that some individuals have "accused the Prophet Muhammad of being a child rapist." His defense? "This [union] was decreed by Allah, and therefore, the Prophet Muhammad only married Aisha because of a decree by Allah." Implicitly, Kamal recognizes the outrage that would normally be roused by a report of sexual relations between a man in his fifties and a nine-year-old girl, else he wouldn't need to justify the act by referring to Allah's decree. But even so, Kamal still isn't satisfied with his own appeal to Allah's will, so he asserts that the "marriage of Aisha . . . was not her first marriage"! But he then weakens his own assertion in explaining that Aisha "was betrothed . . . to Jubayr ibn Mut'im," for he knows that a betrothal is not a marriage. Kamal's point, nevertheless, depends upon leading his Muslim audience to entertain the suspicion that Ibn Mut'im had sexual relations with Aisha even earlier than Muhammad! Otherwise, the point about Aisha being previously married is irrelevant. Kamal then goes further in his attempt to make the outrageous seem normal by claiming that the "environment differs from one place to another . . . [such that] a girl reaches puberty at the age of 8 or 9" in some places with hot climates. He may realize the unlikelihood of this 'fact' alone as persuasive and thus appeals to "religious scholars [who] have written . . . that a girl may menstruate and even give birth at the age of 9 years." By making this all seem so ordinary, Kamal's listeners might begin to wonder why anyone's eyebrow was ever raised at the report or why Allah felt the need to make a special decree for Muhammad's sexual relations with a child. But those points are now forgotten, for by turning an outrage into something normal, Kamal has reassured his Muslim audience that charges of "cruelty and barbarism" on Muhammad's part, or suspicions that "Muhammad only cared about his desire and his lust," are entirely wrong, for such things as a man's sexual relations with a nine-year-old child are entirely normal.

As a recently initiated member of the New Milton Critics group, I now see how useful the deconstruction of an argument can sometimes be in bringing us to perceive the ambiguities and incertitudes of problematic religious discourse, wherein the devout speaker inadvertently lets slip the suspicions that he himself holds and the doubts that he himself entertains.

Thomas F. Farr: Blasphemy and Democracy in the Islamic World

Thomas F. Farr

Berkley Center

Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, has written a review for Christianity Today of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide (Oxford University Press), a recently published book by Paul Marshall and Nina Shea. The review, titled "Islam's Inquisitors: A Review of 'Silenced'" (December 29, 2011), first introduces us to the authors:

Having collaborated for several years, first at Freedom House and currently at the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, the pair brings to the subject a remarkable background in research and advocacy. Marshall is in many respects the intellectual godfather of the fight for international religious freedom. His 2007 Religious Freedom in the World was the first attempt to provide a comparative index of religious liberty that measured the performances of key countries. And Shea has pioneered activism on behalf of the victims of persecution, while maintaining a steady stream of trenchant writings on the subject. Of late, she has directed much of her fire at the failures of Saudi Arabia to remove toxic Wahhabist principles from its textbooks.

I was familiar with the author's names, though perhaps readers are not, but I've not read much by either, probably just an article or two over the years since 9/11. Their interest in religious freedom dovetails with that of Farr, so in drawing from the review, we'll likely be getting the views of all three combined. Farr notes that Western countries in the past also had blasphemy laws, some of these still being on the law books but largely unenforced, and that today's Christians generally support the position "that all religious communities have the right to make their truth claims freely and publicly, and to win converts where those claims are persuasive." Such a position does not find common ground with most Muslims:

The lands of Islam, however, are still far from embracing this aspect of religious liberty. Blasphemy continues to be criminalized throughout the Muslim nations of the greater Middle East, Africa, and South and East Asia. Converts from Islam -- apostates -- are often imprisoned, tortured, or murdered. Under the aegis of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Muslim nations have for years attempted to internationalize the treatment of blasphemy as a crime.

Apparently, this obvious fact still comes as a surprise to many Westerners, though not to Farr, Marshall, or Shea. The problem of religious persecution has broader implications, for Farr tells us that "there is mounting evidence that religious liberty is necessary for the stability and longevity of democracy in highly religious societies, and for the defeat of religion-based terrorism." I find the link between religious freedom and democracy intuitively obvious, but I do wish that Farr had provided some detailed evidence for the point. Pakistan would likely offer a lot of evidence for the link, for the mere accusation of blasphemy appears sufficient to get the accused killed. The Islamists shoot first and ask no questions later. God will sort the innocent out from the guilty, I suppose.

In such a society as Pakistan's, clearly, an accusation of blasphemy can be used against any opponent merely by claiming that some of the opponent's views on any topic whatsoever, religious or not, are inherently blasphemous. Now Pakistan is hardly an example of a country with a rule of law, but what of more orderly Islamic countries, say one where legal processes based on sharia are more orderly in judging words and actions? Unfortunately, Islam has a rather broad concept of blasphemy. Whereas in the West, "Blasphemy has been understood classically as manifesting contempt for God or, worse, assuming the attributes of God," in the Islamic world, any criticism of Muhammad is also blasphemy, so if one dare even question the moral propriety of Muhammad having consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine years old, one can be put to death. Since Islam is based on the Qur'an as the direct word of Allah and the on the words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as the perfect human being, then any criticism or questioning of some purportedly Islamic position could easily get the speaker charged with blasphemy. By extension, any words that might be construed as advocating views incompatible with Islam could get the speaker accused of blasphemy. The Muslim concept of blasphemy is thus implicitly a very far-reaching one, boundlessly elastic in what it can be stretched to cover.

I therefore suspect that readers can easily see how laws against blasphemy would dampen free speech and counter democratic practices.

Geert Wilders on Islam: Ideology or Religion?

Geert Wilders

(Image from Wikipedia)

Jonathan Kay, editor of the National Post, a Canadian-based newspaper, offers a defense of the controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders in an article titled "Geert Wilders' problem with Islam" (May 8, 2011).

Wilders is "controversial" for such things as his remarks on Muhammad, describing "the Muslim Prophet as a dictator, a pedophile and a warmonger," so I think that we can infer that he doesn't like Muhammad, but he insists that such dislike doesn't extend to Muslims generally: "I don't hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology."

Mr. Kay offers a somewhat murky gloss on this point:

[I]n the modern, politically correct Western tradition, hatred expressed toward a religion typically is held on the same level of human-rights opprobrium as hatred expressed toward a race or an ethnicity. But Islam is not really a religion at all, as Mr. Wilders sees it, but rather a retrograde political ideology with religious trappings.

And he adds of Wilders that:

[H]is insistence on the proper distinction between faith and ideology is an idea that deserves to be taken seriously.

I know too little of Wilders to know if he's making such a distinction, but I wouldn't make the distinction myself. Faith -- by which I suppose is meant an authentic religious belief -- includes ideology, if we mean by that term a system of ideas.

I think that we have the right to criticize any ideology, including a religious system of ideas, which are often the most dangerous sort of ideas, as we can see nearly every day in the news.

Geert Wilders: Not a Fan of Muhammed?

Geert Wilders

(Image from Partij voor de Vrijheid)

Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid), had made a name for himself in European politics by calling the Qur'an to be banned as hate speech, which is not quite what the framers of hate-speech legislation had in mind, and has recently had an op-ed piece published in the Dutch magazine HP de Tijd titled "Time to unmask Muhammad" (March 30, 2011). The article is also available at the Freedom Party's website.

This article isn't likely to appeal to Muslims, for Mr. Wilders has nothing positive to say about the founder of Islam, whom he considers as either clinically insane or outright evil -- or both, since Mr. Wilders probably won't allow Mohammad to claim innocence by reason of insanity.

I'm not too keen on medical diagnoses of people long dead -- Paul of Tarsus, for instance, has been labeled an epileptic -- but Mr. Wilders does point to problematic passages in traditions about Mohammad that are considered authentic reports in the Muslim world. For instance, Mr. Wilders notes problematic passages on violence:

The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people's throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves.

And there's sex, too, with a rather young wife:

Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad's favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: "The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine."

Mr. Wilders offers no specific citations to back up these statements, but I've seen the sources myself, so I know that he could support these points with citations that Muslims themselves consider authentic. This presents a problem, as Mr. Wilders points out:

[An] insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man . . . . The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad's life must be imitated.

The Muslim sources present a complex image of Mohammad, but the portrait offered there includes actions that most people would not consider proper, so modeling one's own behavior after Mohammad's actions in every respect would be highly problematic, to say the least.

If Islam is going to reform itself, as many think that it needs to do, then it will have to deal with these disturbing traditions about Mohammad. But that might be easier than expected, for the rules for determining the "authenticity" of a tradition are somewhat arbitrary from a modern perspective. I recall, for instance, reading that a man who has urinated in an improper fashion cannot be a reputable link in a chain of oral transmission about Mohammad. I suspect that an enlightened examination of many reports considered authentic would lead to their dismissal as inauthentic.

But Muslims themselves will need to do this analytical work . . .

"Nigerian Jihad" Revisited

Shariah in Nigeria

Twelve States with Sharia Implemented since 1999

(Image from Wikipedia)

Way back on February 22, 2006, I posted a blog entry titled "Nigerian Jihad" in which I called attention to Nigeria, where Islamist attacks on Christians had occurred in 'retaliation' for the Muhammad Cartoons that had recently been published in Denmark. I summed up my post as follows:

This is not happening just in Nigeria, nor only in Nigeria and Indonesia, but throughout the Muslim world because of Saudi attempts to spread Wahabi Islam through education offered to non-Saudis, through indoctrination of Muslim pilgrims, and through the funding of mosques outside of Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi form of Islam quickly presses for sharia and engages in jihad against non-Muslims (or even 'impure' Muslims), with varying degrees of success.

I'd probably express that in a more nuanced manner these days, for I've learned more about various forms of Islamism, but I largely stand by what I wrote. Anyway, this blog entry, "Nigerian Jihad," got no attention until yesterday morning, which was the 22nd of February 2011 back across the International Date Line, exactly five years since the entry was posted (i.e., 22nd of February 2006). That apparently wasn't coincidence, either, for yesterday's blogger hailed from a website address that included the expression "nigerianjihad," which suggests that he was perhaps engaged in some vanity Googling, but he didn't like what he found, for he left this comment to express his ill-considered opinion:

These words steaming with their suffocating odour trickling from the prejudiced mind are words of Devil-incanate. It is unimaginable to think that a pilgrime in his short rigourous days of worship in Saudi Arabia could have time to sit and be programmed with any idea other than something related to pilgrimage ritual for which he travel to the place. Mind what you say.

A pilgrime?! Sir, clean up your own language! And tidy up your spelling of 'incanate'! I'll then deal with the odorous steam 'trickling' from my mind. Anyway, the good man's pseudonym was "Mujahid An Najeriy," which I suppose means something like "Nigerian Holy Warrior," so I can imagine the company in which "he travel" (if I might borrow his odd subjunctive). I responded to Mr. Mujahid in my usual respectful manner, first quoting his imperative to show that I'm paying attention:

"Mind what you say."

That's hard to do when I'm a "Devil-incarnate." But I'm pleased to see that your own words are so utterly under your control.

I then followed up his link to what turned out to be his own blog, titled Nigerian Mujahideen Forum. His motto reads: "A good Muslim is never a slave but struggler in the way of Allah." A bit lengthy for a catchy motto, though I'd extend its length by an indefinite article, but to each his own. From looking over Mr. Mujahid's 'forum', I see that he's also a straggler in the way, for he's posted only ten entries since his initial entry of March 26, 2010 and managed to garner merely a single comment in all that time: his own. Life must truly be a struggle for Mr. Mujahid in such a lonely forum.

But if he's not blogging very often, what exactly would a Nigerian Islamist whose pseudonym means "Nigerian Holy Warrior" be doing in all that spare time of his? Recall that wise old adage: "The Devil makes work for idle hands."

As "Devil-incarnate," I should try to keep him busy . . .

Everybody NOT Draw Muhammad Day

Readers will recall that a few days ago, I announced this Sunday to be "Everybody NOT Draw Muhammad Day" because I believe "that we must all stand up for our right not to draw Muhammad, else even that right will be taken from us!"

The response has been overwhelming. Among the billions of people who didn't draw Muhammad were three artists who went to the trouble of sending in their non-depictions of Muhammad. First and foremost is Dario Rivarossa, with the punny That's Not M!

That's Not M!

Dario Rivarossa

Mr. Rivarossa's work, with its vertiginous perspective from the upper heights of skyscrapers and its swirl of bright colors against a gray background, appears to portray Spiderman swinging through NYC's urban jungle, and perhaps another superhero as well, possibly Daredevil. Obviously not Muhammad!

Next comes a work sent in by Horace Jeffery Hodges, imaginatively titled Not Muhammad:

Not Muhammad

Horace Jeffery Hodges

Mr. Hodges, in a simple facial sketch against an even simpler, bold-red background, takes particular pains to ensure there be no misunderstanding, that this is not Muhammad! But is it also not art?

And finally, we see a true masterpiece of not-Muhammad art, En-Uk Sequoya Hwang's Daddy:

Daddy

En-Uk Sequoya Hwang

Mr. Hwang's drawing is a bold postmodernist colored sketch that appears to allude to the Cubists with the triangular slap of black to his father's face, but the drawing also recalls the ancient Egyptian manner of portraying heads from the side rather than the front. There might also be an allusion to a famous sketch of Darwin, given the massive brow. At any rate, you see that Mr. Hwang's art looks nothing like Muhammad. Of course, it also looks nothing like me . . .

There we have it! Three great works of astonishing artistry not depicting Muhammad. Our right not to draw Muhammad is safe.

I hearby declare "Everybody NOT Draw Muhammad Day" to have been an astounding success!

"Where's Muhammad?"

Where's Muhammad?

I've borrowed this "Black and White" image from my son's art blog because the Muslim prophet Muhammad is conspicuous in it by his utter absence from it. One might opine that there remains a Muhammad-shaped hole in every non-depiction of Muhammad's image.

Is non-depiction therefore also now forbidden?

The Washington Post thinks so, as Andrew Alexander has noted in his Ombudsman column for Sunday, October 10, 2010, "Where was the 'Where's Muhammad?' cartoon?" In that column, Alexander drew attention to a recent cartoon titled "Where's Muhammad?" by Non Sequitor artist Wiley Miller:

Miller is known for social satire. But at first glance, the single-panel cartoon he drew for last Sunday seems benign. It is a bucolic scene imitating the best-selling children's book "Where's Waldo?" A grassy park is jammed with activity. Animals frolic. Children buy ice cream. Adults stroll and sunbathe. A caption reads: "Where's Muhammad?"

Alexander notes the cleverness in Miller's cartoon:

What is clever about last Sunday's "Where's Muhammad?" comic is that the prophet does not appear in it.

Nor did the cartoon itself appear in the hard copy of the Washington Post for October 3, 2010, though that cartoon did inadvertently make the online version. What was the reasoning behind this laughably slipshod censorship? Alexander again explains:

Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear" and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.

Well, Muhammad might also be obscurely present in my son's drawing above, too, but I dare anyone to find him, and double-dare anyone to take offense, though some fanatics, undoubtedly, will take my double-dare. Perhaps even earnestly rather than deceitfully. Would anyone question this, given our experiences of the past few years? Oh, I suppose that some readers might still be unaware of the controversies over images of Muhammad. Alexander also recognizes this possibility and therefore goes to the trouble of explaining the point:

Miller's cartoon is clearly a satirical reference to the global furor that ensued in 2006 after a Danish newspaper invited cartoonists to draw the prophet Muhammad as they see him. After the cartoons were published, Muslims in many countries demonstrated against what they viewed as the lampooning of Islam's holiest figure.

Miller's Sunday drawing also keyed on "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!," a free-speech protest this year by cartoonists responding to what was widely interpreted as a death threat from an Islamic cleric against two animators who depicted Muhammad wearing a bear suit in an episode of the "South Park" television show. If enough cartoonists drew Muhammad, protest organizers reasoned, it would be impractical to threaten all of them.

I agreed with the cartoonists who protested death threats against South Park's non-depiction of Muhammad, which is why I also at that time posted an image that was not Muhammad. Indeed, I stoutly hold that we must all stand up for our right not to draw Muhammad, else even that right will be taken from us!

With that in mind, I hereby declare Sunday, October 17, 2010, as "Everybody Not Draw Muhammad Day," and I expect an enormous number of participants since even Muslims will join in.

Rivarossa's Jeffryon

Jeffryon

Dario Rivarossa

Inspired by my posts on the creature Geryon from Dante's Inferno, Dario Rivarossa has drawn a creature that he calls "Jeffryon" and made it available for viewing on ImageShack, but somebody must have objected, for it was removed with the message:

403 Forbidden
This file removed due to violation of ImageShack Terms of Service or by user request.

I suppose that Dario didn't realize that as with the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, depictions of my image are objectionable. Dario wasn't very happy:

huh... are they crazy??!! they removed the picture from ImageShack because of a "violation" or "by user request"!

Even the Vatican has restored the original Judgement by Michael Angel...

Dario therefore sent me the image, which you see above (courtesy of approval by me for nonprofitable use), along with a description:

Geryon + manticore + Sin + Lilith, and a clear quotation from a painting by Magritte.

The Magritte allusion might imply that "This is Not a Jeff" in which case, the image is merely a depiction of me, not the genuine article (especially since the "quotation" is from a different Magritte). That's comforting, I guess, but I have to admit that Mr. Rivarossa is an artist who has looked deeply into my unfumigated soul -- or my nephesh, as he might put it:

the Jewish word that is usually translated as "soul" was nephesh, that literally refers to "throat, breathing."

At any rate, I'm flattered to have been immortalized in this 'nephetishistic' work of art.

"Everybody Draw Molly Norris Out of Hiding Day"

Molly Norris

Painted by Nakkaş Osman

(Image from Wikipedia)

The above image, painted by Nakkaş Osman [c. 1595] and used as illustration in The Life of the Prophet (Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul [Inv. 1222/123b]), cannot be of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad at the Ka'ba, for Islam doesn't allow depictions of Muhammad, so no Muslim would ever produce one.

I therefore suggest that the above image is of Molly Norris, who currently has reason to go about veiled after being threatened for drawing Muhammad and encouraging others to do so as well:

[O]n the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. ("Comic Riffs," The Washington Post, September 15, 2010)

That might very well explain that ghostly white veil in the image above, the 400-year-chronological discrepancy between Osman and Norris notwithstanding.

There's a distinct possibility that Ms. Norris might end up going even more thoroughly ghostly, however, so I have a suggestion for solving her problem. Let everybody draw Molly Norris as each individual imagines her countenance, and the plethora of images will effectively hide her identity since the Islamists won't know which one, if any, is right and won't be able to kill everybody who resembles one or another of the multiple depictions.

In other words, let's have an "Everybody Draw Molly Norris Out of Hiding Day." I suggest October 31st, Halloween, since that's a day of masks. My depiction of Ms. Norris is given above. Not my own drawing, admittedly, but I'm no artist and thus have to beg, borrow, or steal.

No need to thank me for this idea, just keep me in mind when you need a concept-cruncher . . .

Images of Muhammad: Revisited

Muhammad Preaching

(Image from Wikipedia)

Four years ago, I responded to the controversy over the Muhammad cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper by writing a number of blog posts on Muslim depictions of Muhammad, such as a post accompanied by the above depiction, a 17th century Ottoman copy of an early 14th century Persian illustration, from an illustrated manuscript of Al-Biruni's 11th century text, Vestiges of the Past, showing Muhammad in a mosque preaching against intercalation (cf. Sura 9.37). My reason for posting the image above was to demonstrate that despite Muslim assertions that Islam forbids any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, we nevertheless find such depictions within the Islamic world itself.

At the post that I've linked to, I received then a number of comments, all from non-Muslims, it seems, but I've recently received an "Anonymous" comment from an individual whom I take to be a Muslim, given the particular sentiment espoused. It states:

god will break your hand

That's an unpleasant comment, though hardly surprising, given the fanaticism of some people. I replied:

Anonymous, thanks for your comment, which perfectly illustrates your attitude toward discussion, I presume.

You have expressed your violent opinion and now take refuge in your anonymity.

I receive the occasional courageous comment of this sort. Some brave soul feels offended enough to anonymously threaten me with dire consequences, wished personally upon me but attributed to God's intentions. This "Anonymous" commenter -- known only to God, it seems -- would like to break my hand . . . or worse, no doubt, since the basic offense is not in my hand but in my head.

I may yet end up like Trotsky, but if so, it'll be at the hands of one whose God has failed to carry out the deed Himself.

The Treachery of Images: "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"?

Against 'Veiled' Threats

Molly Norris

(Image from MyNorthwest.com)

Life is about to get even more interesting for bloggers like me. Two days ago, I blogged on the controversy over South Park's image of 'Muhammad', and I turn to the internet today, only to find still more images of 'Muhammad'! Or perhaps more accurately, images of 'not-Muhammad'. Whatever they are, you see them above, so shield your eyes if you find them offensive. Better yet, wear blinders everywhere, for you never know what might be a subtle image of 'Muhammad' . . . or image of 'not-Muhammad'. They could be everywhere without your even knowing it yet!

Jamie Griswold, writing for MyNorthwest.com, reports on artist Molly Norris in "Seattle cartoonist launches 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'." In Griswold's words:

After Comedy Central cut a portion of a South Park episode following a death threat from a radical Muslim group, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris wanted to counter the fear. She has declared May 20th "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

This 'Day' will go viral, I predict, and rapidly expand beyond Ms. Norris's vision, which draws on the brilliance of South Park producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone in not depicting Mohammad. No one can possibly mistake the images above for a human being, let alone the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The concept is a mirror image of René Magritte's famous Treachery of Images:

Ceci n'est pas une pipe, mais Muhammad!

This image is clearly not Muhammad, the French caption to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is the pipe even the property of Muhammad . . . though there could well be a certain French citizen named "Muhammad" who possesses such a pipe.

But to return to my point. Magritte's 'pipe' is not a pipe, precisely as it claims, though it looks like a pipe. By the same difference, Norris's 'Muhammads' are not Muhammad, precisely as they appear not to be, though they claim to be. Rather, each one is an image of a 'not-Muhammad'.

But since this will go viral, then Norris's clever use of South Park's brilliant ruse in not depicting Muhammad will soon get lost among the thousands of cruder online cartoons depicting Muhammad in more literal ways.

For those 'cartoonists' among us who are interested in contributing, or for non-cartoonists like me who are merely observers, more details are available at Norris's CACAH (Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor) site.

For the homepage of Molly Norris, go here.

UPDATE: Second Thoughts . . .

Abstract: "Holy Moley: Don Quijote's Significant Señal"

Miguel de Cervantes

(1547-1616)

(Image from Wikipedia)

In speaking of Holbrook Jackson yesterday, I mentioned my upcoming article for publication in Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America, "Holy Moley: Don Quijote's Significant Señal," to appear this autumn. For those with interest, here's the abstract:

Cervantes is known for using strong irony in his novel Don Quijote to satirize and ridicule various figures. In a famous scene in which a lady in distress named Dorothea describes a certain mole to be found as the identifying mark on the back of the hero who will free her father's kingdom from a fierce giant, Don Quijote is revealed to have precisely that sort of mole . . . more or less. As early as 1777, John Bowle noted the parallel to the story of the Muslim conqueror Tarif, who was identified by the presence of a mole on his right shoulder as the man who would conquer Spain. This tale of Tarif had been related in Miguel de Luna's True History of Don Rodrigo (Historia verdadera del Rey Don Rodrigo), published shortly before the publication of Don Quijote, and was surely known by Cervantes. Separately, Mercedes García-Arenal has recently noted the parallel between the Tarif story in Luna's True History and the qisas al-anbiya', i.e., "Stories of the Prophets," adapted from the Qur'an. The specific connection lies in the special mark of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, a 'mole' on his back, which identified him as the "seal of the prophets." Interestingly, Cervantes seems to adapt his passage concerning the revelation of Quijote's mole more closely to the 'mole' of Muhammad, thereby raising the question as to whether or not Cervantes intended to implicitly ridicule Muhammad. The article broaches the answer to this question.

I suppose that by virtue of my penultimate statement, this is not an especially politically correct article, but I try to be honest, which makes political correctness difficult to maintain . . . though I do try valiantly to maintain it.

Martin Kramer on Yale's 'Iconoclasm'

Muhammad Cartoons

Censored by Yale

(Image from Wikipedia)

Presumably, most readers recall the controversy that erupted when the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark printed the so-called Muhammad cartoons. Radical Islamist whipped up a frenzy in the Muslim world with violent protests over depictions of their prophet that supposedly portrayed him as violent when everybody knows that Muhammad was simply a peaceful religious founder and Islam obviously a religion of peace.

Now, the scholar Jytte Klausen has written an analysis of this controversy titled The Cartoons That Shook the World, and Yale University Press is publishing it . . . but without the earthshaking cartoons! Klausen wanted the cartoons included, but Yale said (and I paraquote), 'No way! The Muslim world is far too volatile!' This despite Klausen's findings, as summarized by Yale University Press:

She concludes that the Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not -- as was commonly assumed -- a spontaneous emotional reaction arising out of the clash of Western and Islamic civilizations. Rather it was orchestrated, first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria.

Not so volatile, after all? I guess that Yale didn't believe Klausen's analysis. Actually, I find myself only in partial agreement, based on this summary. I think that the newspapers made quite clear at the time that the Muslim reaction was orchestrated by radical Islamist, and I'd also add that Klausen's opinion to the contrary, I consider this also to have in fact been in fact a civilizational clash, for the Islamists would not have been able to instigate violent protest all over the Muslim world against the West if a tense division weren't already present.

Be that as it may, over at Sandbox, Martin Kramer has an interesting perspective on this issue of Yale's 'iconoclasm':

I don't know if publishing these images in an academic book at this time would run a "serious risk of instigating violence." Everything I do know tells me that it wouldn't. Extremists are always looking for something to exploit, but it has to be a new, unprecedented (perceived) offense against Islam. Dante's Inferno, Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons -- these are all old perceived offenses, too familiar to fire up a sense of indignation. No doubt there will be another round at some point -- and no doubt, its ostensible "cause" will surprise us all. (That's because it won't really be the cause, but a pretext -- like the Danish cartoons.)

I think that he's right about this point. Including the Muhammad images in this book by Klausen would have raised little or no controversy for precisely the reasons Kramer notes. "But," as Kramer also notes, "that's neither here nor there":

The reason we have "restricted visas, travel bans and demeaning airport luggage searches" (and other disdained measures) is so that in America, a university press can publish the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons, and do so without fear. If we didn't have that line of defense, we would constantly have to censor ourselves and ban whole classes of free expression, lest we be tormented by fanatic extremists.

In other words, America is supposed to stand for free speech -- and protected free speech, at that! Yale has blinked when there was likely no glaring threat to blink at and assuredly many reasons not to blink if there even were such a threat.

Land of the free and home of the brave? Only if we keep it that way.

"Stoning . . . is the introduction, by contemporary Islamic leaders, of a Jewish custom"?

(Korea Herald)

The British scholar Chris Williams, who seems to be writing a regular column for the Korea Herald these days, had an article in yesterday's Herald that promised to apply lessons learned from the recent events in Iran to an analysis of North Korea: "Could 'Iran' happen in North Korea?"

Despite the headline, Williams actually had relatively little to say specifically about North Korea -- though he did make the following remark:

Hope for Iran, and North Korea, lies in two things. Despotic regimes inevitably score own goals, appear foolish and inept, and alienate their own supporters. But paradoxically, it is unfortunate that those who rule North Korea seem less inept than those who rule Iran.

I gather that North Korean 'eptness' means that the answer to the question posed in this article's headline as to the possibility of massive popular resistance in North Korea is: "Maybe not." I suspect, however, that if the North Korean leadership seems less inept than Iran's leadership, this is because the North Korean leaders do not flirt with democracy and therefore have no ballots to obviously and crudely miscount. Williams did have some otherwise interesting things to say about Iran, despotism, and democracy, but his article contains the following, confounding passage:

Stoning is not, as many believe, Iranian tradition. It did not happen during the Shah's era, and the practice is not Persian or proposed in the Koran. It is the introduction, by contemporary Islamic leaders, of a Jewish custom. The practice is closer to Zionism than Zoroastrianism.

That last line is perhaps indicative of an Anglo-Saxon love for alliteration, and thereby 'poetic', but the entire paragraph is a cognitive snarl that would appear to hold Jews in some way responsible for the un-Islamic application of stoning as punishment in Iran. Let us therefore look a bit closer at this issue.

Is stoning a Jewish custom? I don't currently see many Jews involved in stonings. To be frank, I don't see any. Jewish laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy do indeed mandate stoning for some crimes, and these might be what Williams was thinking of, but the laws on stoning haven't been applied for perhaps 2000 years. There may have been some exceptions, for isolated cases can probably always be found, but one can hardly call stoning these days a Jewish custom.

Moreover, stoning surely has nothing to do with Zionism, which is a secular political philosophy. I can't imagine that Williams thinks that the state of Israel has laws to mandate stoning for capital offenses. As for the reference to Zoroastrianism . . . well, why is that thrown in? Except for alliteration, of course . . . and, I suppose, because the Iranians used to be Zoroastrians, who apparently didn't use stoning as a punishment. But Iranians haven't been Zoroastrians since the Islamic conquest nearly 1400 years ago.

And that is the crux, for stoning is both law and custom in Islam. Williams is correct that the Qur'an does not mandate stoning, but Islamic law, shariah, certainly does, for shariah is based on three sources: Qur'an (Allah's revelation), Sira (Muhammad's life), and Hadith (Muhammad's sayings). Muhammad practiced stoning, and he condoned it. Stoning is not a recent introduction to Islam by contemporary Muslim leaders. It is decidedly no innovation.

As for the history of stoning's application in Islamic Iran, I know little about that. Possibly, Williams is correct that it was not practiced in the past and was only introduced into Iran's Islamic Penal Code in 1983. Be that as it may, stoning has certainly always been part of Islamic law, and when one considers that Iran's Islamist revolution took place in 1979, then the fact that stoning was made law merely four years later looks less like innovation and more like an opportunity grasped.

In no way should one blame the Jews for stoning in Iran . . . or for stoning in Islam.

Taliban: Conquest of Pakistan?

Advancing on Mecca

The Life of the Prophet (1595)

Siyer-i Nebi

(Image from Wikipedia)

Many of us are watching with great interest and not a little apprehension as the Taliban make inroads into eastern portions of Pakistan. Recently, the government there turned over the Swat Valley to Taliban control, allowing implementation of Islamic law (sharia). Some readers will recall the recent video of a 17-year-old girl publicly whipped (34 lashes) for going outside her home without the escort of a close male relative. The comment of one moderate Muslim living in the city of Mingora is quite revealing:

When the Taliban took over Swat, they held a "peace" march. Thousands of men in black turbans and regulation beards stomped through the city. "There wasn't a single local among them," a schoolteacher in Mingora recalled. "I sat at home with my family and quivered with fear." Then he hesitated and made sure that my recorder was switched off, afraid that what he was about to say might be seen as blasphemous. "I felt like a non-Muslim citizen of Mecca the day it was conquered by prophet Muhammad's army. And I am a practicing Muslim." (Reported by Mohammed Hanif, "My Country, Caving to the Taliban," The Washington Post, Sunday, April 26, 2009)

To put this another way, the fearful schoolteacher felt that he would be treated by the Taliban as the infidels were treated by a conquering Muhammad: given the choice of submission to Islam . . . or death.

Now, it's true that not many Meccan infidels died when Muhammad marched victoriously in, but that's undoubtedly because they submitted to Islam and the destruction of the idols in the Kaaba. It's also true that 'monotheistic' non-Muslims are allowed to continue in their religion so long as the jizya is paid and other restrictions are accepted, but one purpose of the jizya and the various restrictions is to put pressure on non-Muslim 'monotheists' to convert to Islam, and the Taliban are already putting pressure on non-Muslims to pay the jizya, convert to Islam, or face execution.

The Taliban's aims are not limited to the Swat Valley. The great prize is Pakistan itself, and if the Pakistani government continues to 'cave' to the Taliban, then these Islamist militants could succeed.

And just to concentrate our minds, let's recall that Pakistan has an estimated 90 to 250 nuclear weapons.

"To dream . . . the impossible dream . . ."

Stefan Mart, Don Quixote (1933)

(Image from Don Quixote: 28 Illustrations by Stefan Mart)

Like the good Don Quixote, I was looking over my books and writings this morning, checking details in my search for the ultimate meaning of the small mole on the great Don's back, trying not to make so big a mountain of a mole that the mountain won't come to me in a size that I can't handle . . . but perhaps I have faith enough to toss it into the sea.

Speaking of that mole, I spoke of it earlier in noting the mole on the back of the the Muslim conquistador Tarif, who invaded Spain during the initial stage of the Arab Muslim conquest, citing a scholar on this issue:

In the article "De la autoría morisca a la antigüedad sagrada de Granada, rescatada al Islam," Mercedes García-Arenal has noted the connection between the mole on Tarif's back and the 'mole' on Muhammad's back (but does not note a link to Don Quixote):

Luna introduce en su libro, . . . otro pronóstico claramente emparentado con las qisas al-anbiya’: una mujer se acerca al conquistador árabe, el capitán Tarif, recién desembarcado en la península y le reconoce como aquél del que habla un pronóstico que le había transmitido su padre, según el cual un hombre milagroso había de ganar la península y su seña había de ser «un lunar peloso, tan grande como un garvanco, . . . situado sobre el hombro de la mano derecha».:" Esta historia está claramente inspirada en la del monje Bahira, que aparece en todos los compendios de «historias de los profetas», un monje cristiano que fue el primero en reconocer la calidad profética de Mahoma al ver que tenía sobre el hombro derecho un lunar, la marca de la profecía. (García-Arenal, 564)

In his book, Luna introduces . . . an omen clearly related to the al-qisas anbiya' [sic. qisas al-anbiya', i.e., "Stories of the Prophets," adapted from the Qur'an]: a woman approaches the Arab conquistador, the captain Tarif, who has recently landed on the peninsula, and she recognizes him as the one spoken of in an omen handed down by her father, according to which a miraculous man would gain the peninsula, the sign being "a hairy mole, as big as a garbanzo . . . located on the shoulder of the right hand." This story is clearly inspired by that of the monk Bahira, which appears in all compendiums of "Stories of the Prophets," the tale of a Christian monk who was the first to recognize the prophetic qualities of the Prophet Muhammad, for this monk was to discover a mole on his right shoulder, the mark of prophecy. (my translation of García-Arenal, 564; corrections would be appreciated)

García-Arenal notes the allusion in Luna's passage concerning the mole on Tarif’s back to the Bahira story of the 'mole' on Muhammad's back. Muslim sources, however, generally locate the mark not on Muhammad's right shoulder but on his left shoulder or between his shoulder blades. If any Muslim sources speak of the mole being on Muhammad's right shoulder, then I would appreciate knowing the sources.

I still have no solid hadith that places the mole on Muhammad's right shoulder, but I wonder if there are a few, for I have found that Khwaja Kamal-ud-din mentions the mole being on Muhammad's right shoulder in his 1925 biography of Muhammad:

[Muhammad's] back was broad, and near his right shoulder-blade was a mark like a seal, and in it there was a black mole, somewhat yellowish, around which there was some thick hair. (Kamal-ud-din, The Ideal Prophet: Aspects of the life and qualities of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Lahore: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at, 1996 [1925]), page 12)

Unfortunately, Kamal-ud-din provides only a general reference to Bukhari (page 11) as well as to Tirmizi (Shamdtail) and Ibn Hanbal (Musnad Muslim) (page 11, note 1). If anyone knows what hadith are meant, please post the information in a comment and thereby assist me in realizing my impossible dream of publishing a scholarly article on Don Quixote, despite being no Cervantes scholar.

That's all for today. The day threatens . . .

Holy Moley: Don Quixote’s Significant Mole?

Honoré Daumier: Don Quixote leading Sancho Panza

On a mole-inspired quest . . .

(Image from Wikipedia)

I'm still working on that mole discovered on Don Quixote's back, which I linked to Muhammad's 'mole', known to Muslims as a seal of their "Prophet." Readers of Gypsy Scholar or of the more obscure Cervantes will recall the incident. A lovely lady in distress, Dorotea, is looking for a man to free her father's kingdom from a fierce giant, and the sign of that auspicious man would be a mole on his back:

-Don Quijote diría, señora -dijo a esta sazón Sancho Panza-, o, por otro nombre, el Caballero de la Triste Figura.
-Así es la verdad -dijo Dorotea-. «Dijo más: que había de ser alto de cuerpo, seco de rostro, y que en el lado derecho, debajo del hombro izquierdo, o por allí junto, había de tener un lunar pardo con ciertos cabellos a manera de cerdas.»
En oyendo esto don Quijote, dijo a su escudero:
-Ten aquí, Sancho, hijo, ayúdame a desnudar, que quiero ver si soy el caballero que aquel sabio rey dejó profetizado.
-Pues, ¿para qué quiere vuestra merced desnudarse? -dijo Dorotea.
-Para ver si tengo ese lunar que vuestro padre dijo -respondió don Quijote.
-No hay para qué desnudarse -dijo Sancho-, que yo sé que tiene vuestra merced un lunar desas señas en la mitad del espinazo, que es señal de ser hombre fuerte.
-Eso basta -dijo Dorotea-, porque con los amigos no se ha de mirar en pocas cosas, y que esté en el hombro o que esté en el espinazo, importa poco; basta que haya lunar, y esté donde estuviere, pues todo es una mesma carne (Cervantes, Don Quixote, Part 1, Chapter 30)

"'Don Quixote,' he must have said, senora," observed Sancho at this, "otherwise called the Knight of the Rueful Countenance."
"That is it," said Dorothea; "he said, moreover, that he would be tall of stature and lank featured; and that on his right side under the left shoulder, or thereabouts, he would have a grey [sic., brown (pardo)] mole with hairs like bristles."
On hearing this, Don Quixote said to his squire, "Here, Sancho my son, bear a hand and help me to strip, for I want to see if I am the knight that sage king foretold."
"What does your worship want to strip for?" said Dorothea.
"To see if I have that mole your father spoke of," answered Don Quixote.
"There is no occasion to strip," said Sancho; "for I know your worship has just such a mole on the middle of your backbone, which is the mark of a strong man."
"That is enough," said Dorothea, "for with friends we must not look too closely into trifles; and whether it be on the shoulder or on the backbone matters little; it is enough if there is a mole, be it where it may, for it is all the same flesh." (Cervantes, Part 1, Chapter 30 (Ormsby translation))

In A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Percy, Concerning a New and Classical Edition of Historia Del Valeroso Cavallero Don Quixote de la Mancha, John Bowle calls our attention to the specific point of contact between Don Quixote (1605 and 1615) and Miguel de Luna's True History of King Rodrigo (Historia verdadera del Rey Don Rodrigo)(1592 and 1600). The two, notes Bowle, abound with the same phrases and diction, and Cervantes "has with great humour ridiculed a circumstance gravely related . . . of a Christian woman taken by sentinels of the [Muslim] captain Tarif Abenziet [and] brought into his presence, [whereupon she] informed him that she had heard her father read" a 'prognosis' (10-11):

«un pronóstico, el cual decía que esta tierra la habían de perder los cristianos, y que había de ser conquistada de los moros. Y decía más que el capitán que la había de ganar, había de ser valeroso y fuerte, y para señal de su conocimiento había de tener un lunar peloso tan grande como un garbanzo sobre el hombro de la mano derecha. Acabadas de decir estas razones por aquella mujer, Tarif se holgó mucho, y en presencia de todos los suyos se desnudó; y habiendo mirado con cuidado hallaron el lunar que la mujer había dicho». (Bowle, 10-11)

A Prognostick which said, that the Christians were to lose that land, and that it was to be conquered by the Moors: it said farther, that the Captain that was to gain it, was to be valorous and strong; and for a proof of the knowledge of him, he was to have a hairy mole as large as a garvanzo, or vetch, over the shoulder of his right hand. On conclusion of these words by that woman, the Tariff was much pleased, and before all his retinue stripped himself, and having carefully looked, they found the mole as the woman had said. (Bowle, 11, footnote)

Note that Cervantes draws upon this source by the Morisco Miguel de Luna but uses it to implicitly ridicule the story of the Muslim captain Tarif who was to conquer under the sign of a mole. In the article "De la autoría morisca a la antigüedad sagrada de Granada, rescatada al Islam," Mercedes García-Arenal has noted the connection between the mole on Tarif's back and the 'mole' on Muhammad's back (but does not note a link to Don Quixote):

Luna introduce en su libro, . . . otro pronóstico claramente emparentado con las qisas al-anbiya’: una mujer se acerca al conquistador árabe, el capitán Tarif, recién desembarcado en la península y le reconoce como aquél del que habla un pronóstico que le había transmitido su padre, según el cual un hombre milagroso había de ganar la península y su seña había de ser «un lunar peloso, tan grande como un garvanco, . . . situado sobre el hombro de la mano derecha».:" Esta historia está claramente inspirada en la del monje Bahira, que aparece en todos los compendios de «historias de los profetas», un monje cristiano que fue el primero en reconocer la calidad profética de Mahoma al ver que tenía sobre el hombro derecho un lunar, la marca de la profecía. (García-Arenal, 564)

In his book, Luna introduces . . . an omen clearly related to the al-qisas anbiya' [sic. qisas al-anbiya', i.e., "Stories of the Prophets," adapted from the Qur'an]: a woman approaches the Arab conquistador, the captain Tarif, who has recently landed on the peninsula, and she recognizes him as the one spoken of in an omen handed down by her father, according to which a miraculous man would gain the peninsula, the sign being "a hairy mole, as big as a garbanzo . . . located on the shoulder of the right hand." This story is clearly inspired by that of the monk Bahira, which appears in all compendiums of "Stories of the Prophets," the tale of a Christian monk who was the first to recognize the prophetic qualities of the Prophet Muhammad, for this monk was to discover a mole on his right shoulder, the mark of prophecy. (my translation of García-Arenal, 564; corrections would be appreciated)

García-Arenal notes the allusion in Luna's passage concerning the mole on Tarif’s back to the Bahira story of the 'mole' on Muhammad's back. Muslim sources, however, generally locate the mark not on Muhammad's right shoulder but on his left shoulder or between his shoulder blades. If any Muslim sources speak of the mole being on Muhammad's right shoulder, then I would appreciate knowing the sources.

I have found a reference to Hakim al-Nishaburi's Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain (aka Mustadrak al-Hakim), which apparently reports "from Wahb bin Munabbih that Allah (the most High) did not send a Prophet except that upon him was the sign (shamah) of Prophethood on his right hand, except for our Prophet for his sign (shamah) of Prophethood is between his shoulders [al-Hakim 2/577]" (al-Nishaburi).

I found this reference on the blog Dar al-Hadith, but if anybody knows an official English translation of Hakim al-Nishaburi's Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain, I'd appreciate the bibliographical information. The bibliographical details to the specific hadith in the original Arabic would also be useful.

Also, in a comment to an earlier post on Gypsy Scholar, Aladdin explained that "Naged . . . is an archaic Arabic world that means, simply, shoulder blade." A bibliographical source for that information would be useful . . . if anyone has it.

Toward a European Islam?

Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch

Not what Tariq Ramadan had in mind . . .

(Image from Wall Street Journal)

Tariq Ramadan has famously called for a European Islam, but he probably didn't intend someone like Münster University Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch -- a convert to Islam at age 15 and now Germany's first professor of Islamic theology -- who doubts that Muhammad ever existed.

He didn't start out with such radical ideas and in fact appeared to adhere to rather conservative views on Islamic law . . . but that impression was superficial:

In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"

He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.

He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.

Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.

He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.

This is interesting to hear about, and it's useful for opening up academic debate as well as for raising the level of scholarly discourse among Muslim intellectuals in Europe -- unless Kalisch is beheaded for apostasy, which tends to have a silencing effect on discussion -- but I have to admit to maintaining skepticism about the good professor's arguments for Muhammad's supposed nonexistence.

Not that I know his specific arguments . . . and he's the scholar, not I.

But I do have one arrow in my quiver, the famous "criterion of dissimilarity," popularly known as the "criterion of embarrassment," which roughly says that any 'embarrassing' statement about or by a respected religious founder occurring in a pious work written at an early period in the history of the religion is probably true. The sira (biography) and sunnah (deeds) contain so many 'embarrassing' reports of words and deeds attributed to Muhammad that I find difficulty in accepting that such words and deeds were later invented by pious Muslims. The more likely conclusion is that Muhammad really existed and that he said and did some 'embarrassing' things.

The most famous of embarrassments is the disputed "Satanic Verses" incident, in which Muhammad is reported -- in the early, pious Muslim literature -- to have recited Satanically inspired verses praising three pagan goddesses as daughters of Allah. Of this report, one eminent scholar of Islam has written:

"Muhammad must have publicly recited the satanic verses as part of the Qur'ān; it is unthinkable that the story could have been invented by Muslims, or foisted upon them by non-Muslims." (William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 103)

Since such an embarrassing story exists in the early Muslim literature, and since this literature was written from pious motives, then the story would not have been invented. Muhammad must really have recited such embarrassing verses, and he could only have done so if he had existed. Therefore, Muhammad really did exist, despite the scholarly opinion of Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch.

This, of course, is the simple argument. Scholars of Islam may widely disagree.