None of us enjoy seeing things we admire, love, and are devoted to mocked. When Monty Python’s Life of Brian came out in 1979 many Christians were deeply upset. There were protests outside cinemas, the film was banned in a few places, including for a year in Norway and eight years in the Republic of Ireland. The creators, however, were never in fear for their lives. The scariest thing Palin and Cleese faced was a TV confrontation with Malcolm Muggeridge and the vile Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark.
Expressing disgust at, and disagreement with, films or other works that genuinely offend us is the usual way people in the West deal with these things. Maybe, in extremis, we’ll paint a banner and mill around outside the place that’s upset us. Mostly people have taken on board the Streisand Effect, that making a big fuss about something we dislike just brings it to a wider audience.
We have also learned over recent decades, however, that these are not the coping mechanisms that many Muslims prefer to employ.
One thing that can be guaranteed to get Islamic blood boiling is pictures of Mohammed. Satirical cartoons mocking Big Mo make them especially mad, even homicidally mad. Here’s a brief summary of a handful of examples.
In 2005 the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published a number of Mohammed cartoons. Reaction was strong, there were protests, often violent, across the Islamic world, and in countries with Muslim minorities. At least six people (mostly protestors) died in the violence in places like Somalia and Pakistan. Although (so far) no one connected to Jyllands-Posten has been killed, several plots and attacks have been intercepted.
Danish cartoon protest, London
From 2006 to 2012 the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Mohammed, both inside and on the cover. The reactions varied from an attempt to use French law against them, protests, a firebomb attack, and hacking the website. Eventually, in January 2015, two brothers, Chérif and Said Kouachi, walked into the Charlie Hebdo offices and shot twelve people dead, wounding another eleven.
In 2010 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York confirmed it had quietly removed all examples of Islamic art depicting Mohammed.
In October 2020, Samuel Paty, a teacher in a Paris suburb, showed examples of the Danish cartoons in a class about on freedom of expression, dealing with blasphemy. There was a social media campaign by a student who had not been in the class. On the 16th October, an 18-year-old Russian Muslim refugee, Abdoullakh Anzorov, attacked Paty in the street, cutting off Paty’s head with a cleaver. He was shot dead by the police minutes later. Ten people were charged with assisting the attacker, including an imam, two students and one parent.
In March 2021 a teacher at the Batley Grammar School, West Yorkshire, showed cartoons in a class on press freedom and religious extremism, much as Paty had done. There were intense, but peaceful, protests outside the school. The teacher was suspended by the school and went into hiding. The school reinstated him in May 2021 and stated that images of Mohammed should not be used “out of respect for the community”. The teacher was still in hiding as of June last year.
Most recently, Erika López Prater lost her job at Hamline University, St Paul, Minnesota, after showing, not cartoons, but a 14th century Islamic depiction of Mohammed in a class on religious imagery. One student in the class complained, her cause was taken up by Muslim student groups, and the University folded like a cheap suit, apologised, and refused to renew Prater’s contract.
Let’s look at the Islamic reasoning behind this last case first.
It is considered as utterly blasphemous to depict Big Mo in many (today most), Islamic schools of thought. However, historically this was not the case, and the scriptural basis for it is weak. Indeed, many Muslims down the centuries have depicted Mohammed in many ways. Here are just four examples from the dozens available online.
In both the Ilkhanid and Timurid empires, which ruled a huge part of the Muslim world, from eastern Turkey to western Pakistan from the 13th to 16th centuries, beautifully illuminated Qurans, complete with depictions of Mohammed, were highly popular. In the Ottoman empire many manuscripts were produced that depict Big Mo, although they did develop a convention that he should be veiled in the picture. There are also examples from Algeria to India well into to the 20th century. Across a very large part of the Muslim world, for much of Muslim history, pictures of Mohammed were not just allowed, but highly prized.
Sunni and Shia
Although the original split between Sunni and Shia Islam was a distinctly worldly one about the successor to Mohammed, over the centuries doctrinal differences have developed. In general, Shia Islam has been much more relaxed about illustrations of Big Mo than the Sunni majority. That said, the Timurids and the Ottomans were both Sunni, although they did rule over many Shia Muslims.
Curiously, there is no prohibition on depicting Mohammed in the Quran, nor is there even a general ban on figurative art, depicting humans and animals, contrary to what is frequently stated. The closest to it this.
God does not forgive the joining of partners with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin.
Quran, Surah 4 (Al-Nisa)
Of course, in common with Judaism and Protestant Churches, Islam does not allow the worship, or anything that even remotely resembles worship, of idols and images. The Quran does not, however, forbid the mere making of decorative images and depictions of man or beast. However, the hadith, the collected reported sayings of Big Mo, are another matter. Here are some examples from various hadith about Mohammed and pictures.
Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures.”
Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833
Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said, “Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.”
Sahih Muslim,
Chapter 19, Book 24, Number 5268
Narrated Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, ‘Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection.”
Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 130
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: Muhammad went to Fatimah’s house, but turned back when he saw a figured curtain.
Sunan Abu Dawud,
Volume 3, Book 21, Number 3746
Was Big Mo scared of pictures?
Something it is important to remember is that Mohammed lived and died in late 6th early 7th century Arabia. Today, we are surrounded by artificial images. TV, film, games, books and magazines, on phones, there’s advertising all over the place in towns, on busses, buildings and all sorts. Back then, in his world, images were much, much rarer. Brightly coloured pigments were available, but they were very expensive. There was no printing, all images were handmade, another expense. A well-executed and lavishly coloured picture by a skilled artist was not only dear, it would have had much more impact than it does for us today. Is it possible that Big Mo had trouble processing pictures? Certainly, he seems to have difficulty differentiating between the creation of an image, and creation of life, the quote “it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.” is interesting.
Something else Big Mo really didn’t like was mockery. He could not abide having the mickey taken out of him. Well, who of us does? However, again, culture differs. Being a “good sport” and being able to laugh at oneself is something people in the West, especially the Anglosphere, admire. I remember my dad saying to me the first day of my apprenticeship, going off to work as a nervous skinny 17 year old, he said “Don’t worry if they take the p*** out of you son, worry if they don’t!”. Our culture is much less of an “honour culture” than the one Mohammed lived in. He did not see being able to smile at people mocking him as a strength. Honour cultures tend towards revenge, and Big Mo was no different.
When he returned to Mecca as a conqueror in 630 AD he had his revenge on folk who had mocked him. Ibn Ishaq reports “the apostle had killed some of the men in Mecca who had satirized and insulted him.”. We even have some names, all of these are from Muslim sources, such as Quran, Sahih Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, and Sunan Abu Dawud.
Al-Harith bin al-Talatil
Ka’b ibn Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulama
Huwayrith ibn Nafidh
Fartana (a slave girl)
Quraybah (a slave girl)
Nor was this the first time Big Mo had taken fatal revenge for satire. Another four of his victims from before his return are.
Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf
Abu ‘Afak (a Jewish poet)
Asma bint Marwan
Al Nadr ibn al-Harith
Of course, Mohammed was a war leader, and a robber of caravans, killing folk was in his line of work. He also had people killed for leaving his new religion, but the fact that he had people murdered for satire is highly significant.
Apart from the fact that it paints a picture of a brittle, insecure psycho, it gives licence to his followers today. Another big difficulty for moderate Muslims is that Mohammed is not just the founder of their faith, it is an article of that faith that he is a perfect human and serves as the ideal template for behaviour for the faithful.
Just as his marrying Aisha when she was six and consummating that marriage before she hit puberty is taken as licence by some Muslims for child marriage and underage sex, so his extreme action against satirists is justification for the violence we have seen.
So, combining depictions of Mohammed with mockery of him, as the cartoons do, really is a perfect storm. As with many other areas of conflict between Islam and the West, we are often told, “Well, it’s still the 1400s for Islam, when we were in the 1400s we were no better.”. This bizarre idea is often met with sagely nodding heads. Well, the whole WORLD was in the 1400s when “we” were in the 1400s. Islam is on the same planet, and has seen the same history and development we have. Muslims today don’t go around saying, “I can’t drive a car, or have a mobile phone, they haven’t been invented yet.”. Many Muslims from more sophisticated cultures do, and have had historically, much less intolerant and violent reactions to blasphemy. However, those from up country Pakistan, Afghanistan, Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and many other places have much more of an honour/revenge culture, and a simple, brutal understanding of their religion. “Being sensitive” to them and indulging their fragile honour will only be seen as weakness. An equally simple, honest and strong assertion of Western values of freedom is the only way to meet this challenge.
Still, no doubt it will all be alright. As the MSM continues to ignore things that upset it, we have only another five centuries or so for Islam to catch up with the rest of us, how bad could it be?
