History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
At the risk of re-opening Chris Bray's can of worms regarding the Jyllands-Posten bru-ha-ha, I would like to reflect, briefly, on some of the issues underlying the recent furor. In particular, I want to get at the question of whether Islam really forbids representations of the Prophet Muhammad. However, as a disclaimer, let me state that my expertise lies more within the realm of political theology (siyasa) than in issues of sin and apostasy, which is really what seems to be at issue here. As such, rather than the regular diatribes, I would encourage those with knowledge of the subject to respond in a constructive manner.
First and foremost, there is a long tradition within Islam of at least frowning upon and often forbidding any representation of the Prophet. The main reason for this, however, is to prevent veneration of the Prophet in the place of God. To do so is to commit Shirk, (rough translation ="association") which is generally regarded by Muslim theologians to be extra-sinful, since it undermines the Tawhid (absolute unity of God).
Notably, the issue of representing Muhammad and shirk has most commonly arisen in the context of debates and conflicts between Orthodox Sunni and Sufi Muslims -- since Sufis are often accused of"venerating" or"loving" the Prophet at the expense of God. Just google"Prophet" and"shirk," and you will get a range of links on the issue.
The issue here is that the protests of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons cannot be interpreted as a response to shirk -- as has frequently been reported in the media. Jyllands-Posten was clearly not"associating" the Prophet with God. Indeed, the irony is that by responding to the cartoons in such an fervent manner, the Muslims in question could arguably be accused of shirk themselves, in that they have associated a spoof of the Prophet as an attack on the religion of Islam.
Now, there are certainly grounds in Islam for not mocking the Prophet. Sura 9, verses 65-66, are pretty clear on the matter, but only in the context that for a Muslim to do so is to commit apostacy. Given that Jyllands-Posten is not a Muslim, he can hardly be considered to be guilty of such a sin.
Thus, at least from a theological standpoint, there seems to be little doctrinal basis for seeing the cartoons in question as shirk or any other form of sin demanding a response from the Muslim community. Of course, this simply means that there is a lot more going on here than the issue of insulting the Prophet, but that should hardly come as a surprise, now should it?
[shameless and likely problematic digression: I cannot help but see the similarity between the desire of some Muslims to prevent the mocking of the Prophet and the desire of some Americans to pass an amendment outlawing the burning of the US flag. Both examples reflect a" cart before the horse" sort of thinking that is inconsistent with each group's underlying ideology. Yeah yeah yeah, I know the anti-flag-burners haven't rioted recently, but my point is that the underlying tendency to make symbols more important than ideas they are supposed to represent isn't limited just to Muslims.]
My own two cents: Reynolds is right that the point of the customary ban on representing the prophet is the "shirk" issue, and he is right that shirk can hardly be the case when it comes to these cartoons. So his first four paragraphs seem right to me.
As for insulting the prophet, however, I don't think apostasy is the relevant issue. Obviously, apostates are going to be held in low esteem by any religion, but the more relevant point is that traditionally, insulting the prophet was a crime under the Islamic caliphate. The (sincere) protesters are adopting that conception of things, I think. They are acting as though they still live under the caliphate, and non-Muslims are to be treated more or less like second-class citizens ("dhimmi") subject to Islamic law. Obviously, since there is no global caliphate to enforce such an ordinance, they feel frustrated. So their response is to enforce the law--the "law"--on a vigilante basis.
The thread above about government sponsorship strikes me as a bit of a red herring. The riots/protests don't need one unifying explanation. Some protesters are sincere in the way I just described. Some are hooligans out to bash heads and blow stuff up. And some are being egged on by the relevant governments, each of which has an incentive to encourage them to focus on something as stupid as this controversy. And stupid it is.
Col Steve J -
2/10/2006
Yes, agree with you on that point. My experiences in that region of the world were the sources of power and the extent of authority, cooperation, and synchronized action varied significantly from group to group and from situation to situation - making broad claims at either end (monolithic control or highly individualist) problematic without examining the specific context.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/9/2006
Mr. Lederer, I should be surprised that Condolezza Rice has said something with which you agree? She also told you that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and you believed her. Of course, Iran will exploit this, but so what?
John H. Lederer -
2/9/2006
From Reuters today:
Rice: Iran, Syria stoke Muslim cartoon anger
Wed Feb 8, 2006 2:06 PM ET17
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday accused U.S. adversaries Iran and Syria of stoking Muslim anger against the West over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that have sparked deadly protests.
President George W. Bush said governments should stop the violence that has erupted over the cartoons, including attacks on Western diplomatic missions in parts of the Muslim world. At least 10 people have been killed in protests in Afghanistan alone.
"Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes and the world ought to call them on it," Rice said at a joint news conference with Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
She said nothing justified the violence that had resulted worldwide from the cartoons and appealed to governments to urge calm.
"There are governments that have used this opportunity to incite violence," she added, referring to Syria and Iran.
The full blowup of the front page shows the date, and on the right side most of one of the cartoons, poorly cropped. The interior page images show more of the cartoons.
If this is correct it would suggest both a polticial impetus to the present protests and the importance of the three fake cartoons in arousing passions, rather than the original cartoons, or the mere fact of depiction of Mohammed.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/8/2006
Point taken, Col. Steve. On the other hand, your cryptic description of Alawis as a Shi'a sect is also the kind of abbreviated form to which you object. It's far more complicated than that.
Col Steve J -
2/8/2006
Sure. Sure. As if Sunni dominated governments as likely to be taking orders from Shi'a Iran.
Syrian President Hafiz al Assad and many other leaders of the ruling political party are Alawis - a Shia sect. Lebanon's government leaders come from a variety of religious backgrounds, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs is Shia and the President (Maronite) has the reputation for being pro-Syrian. The Prime Minister is Sunni.
Of course, these facts do not mean an Iranian orchestrated conspiracy. But, blanket one line dismissal without consideration that Syrian and some elements of the Lebanese government leaders have Shia ties also seems - or that the issue is sufficiently inflammatory across both sects of Islam, whether or not the "doctrinal" basis supporting such reaction exists to warrant cooperation - also seems superificial.
Michael Charles Benson -
2/8/2006
It's too bad that so many of the replies to this have focused on things that don't have much to do with the post. I'd be interested in seeing more discussion about how plausible this argument about theology is. It strikes me as pretty sensible, but I'm no expert on Islam.
John H. Lederer -
2/8/2006
The controversy was apparently "stirred" by a group of Danish Imams of whom Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, a Palestinian, , seems to be conspicuous. They prepared a 43 page report which they travelled o the Mideast to circulate.
I have only seen an English translation of the first few pages of the report. At least in those pages , assuming the translation is accurate, there is no objection to the depiction of Mohammed per se (i.e. idolatry), but rather to his being portrayed derogatorily. This is stated by the report as the "crowning fact" of general Danish oppression of Islam.
The report included three additonal cartoons which it offered as evidence of further Danish attacks on Moslems. The three cartoons showed Mohammed depicted as a pig, a dog copulating with a praying Muslim (not clear to me whether he is Mohammed), and Mohammed as a demon labelled a pedophile.
(My German is so-so but one German poster says that the picture of Mohammed as a pig is not actually a cartoon but a poor quality copy of a photograph of a French clown with a pig's head on.).
I had links to the translation, and the three additional cartoons. They worked 8 hours ago. They do not now, possibly because of heavy traffic ( they simply hang).
I would be very interested to know to what degree these additional depictions are what is inflaming the riots rather than the fact of the depiction of Mohammed.
Okay, then, Mr. Luker, maybe we can call a truce on this one. The fact that I jumped in on comments that began with the Iran theory may have obscured the modest contribution I was trying to make here. Whether or not the Saudis have manipulated their press in this instance, I agree that it doesn't necessarily make a whole lot of difference, and -- like you --I'm also certain that the protestors are not being directed by foreign powers, but doing precisely what they want to do.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/8/2006
My fault. It was Mr. Lederer who believes that they were directed by Iran. I know of few governments, autocratic, totalitarian, or not, that are averse to planting and promoting stories that are favorable to it. So, yes, well, maybe they did, but I'm not sure that it actually makes a whole lot of difference. So far as I know, no one had a gun to the heads of the rioters.
Christopher Newman -
2/8/2006
First, when did I ever make any claim about Iran?
Second, when did I ever say the protests were "directed" by anyone? The press in Saudi Arabia is controlled by the state. You may think it's a completely loony tunes idea that the Saudis might splash the cartoon story across the front pages in the hopes of inflaming exactly the kind of protests we've seen, but ... why? That kind of manipulation isn't exactly unheard of in autocratic or totalitarian regimes. In any event, to say that the Saudi press may have seized on this issue in the hopes of inflaming the proverbial "Arab street" does not preclude irate Syrians and Lebanese acting on their own. My point has never been that the protests were *directed* by the Saudis but that they may have been manipulated by Saudis. You may disagree, but I don't think there's anything very X-Files about it.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/8/2006
But now wait, is the protest directed from Saudi Arabia, from Iran, or from Pakistan? It's even _possible_ that irrate Syrians or Lebanese are acting on their own, undirected by some manipulative and powerful foreign agency.
Christopher Newman -
2/8/2006
Mr. Luker, it doesn't appear you read the post very carefully (or maybe I didn't -- I'll go back and check), but the theory was that the Saudi government was trying to deflect from the "stampede"-like deaths of mostly Pakistanis in Mecca -- not the Egyptian boating disaster.
I agree that some things really just happen concurrently. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this doesn't have to involve a grand conspiracy theory. It's certainly no secret that the Saudis have been using the indirection/deflection tactic for quite a while as a way of dealing with Saudi citizen's frustrations with the autocratic Saudi regime.
It's not certain that that's what's going on, but it's not implausible, and it's not really a conspiracy theory.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/8/2006
Mr. Newman, It really doesn't make sense to claim that the rioting in Syria or Lebanon occurred to distract attention from Iran's nuclear threat or from Egypt's boating disaster. There aren't any obvious or even, so far as I can tell, underlying links between the three things. Some things just happen concurrently and drawing conspiratorial links among them really doesn't help us to understand anything.
Christopher Newman -
2/8/2006
Now THERE'S a substantive reply, and while I get that it's supposed to biting and sarcastic, I'm a bit more skeptical about its coherence. Why would "Freepers" issue a fatwa against "Freeper interpretations?" But whatever, you gave it the old college try.
Do you people have this blog just to talk amongst yourselves? I linked to a blog that identifies itself as "leftist," Mr. Luker. The blog I linked to actually does provide the date that the cartoon story (which happened months ago) started appearing in the Saudi Arabian press.
Your response is to make the "evil Freepers go away" sign? That's, ummmm, brilliant.
If you know of some reason that the blog post I linked to is implausible, I'm certainly willing to read what you have to say . . . and I think I can even manage to do it without calling you names.
Let me assure you, though, that I absolutely and unequivocally support your right to call me a Freeper.
P.S. I found the link at Stephen Green's site. Does that mean you'll talk to me now, or is he a nonperson here, too?
Ralph E. Luker -
2/8/2006
Of course! Otherwise, they feared, you and Mr. Lederer would read about such things and issue a fatwa against Freeper interpretations of news from the Middle East.
Christopher Newman -
2/8/2006
The Saudis perhaps wanted to deflect from bad publicity (even in some of the Arab press) about the latest deaths -- mostly of poor Pakistanis --during the pilgrimage to Mecca.
I'm assuming by your subject line that this is a continuation of your first comment. Like Ralph. I'm inclined to consider it unlikely as a planned decoy by Iran. In part that is because my impression of the responses is that one of the first clear signs of governmental reaction was in Saudi Arabia and I don't consider them likely Iranian allies.
It is clear that some combination of government action and radical Islamic action has egged this on. However, here again the mix of government and radical action seems to have varied from country to country. Certainly, the Iranians, Syrians, and others are taking advantage of it now.
By the way, if you or anyone else knows of a chronology or timeline of the cartoon crisis, please let me know.
John H. Lederer -
2/8/2006
DAMASCUS (AFP) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad closed ranks in talks between the two allies, as both nations face growing international pressure.
"Iran has the right to build up nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," Assad said at a joint press conference after their meeting, in which he also called for
Israel to renounce its alleged nuclear weapons arsenal.
"We also reject the pressure being exerted on this country" over its nuclear programme, the Syrian leader said.
"
***
On Lebanon, Assad said Syria and Iran wanted stability there but stressed "the need to support the resistance" to Israel, in reference to the fundamentalist Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah.
Tehran and Damascus both back Hezbollah, which is called on to disarm under UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted in September 2004.
Syria, the former power-broker in Lebanon, was opposed to "any interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon and its internationalisation", Assad said.
***
The alliance between Tehran and Damascus dates back to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 when Syria sided with the Islamic republic against Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein.
Iranian investment in Syria has risen to 750 million dollars, Ahmadinejad said, adding that a joint Syrian-Iranian commission is to meet in February to discuss economic projects.
Sure. Sure. As if Sunni dominated governments as likely to be taking orders from Shi'a Iran. Makes about as much sense as those WMD reports on Iraq.
John H. Lederer -
2/7/2006
No not monolithic--but there certainly are signs of a possible degree of control and influence.
For instance, note the inclusion of the inflammatory pig caricature of mohammed that was not part of the original set of cartoons, but was added recently to the package circulated to Immams (and apparently Chris) to heighten passions.
Note also the timing --3 months after the cartoons appeared.
Note also the burning of the Danish embassies in Syria and lebanon -- an unlikely occurrence without some dgree of government involvement.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/7/2006
You can suspect all you like, but the suspicion may be a function of regarding The Other as monolithic, with an evil directing force, because some who are Other are doing things you don't approve of.
John H. Lederer -
2/7/2006
I suspect that a significant impetus for the cartoon uproar was the desire of Iran to move attention elsewhere.
