Re spelling of “Qur’an” (or “Quran” or al-Quran) vs “Koran”: since this is essentially a “transliteration”–a way of transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another–of the Arabic term (which won’t print here), there is no official rendering. Transliteration simply helps people pronounce words in foreign languages. I see all three forms in common use.
For example, the late Libyan dictator’s name is variously transliterated as Gaddafi, Qaddafi, “Gathafi,” “Kadafi,” and “Gadafy. And that’s just a start; there are at least 12 variations in use. It turns out the “gh/k” sound doesn’t easily transfer to English.
I think the demand for these sorts of cartoons is driven by people who lack the evidence for the claims being made. Evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect. So in the absence of serious evidence they leverage the misinformation that is already out there. They meet a demand from people who require ongoing affirmation of their unfounded prejudices and wishful thinking.
As an aside to Hotrats and Jveeds, I remember from the 1950s and 60s a stage magician and mentalist using the stage name Al Koran. https://forzonimagic.com/mindreaders-history/al-koran/
I do not recall any adverse criticism at the time and a quick (but not exhaustive) look around the Internet shows none today. Somehow I cannot imagine that being the case should the name be used today.
Even though I’m glad Trump lost and didn’t get his opportunity to turn the USA into a full-blown dictatorship (possibly), his vows to return in some form only points to a figure who will stop at nothing to be a godhead.
Unfortunately, pissants like QAnon are that wish fulfillment he so desperately craves. And people who believe this shit will still support him long after any conviction or objective history proves what a terrible presence he was and continues to be.
It makes sense then to compare him to likes of Hitler, Mohammed, Jesus, L. Ron Hubbard, etc. because people still believe in those figureheads and will defend them with as much “scholarly” study or pious obedience as a human can muster, despite the toxicity that comes from such actions. And in the case of Hubbard, Hitler and Trump, modern and irrefutable records of their misdeads.
Hubbard? I read his SF books when younger. Was he a convicted serial killer? Paedophile? I thought he was just a confidence trickster…making money out of gullible people…a lot more people come into that category surely?
Hubbard was a thief and a swindler, but also facilitated brainwashing, imprisonment and even rape of his followers.
Scientology itself has evolved since his death to double-down on such practices, and given how much wealth they’ve amassed from the gullible, by and large prevent the organization from being held to account. All in Hubbard’s name.
You can compare their treatment of their followers, and those who’ve left the cult, with the behavior and beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witlesses. Though it can be hard to tell who is worse, really.
Reply to Glenn Anderson : I do not believe that gentle humour is misinformation but it is your right to disagree with me. However there are no lies or prejudices in this cartoon, in fact I have never seen evidence of either in any J&M cartoon.
Both fictional characters are equally gently mocked on this site, as are some other fictional characters who appear as guest stars. The comments also tend to be gently mocking with little or no anger or hatred, a genuine online community.
However if a little gentle humour is too offensive for you I suggest not reading this site.
The “Proud Boys” are bitterly disappointed that the Rapist in Chief, did not pardon them.
They knew he was a snake before they started to support him. What they did at the Capitol is covered by local laws, so a pardon would not be as helpful as they probably think.
Evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
The scholarship of religion, vs. reputation for integrity – kind of an interesting conundrum. Scholarship unfortunately doesn’t take place in the ideal vacuum of objective disinterest, so I would want to establish just where exactly that reputation is being maintained. A fine reputation among the mullahs isn’t going to be much of selling point with me.
But as you say, in the absence of “serious evidence” … we may get our impressions from the events of the day and the “fruits” so to speak of Islam where it holds sway. I guess “questionable moral character” may be false slander or at most a matter of an inappropriate standard for someone who lived in a very different culture, but really Mohammed’s moral character is immaterial at this point.
^ Mo was supposed to sit and eat, whilst his henchmen beheaded men, women and children for his entertainment. Is that historically true? Or is it part of an alternative history invented by his opponents to slur the reputation of their enemy?
Donn, many moons ago, when we could chew the fat over beer in a local.hostelry…the scientists v historians arguments always boiled down to one irrefutable fact…written or oral history has to be assumed to be fiction. Unless it can be corroborated with proven non partisan physical evidence…thus most written histories contain a lot of made-up “noise” or “spin”..that is why historians usually argue all the fecking time… the sciences are so much more elegant in their findings and agreement of such..all physicists agree that F = MA ( as an example)…
And now, after having seen too many of Q’s pronouncements go utterly and completely wrong, there are more than a few of his followers who have FINALLY come to the conclusion that it’s all a bunch of Q-A-NONSENSE!!!
TBH. I was completely unaware of QAnon until it was highlighted in the capitol nonsense a few weeks back…Until then Pizzagate to.me was when arsenal players threw pizza slices at Alex Ferguson in the old Trafford tunnel…
Evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
And who, don’t forget, faced execution if they came to the wrong conclusions!
You sometimes see claims by Muslims that the truth of Islam is supported by overwhelming evidence compiled by careful scholarship over centuries. But who were these scholars? We are certainly not talking about Western academics — we are talking about Muslim scholars living in Muslim countries where Islamic law decreed that the official punishment for apostasy was death. Scholarship cannot be trusted if wrong conclusions are punished!!!
Of course, it wasn’t only the Muslims who punished heresy; the West burned its share of heretics as well. And even today, in the supposedly enlightened West, honest academics carefully avoid certain subjects, because they know that coming to the wrong conclusion would destroy their careers. Paul Graham, a noted computer scientist, venture capitalist, and essayist, had some interesting things to say about how every society has things that cannot be said. (Note that he very pointedly does not actually say any of those things!)
I think I myself has had post’s pulled from this site…one for having a pop at those individuals who consume far more calories than their current metabolism is burning….most of them convince themselves that they would get fat if they only consumed a cress leaf per day…delusion that is often flagged in these cartoons…when they are religious delusions….
“But who were these scholars? We are certainly not talking about Western academics”
Yes we are. I have no problem with people making claims as long as they are prepared to support them with evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
It is noticeable in the replies so far that noone has offered such evidence to support the main claim of the current cartoon that the Prophet was of “questionable moral character”.
I’d point out that the body types are different, but they’d just tweak the idea a bit.
As I recall, there was one theory that a certain Jewish fellow was going to be King of the Jews and kick the Romans out of Israel. When the revolution failed and the leader was killed, people needed a new belief. The resulting religion isn’t any saner than the Trump/Biden face swap religion from the link above. I guess people need weird beliefs to make them feel good.
Donât let us forget that Donald (SAW) has already told us âI will be backâ.
If Bidden now builds a big arena and starts feeding Trump supporters to the lions, it would make a really good book for the wingnuts to believe in and worship for the future.
Canât you just hear them back in year BC 0001 saying; âThat will never work., people are not THAT stupidâ ?
noone has offered such evidence to support the main claim of the current cartoon that the Prophet was of âquestionable moral characterâ.
Well, what’s the use? You’re sure to discount any such references as biased and discredited by your favorite authorities. Details about someone who lived that long ago are what you want them to be. All we really know is that he posed as a prophet and peddled what has become Islam. I call that questionable.
“Well, whatâs the use? Youâre sure to discount any such references as biased and discredited by your favorite authorities.”
I’m not sure how you can support this claim since we’ve only just met and in any case it is not a valid excuse.
Quoting from the cartoon dated Jan 6, 2020 :
“Gentlemen, this year I respectfully request that you consider the possibility that the beliefs upon which you base your lives are, although sincerely held, not actually trueâŚ
âŚThen, having acknowledge that possibility, you undertake an honest reassessment of the foundations of those beliefs, namely the scriptures which you believe to be divine provenanceâŚ
..but which unbelievers such as myself, are very clearly written by men of wildly varying degrees of wisdom and literary ability.”
This is what I teach my children and why I’m here, namely to refute my assumptions about the Qur’an and the prophets. It is also why I have every right to expect unbelievers to support their claims with serious scholarship.
At this stage it looks like the cartoon’s author(s) cannot support their claims about the âquestionable moral characterâ of either prophet WITH evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
Note that you haven’t really been discussing this with the cartoon’s author(s), only to date with readers who wouldn’t really know where the allegation comes from, and you can’t draw any really robust conclusions about the author’s work from that.
In any case, you may have fallen into an unwarranted equivalence here. The demands of religious faith usually extend to a variety of “historical” details about the founder and other key players. We can’t have The Prophet just be some guy whose character is generally considered to be above average – he was chosen by God etc. Faith demands that we accept the account of “the scriptures, the foundations of those beliefs.”
As unbelievers, we are in an entirely different position. No one has a shred of motivation to reassess those scriptures, because divine provenance means nothing to us. We look back at events of that time in terms that we believe represent reality, which for me anyway means “who knows?” It’s kind of hard to even take the idea of serious scholarship seriously, and I sure wouldn’t encourage you to look for any interesting insights into the historical truth of the Quran etc. here. It’s a joke. I think it’s usually a pretty good joke, which means drawing a delicate line that doesn’t always work the same for everyone, but serious scholarship is not what I expect.
Now, some reader might pull something out of his own vast store of lore about Mohammed that he has for mysterious reasons accumulated, and you might get an interesting discussion, but so far I haven’t noticed much beyond the implicit charge of “religious huckster”.
Glenn Anderson:”… expect unbelievers to support their claims with serious scholarship …”.
It is not necessary for unbelievers to “support their claims”. Unbelievers make no claims. The burden of proof is on believers to support their claims, whether with serious scholarship or, as Donn implies “religious huckstering”. An unbeliever need not make a more erudite response to religious propaganda than “Pull the other leg – it’s got bells on.”
So no evidence to support the claim about the Prophet moral character.
As for whether the claims of the critics of Islam should be taken as gospel and not open for challenge , as suggested by the last two respondents, I obviously disagree because this would mean treating such claims as dogma. Clearly we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’ll just add, that there is a substantial body of evidence about the life and character of the Prophet, and of course the Qur’an, and a number of serious (Western) scholars have used this evidence to come to their own conclusions on the topic (I’ll let others discover this for themselves).
If the authors of this cartoon have not examined whether or not the claim that the Prophet’s moral character can be described as “highly questionable” is supported by the evidence, then clearly their claims are not motivated by the evidence.
This in itself is instructive, because it suggests that perhaps the claims are not in fact corroborated by the scholarly research; a working hypothesis for those interested in the truth.
So its just a matter of doing the research. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to do their own research.
Anyway, on to the next cartoon, where perhaps there may be more agreement (time permitting).
This is what I teach my children and why Iâm here, namely to refute my assumptions about the Qurâan and the prophets. It is also why I have every right to expect unbelievers to support their claims with serious scholarship.
Glenn — It would help if you could tell us exactly what your assumptions about Islam are. Are you claiming, as many Muslims have, that the truth of Islam has been proven via serious scholarship? If so my rebuttal stands: the vast majority of scholars making such claims have been believing Muslims living in Muslim countries where the nominal — and often actual! — punishment for apostasy is death, and this calls their scholarship into serious question. However if you are merely claiming that it has not been proven that the moral character of Muhammad was “highly questionable” then you may have a stronger case to make. So what exactly is it that you are saying?
jb,
I think I’ve been clear in saying that I’m referring to Western scholars. I do mean by this non-Muslim Western scholars.
As for people leaving Islam and reports of oppression attributed to the teachings of Islam we may gain some insight from a documentary, “Women leaving Islam”, which is set to premier on the 5 Feb. This is supported by the Ex-Muslims Association, I believe.
On the other hand we also have the stories of converts, such as those documented in the 130 page report from Cambridge Universityâs Centre for Islamic Studies: NARRATIVES of CONVERSION TO ISLAM: Female Perspectives, 2013.
It would be interesting to bring the two perspectives to the one table. It may shed some light on the reasons underlying why some women are leaving and some woman are joining the religion (actually quite a lot if you believe the newspapers).
There is an interesting article by Eve Ahmed, a British writer who rejected the religion of her Pakistani parents. She interviewed four women converts for the Daily Mail (“Why ARE so many modern British career women converting to Islam?”) . One of those was Kristiane Backer, 43, a London-based former MTV presenter. This is what she is reported as saying about Islam and the women leaving Islam:
“Kristiane Backer, who has written a book on her own spiritual journey, called From MTV To Mecca, believes the new breed of modern, independent Muslims can band together to show the world that Islam is not the faith I grew up in â one that stamps on the rights of women.
She says: âI know women born Muslims who became disillusioned and rebelled against it. When you dig deeper, itâs not the faith they turned against, but the culture.
‘Rules like marrying within the same sect or caste and education being less important for girls, as they should get married anyway ââ where does it say that in the Koran? It doesnât.
âMany young Muslims have abandoned the âfire and brimstoneâ version they were born into have re-discovered a more spiritual and intellectual approach, thatâs free from the cultural dogmas of the older generation. Thatâs how I intend to spend my life, showing the world the beauty of the true Islam.â ”
So the open question is whether injustices experience by Muslim women can be attributed to the teachings of Islam, or as Backer suggests, “cultural dogmas of an older generation” which should sound familiar in the wake of the “me.too” movement.
To my mind, this approach is far more enlightening and constructive; simply let people speak for themselves and of their own experiences. For those who do not want to commit to the pursuit of reason and evidence where-ever it may lead, then fine, as long as they do try to impose their dogma on others.
I think Iâve been clear in saying that Iâm referring to Western scholars. I do mean by this non-Muslim Western scholars.
You have not been clear at all — to the point of evasiveness — about what you are claiming those non-Muslim Western scholars are saying. Is it that the truth of Islam is well established? If so I simply don’t believe you, and you are going to have to start naming names. Leaving it as an exercise for the reader won’t cut it. There are millions of people in the Western world who can lay some claim to the title of “scholar”, so you can find people to back almost any crazy idea you can come up with. But if you want to say that there is serious scholarly support for an idea then we need to be able to evaluate the scholars involved, and we need to know that there are more than just a handful of them.
Now of course this quite a different kettle of fish. Mohammed is so long gone that nothing about him can be known for sure, and it’s immaterial anyway, but if we’re talking about Islam in the modern world … I think it’s well enough understood that Islam is like any religion, at best decorative, and its practical faults are the faults of its practitioners.
I lean towards at least the general idea of Stephen Dutch “The World’s Most Toxic Value System” – the evils of Islam are principally really the evils of the Middle East culture it’s most known for. Indonesian Muslims will have their own Islamic culture that I guess must be a little less dreadful, at least not as notorious. If people are taking up Islam in the west, and managing to do so while steering completely clear of the ruinous Middle Eastern culture that it’s so strongly associated with, I’m sure they’ll be able to treat women like humans and so forth.
But it’s still a religious fraud, which deserves whatever mockery we can come up with.
jb you state: “…if you want to say that there is serious scholarly support for an idea then we need to be able to evaluate the scholars involved, and we need to know that there are more than just a handful of them.”
Exactly. We agree!
If we are going to make claims, in this case the claim that Prophetâs moral character can be described as âhighly questionableâ , then it needs to be backed by reliable scholarship.
Of course you want me to defend a claim that I never made, namely that “the truth of Islam is well established”. It should be obvious from what I’ve already written, that I’m here “to test my assumptions” and not to make such dogmatic claims. As a reminder this is what I wrote:: “This is what I teach my children and why Iâm here, namely to refute my assumptions about the Qurâan and the prophets.”
jb: “There are millions of people in the Western world who can lay some claim to the title of âscholarâ, so you can find people to back almost any crazy idea you can come up with.”
Which is why I’ve been explicit about what I mean by serious scholarship. To repeat: “evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect”.
Clearly, if there exists serious scholarship to support the cartoon’s claim about the Prophet’s character then it is proving very difficult to find. So let’s move on.
Clearly, if there exists serious scholarship to support the cartoonâs claim about the Prophetâs character then it is proving very difficult to find. So letâs move on.
Clearly – it’s very difficult to find something when no one’s looking. Are you looking? Is anyone? Religious huckster or lunatic, and we care to look deeper? Not me.
Glenn — Well if you are here to “test your assumptions” it would, as I said before, help a lot if you let us know what those assumptions are. Are you asserting that Muhammad was not a man of “highly questionable moral character.” Fair enough, but if that’s what you think you should say so. If you aren’t willing to come right out and say what you believe then why should we take you seriously?
Glenn is clearly a sociology or another humanities subject teacher. Using post modernist rhetoric to waffle on for ages and say nothing at all. From histories I have read about Mo I can extrapolate the character of conquering despot. Apologists will try to assert that he was a product of his time and no more violent than the rest of the people in his world….same could be said about Hitler and Stalin. I rest my case…
Donn: Stephen Dutch âThe Worldâs Most Toxic Value Systemâ
I vaguely remember that essay, but now trying to Google it just gets gets references to it on things like Reddit.
Can you find a link to it?
M27Holts — My suspicion is that Glenn is a True Believer, but isn’t willing to be forthright about it because he imagines that if he conceals his own beliefs he can use the Socratic Method to confound our prejudices and lead us all to truth. (Hint: that never works!)
jb says: “Well if you are here to âtest your assumptionsâ it would, as I said before, help a lot if you let us know what those assumptions are. ”
Fair enough. My assumption is that the Prophet was of high moral character and this is supported by serious scholarship (see below). The test for me is whether those who claim the contrary have serious scholarship to back it up. I don’t bother with people who are outright dogmatic or bigoted because they make no public commitment to pursue truth through evidence and reason where-ever this may lead. However, some atheists do claim to uphold this principle and therefore offer the potential for learning and insights.
As to the issue at hand, I think we can agree that the cartoon’s claims regarding the Prophet’s moral character cannot be readily supported with serious scholarship.
In fact the cartoon leverages existing prejudices in the West that can be traced back to the propaganda of the ecclesiastics many centuries ago. It is ironic, don’t you think, that Westerners who claim to be so skeptical of their own religious institutions and teachings are so fixated in adhering to the prejudices of these same institutions and fail to practice due diligence.
As to what I would regard as serious scholarship that refutes the cartoon’s claims, one can begin with William Montgomery Watt is co-author of Britannica’s article “Muhammad: prophet of Islam”. He is Professor of Arabic and Isl?mic Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1964â79. Author of Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman; Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghaz?l?; General Editor of Isl?mic Surveys.
Conveniently, I found an excerpt from his first book posted on Fordham University’s website. This discusses “alleged moral failures” as well as the character of the Prophet in general.
Mockingbird: “Glen â Teach your children the same as I taught mine. âQuestion Everythingâ.”
I do. In fact I am doing it right now with these posts so be sure to be on your best behavior :-)!
Sorry,
I just thought I’d make the last part of the above post concerning scholarship more readable:
As to what I would regard as serious scholarship that refutes the cartoon’s claims, one can begin with William Montgomery Watt. Conveniently, I found an excerpt from his book, “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman”, posted on Fordham University’s website. This discusses “alleged moral failures” as well as the character of the Prophet in general.
William Montgomery Watt is Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1964â79. Author of Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman; Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali; General Editor of Islamic Surveys. He is also co-author of Britannica’s article “Muhammad: prophet of Islam”.
I suppose I am in your view “outright dogmatic or bigoted because [I] make no public commitment to pursue truth through evidence and reason where-ever this may lead” — since, to me, the only thing evidence and reason can tell us more or less for sure about Mohammed is that he was a religious fraud.
It’s easy for me to imagine that a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies would have a longer and more comfortable career if he were to choose, out of the murk of ages, a relatively complimentary portrait of Mohammed. The author, in order to set up a good joke about two different branches of religious fanaticism, finds it convenient to choose a less flattering portrait. Either is fine with me, and the idea that someone’s going to get to the bottom of it and find out the truth seems like pure fantasy.
Glenn — OK, I’m satisfied. As an atheist I find highly risible the claims of many Muslims (and some Christians, although not so much these days) that the truth of their religion has been firmly established through reason and scholarship. However I personally have no terrible strong opinion about the moral character of Muhammad — especially as I am a strong believer in the principle that people should be judged in the context of their own times (i.e., I am not going to be tearing down any statues of Thomas Jefferson) — so I’ll leave it to the others to make their case if they care to.
I still don’t know whether you are a Muslim or not (you do come across as one), but I see no point in pressing you any further on it. And I’ll note in passing that while William Montgomery Watt was indeed a reputable non-Muslim Western scholar, he seems to have been quite friendly towards Islam; according to Wikipedia he is “a much-revered name for many Muslims all over the world” who “believed that the Qur’an was divinely inspired but not infallibly true”. I’d be willing to bet you can find equally reputable scholars who would disagree with him on many points.
High moral chatacter? Does that mean he genuinely spoke to god through his angels? And that word of god is infallible? I’m with JB. I will cease to argue. Didn’t somebody just site a geezer who I will quote here “If you argue with idiots, you become an idiot!”.
Glen: Thank you for your posts here. I think I can help you, you see, no-one knows more about -The Will of God – than I do.
The scholars you mention are only able to study the written word. The fact that the word is written proves it is the work of men. Men who cannot possibly know more about â The Will of God â than I or any new born infant or scholar on the surface of this planet.
Not having Biblical miracles to back him, the acceptance of the Quran is based on the belief in the high moral character of the Prophet Muhammad. Classically, you may not be punished for blaspheming Allah; but you most certainly would be for casting doubt on the Prophet. All the characters in your cartoons, except the barmaid, have Allah; but only Islam has the Prophet. So it is a very sensitive issue, the character of the Prophet. Those are the toes you are stepping on.
Really any different? Jesus isn’t exactly analogous, since he was subsequently (?) appointed deity, and while alive it’s a little unclear to me if he even is supposed to have conversed with angels, but I don’t think it would have been smart to make suggestions about his moral character, back in the day.
Does this argument rest on the importance of Biblical miracles? Is that something Christians find so important that you could insult Jesus (or Mary, etc.) and get away with it, because miracles?
Though oddly I have heard a couple times that you’re redeemable if you blaspheme Jesus or Jehovah, but say a bad word about the Holy Ghost and you’re doomed.
In all this highly learned, and not so learned, debate, I am surprised that none of my fellow pedants has pointed out that the cartoon does not comment on the character of Mohammed, but in fact comments on the character of Trump!
Glenn Anderson and others may infer a character comment on Mohammed, not an unreasonable inference, but it is not explicitly stated!
(Btw, I don’t think any of you would disagree with Trump being described as of highly questionable moral character!)
SOG – ” none of my fellow pedants has pointed out that the cartoon does not comment on the character of Mohammed, but in fact comments on the character of Trump!”
SOG. It all comes down to facts in the end. If you discount the silly non-scientific philosophical ploy of trying to make all facts subjective, then you can always apply occams razor
At first I couldn’t quite make out the legend on Jesus’ beverage and guessed it might be Diet Coke, Trump’s fav. But upon closer inspection up to the limits of resolution, it’s more likely a can of Guinness? Maybe the Cock&Bull was closed for late news.
Firstly, Muhammad was very much a man of the world, having been trader, raider, warrior, “head of state”, man with many spouses, slaves, a concubine, had children. He declared war, concluded treaties, divided spoils of war, ordered assassinations. This compared to a itinerant, probably celibate, preacher with few worldly possessions, no weapons, etc. etc. that was Jesus. There is much more to pronounce moral judgment on Muhammad, if you choose to do so, compared to Jesus.
Secondly, Jesus had miracles, including rising from the dead. The role of miracles, example, the Christian writer Tertullian (155-240 AD) wrote, we are told, that Christianity is to be âbelieved because it is absurdâ, and that Christ was âburied and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossibleâ. There is no such argument in Islam; it is all based on acceptance of the veracity of the Prophet. (Well, the Quran is considered to a miracle, inimitable by human composers.)
Even today, one of the common methods of proselytization to Christianity (not Islam) is to demonstrate “miracles” in the name of Christ.
When I read Mockingbird’s post, I didn’t know the meaning of SAW. For other readers who may be unfamiliar with it, I’m now pretty sure it stands for Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam, or peace be unto him (PBUH, an abbreviation more familiar to me).
As for Donald, I hope (but do not expect) that he will find peace in Florida, and that if he does come back, it will just be for golfing.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
May 20, 2020
Perhaps Mo’s copy is a treasured family heirloom, but everybody else is spelling it ‘Quran’ these days.
SPROING!
I had previously considered QAnon to be an unimportant sideshow, but alas it looks like it is not. I am very curious about the identity of “Q”.
So – is Mo the pot or the kettle? Perhaps neither, because both he and Trumplestiltskin are in denial about themselves.
Re spelling of “Qur’an” (or “Quran” or al-Quran) vs “Koran”: since this is essentially a “transliteration”–a way of transferring a word from the alphabet of one language to another–of the Arabic term (which won’t print here), there is no official rendering. Transliteration simply helps people pronounce words in foreign languages. I see all three forms in common use.
For example, the late Libyan dictator’s name is variously transliterated as Gaddafi, Qaddafi, “Gathafi,” “Kadafi,” and “Gadafy. And that’s just a start; there are at least 12 variations in use. It turns out the “gh/k” sound doesn’t easily transfer to English.
QAnon? Quran? Qoincidence?
QAnon akbar!
I think the demand for these sorts of cartoons is driven by people who lack the evidence for the claims being made. Evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect. So in the absence of serious evidence they leverage the misinformation that is already out there. They meet a demand from people who require ongoing affirmation of their unfounded prejudices and wishful thinking.
John Mills – That’s very good. Quite quick an’ quirky. Well done.
jb: Q is, as most people know who follow 007, a reticent character. We mere mortals shall likely never know the true identity of that entity.
As an aside to Hotrats and Jveeds, I remember from the 1950s and 60s a stage magician and mentalist using the stage name Al Koran.
https://forzonimagic.com/mindreaders-history/al-koran/
I do not recall any adverse criticism at the time and a quick (but not exhaustive) look around the Internet shows none today. Somehow I cannot imagine that being the case should the name be used today.
Even though I’m glad Trump lost and didn’t get his opportunity to turn the USA into a full-blown dictatorship (possibly), his vows to return in some form only points to a figure who will stop at nothing to be a godhead.
Unfortunately, pissants like QAnon are that wish fulfillment he so desperately craves. And people who believe this shit will still support him long after any conviction or objective history proves what a terrible presence he was and continues to be.
It makes sense then to compare him to likes of Hitler, Mohammed, Jesus, L. Ron Hubbard, etc. because people still believe in those figureheads and will defend them with as much “scholarly” study or pious obedience as a human can muster, despite the toxicity that comes from such actions. And in the case of Hubbard, Hitler and Trump, modern and irrefutable records of their misdeads.
QAnon, or as some are now calling it, Y’all Qaida.
Hubbard? I read his SF books when younger. Was he a convicted serial killer? Paedophile? I thought he was just a confidence trickster…making money out of gullible people…a lot more people come into that category surely?
Hubbard was a thief and a swindler, but also facilitated brainwashing, imprisonment and even rape of his followers.
Scientology itself has evolved since his death to double-down on such practices, and given how much wealth they’ve amassed from the gullible, by and large prevent the organization from being held to account. All in Hubbard’s name.
You can compare their treatment of their followers, and those who’ve left the cult, with the behavior and beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witlesses. Though it can be hard to tell who is worse, really.
*hotrats* – Y’all Qaida – LOL đ
Reply to Glenn Anderson : I do not believe that gentle humour is misinformation but it is your right to disagree with me. However there are no lies or prejudices in this cartoon, in fact I have never seen evidence of either in any J&M cartoon.
Both fictional characters are equally gently mocked on this site, as are some other fictional characters who appear as guest stars. The comments also tend to be gently mocking with little or no anger or hatred, a genuine online community.
However if a little gentle humour is too offensive for you I suggest not reading this site.
The “Proud Boys” are bitterly disappointed that the Rapist in Chief, did not pardon them.
They knew he was a snake before they started to support him. What they did at the Capitol is covered by local laws, so a pardon would not be as helpful as they probably think.
Thanks @hotrats, obviously the Q stands for Quran – never thought of that
Looks like Mo was the Donald Trump of his era.
Referring to hotrats above:
Q-also-ran?
If Donald Trump were crucified tomorrow, in 2000 years everyone would be worshiping him as some kind of a prophet.
Just an idea .. .. .. ..
It seems QAnon feel betrayed and bewildered: Where is the military? Where are our leaders? Who are we? And why?
Most of all: What date should we wait for now? đ
“Q was a LARP the entire f—ing time.”
“There is no plan.’
“It’s over and nothing makes sense… absolutely nothing…”
For instance: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1351937228314914819
QAnon? I reckon Q was David Icke….nailed on…
Evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
The scholarship of religion, vs. reputation for integrity – kind of an interesting conundrum. Scholarship unfortunately doesn’t take place in the ideal vacuum of objective disinterest, so I would want to establish just where exactly that reputation is being maintained. A fine reputation among the mullahs isn’t going to be much of selling point with me.
But as you say, in the absence of “serious evidence” … we may get our impressions from the events of the day and the “fruits” so to speak of Islam where it holds sway. I guess “questionable moral character” may be false slander or at most a matter of an inappropriate standard for someone who lived in a very different culture, but really Mohammed’s moral character is immaterial at this point.
^ Mo was supposed to sit and eat, whilst his henchmen beheaded men, women and children for his entertainment. Is that historically true? Or is it part of an alternative history invented by his opponents to slur the reputation of their enemy?
Who cares? He’s been gone for a long time.
Donn, many moons ago, when we could chew the fat over beer in a local.hostelry…the scientists v historians arguments always boiled down to one irrefutable fact…written or oral history has to be assumed to be fiction. Unless it can be corroborated with proven non partisan physical evidence…thus most written histories contain a lot of made-up “noise” or “spin”..that is why historians usually argue all the fecking time… the sciences are so much more elegant in their findings and agreement of such..all physicists agree that F = MA ( as an example)…
And now, after having seen too many of Q’s pronouncements go utterly and completely wrong, there are more than a few of his followers who have FINALLY come to the conclusion that it’s all a bunch of Q-A-NONSENSE!!!
TBH. I was completely unaware of QAnon until it was highlighted in the capitol nonsense a few weeks back…Until then Pizzagate to.me was when arsenal players threw pizza slices at Alex Ferguson in the old Trafford tunnel…
Evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
And who, don’t forget, faced execution if they came to the wrong conclusions!
You sometimes see claims by Muslims that the truth of Islam is supported by overwhelming evidence compiled by careful scholarship over centuries. But who were these scholars? We are certainly not talking about Western academics — we are talking about Muslim scholars living in Muslim countries where Islamic law decreed that the official punishment for apostasy was death. Scholarship cannot be trusted if wrong conclusions are punished!!!
Of course, it wasn’t only the Muslims who punished heresy; the West burned its share of heretics as well. And even today, in the supposedly enlightened West, honest academics carefully avoid certain subjects, because they know that coming to the wrong conclusion would destroy their careers. Paul Graham, a noted computer scientist, venture capitalist, and essayist, had some interesting things to say about how every society has things that cannot be said. (Note that he very pointedly does not actually say any of those things!)
I think I myself has had post’s pulled from this site…one for having a pop at those individuals who consume far more calories than their current metabolism is burning….most of them convince themselves that they would get fat if they only consumed a cress leaf per day…delusion that is often flagged in these cartoons…when they are religious delusions….
“But who were these scholars? We are certainly not talking about Western academics”
Yes we are. I have no problem with people making claims as long as they are prepared to support them with evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
It is noticeable in the replies so far that noone has offered such evidence to support the main claim of the current cartoon that the Prophet was of “questionable moral character”.
M27Holts, you may not have heard of QAnon before, but they’re already in your neck of the woods:
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-54065470
And they’re in Germany, taking over the Querdenker:
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/qanon-und-querdenker-eine-abgrenzung-findet-ueberhaupt.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=489695
Maybe this kind of thing comes up when people stop having faith in the standard religions?
Also, I’m interested to see how they end up rationalizing the fact that Trump is no longer president. Here’s one possibility: https://www.ladbible.com/news/latest-maga-conspiracy-theory-suggests-trump-and-biden-are-doing-faceoff-20210118
I’d point out that the body types are different, but they’d just tweak the idea a bit.
As I recall, there was one theory that a certain Jewish fellow was going to be King of the Jews and kick the Romans out of Israel. When the revolution failed and the leader was killed, people needed a new belief. The resulting religion isn’t any saner than the Trump/Biden face swap religion from the link above. I guess people need weird beliefs to make them feel good.
Christians have been waiting 2000 years for their guy to return. I hope these new ones are patient.
Donât let us forget that Donald (SAW) has already told us âI will be backâ.
If Bidden now builds a big arena and starts feeding Trump supporters to the lions, it would make a really good book for the wingnuts to believe in and worship for the future.
Canât you just hear them back in year BC 0001 saying; âThat will never work., people are not THAT stupidâ ?
noone has offered such evidence to support the main claim of the current cartoon that the Prophet was of âquestionable moral characterâ.
Well, what’s the use? You’re sure to discount any such references as biased and discredited by your favorite authorities. Details about someone who lived that long ago are what you want them to be. All we really know is that he posed as a prophet and peddled what has become Islam. I call that questionable.
^ didn’t he stay in a cave for years and come out to claim that god had spoken to him? Sounds questionable to me…
^^ May have had trouble finding a tree to sit under and meditate for years, where he was? I mean, that figures, right? As Gotama-mo.
“Well, whatâs the use? Youâre sure to discount any such references as biased and discredited by your favorite authorities.”
I’m not sure how you can support this claim since we’ve only just met and in any case it is not a valid excuse.
Quoting from the cartoon dated Jan 6, 2020 :
“Gentlemen, this year I respectfully request that you consider the possibility that the beliefs upon which you base your lives are, although sincerely held, not actually trueâŚ
âŚThen, having acknowledge that possibility, you undertake an honest reassessment of the foundations of those beliefs, namely the scriptures which you believe to be divine provenanceâŚ
..but which unbelievers such as myself, are very clearly written by men of wildly varying degrees of wisdom and literary ability.”
This is what I teach my children and why I’m here, namely to refute my assumptions about the Qur’an and the prophets. It is also why I have every right to expect unbelievers to support their claims with serious scholarship.
At this stage it looks like the cartoon’s author(s) cannot support their claims about the âquestionable moral characterâ of either prophet WITH evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect.
Note that you haven’t really been discussing this with the cartoon’s author(s), only to date with readers who wouldn’t really know where the allegation comes from, and you can’t draw any really robust conclusions about the author’s work from that.
In any case, you may have fallen into an unwarranted equivalence here. The demands of religious faith usually extend to a variety of “historical” details about the founder and other key players. We can’t have The Prophet just be some guy whose character is generally considered to be above average – he was chosen by God etc. Faith demands that we accept the account of “the scriptures, the foundations of those beliefs.”
As unbelievers, we are in an entirely different position. No one has a shred of motivation to reassess those scriptures, because divine provenance means nothing to us. We look back at events of that time in terms that we believe represent reality, which for me anyway means “who knows?” It’s kind of hard to even take the idea of serious scholarship seriously, and I sure wouldn’t encourage you to look for any interesting insights into the historical truth of the Quran etc. here. It’s a joke. I think it’s usually a pretty good joke, which means drawing a delicate line that doesn’t always work the same for everyone, but serious scholarship is not what I expect.
Now, some reader might pull something out of his own vast store of lore about Mohammed that he has for mysterious reasons accumulated, and you might get an interesting discussion, but so far I haven’t noticed much beyond the implicit charge of “religious huckster”.
Glenn Anderson:”… expect unbelievers to support their claims with serious scholarship …”.
It is not necessary for unbelievers to “support their claims”. Unbelievers make no claims. The burden of proof is on believers to support their claims, whether with serious scholarship or, as Donn implies “religious huckstering”. An unbeliever need not make a more erudite response to religious propaganda than “Pull the other leg – it’s got bells on.”
So no evidence to support the claim about the Prophet moral character.
As for whether the claims of the critics of Islam should be taken as gospel and not open for challenge , as suggested by the last two respondents, I obviously disagree because this would mean treating such claims as dogma. Clearly we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Its been interesting. Thankyou
I’ll just add, that there is a substantial body of evidence about the life and character of the Prophet, and of course the Qur’an, and a number of serious (Western) scholars have used this evidence to come to their own conclusions on the topic (I’ll let others discover this for themselves).
If the authors of this cartoon have not examined whether or not the claim that the Prophet’s moral character can be described as “highly questionable” is supported by the evidence, then clearly their claims are not motivated by the evidence.
This in itself is instructive, because it suggests that perhaps the claims are not in fact corroborated by the scholarly research; a working hypothesis for those interested in the truth.
So its just a matter of doing the research. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to do their own research.
Anyway, on to the next cartoon, where perhaps there may be more agreement (time permitting).
This is what I teach my children and why Iâm here, namely to refute my assumptions about the Qurâan and the prophets. It is also why I have every right to expect unbelievers to support their claims with serious scholarship.
Glenn — It would help if you could tell us exactly what your assumptions about Islam are. Are you claiming, as many Muslims have, that the truth of Islam has been proven via serious scholarship? If so my rebuttal stands: the vast majority of scholars making such claims have been believing Muslims living in Muslim countries where the nominal — and often actual! — punishment for apostasy is death, and this calls their scholarship into serious question. However if you are merely claiming that it has not been proven that the moral character of Muhammad was “highly questionable” then you may have a stronger case to make. So what exactly is it that you are saying?
jb,
I think I’ve been clear in saying that I’m referring to Western scholars. I do mean by this non-Muslim Western scholars.
As for people leaving Islam and reports of oppression attributed to the teachings of Islam we may gain some insight from a documentary, “Women leaving Islam”, which is set to premier on the 5 Feb. This is supported by the Ex-Muslims Association, I believe.
On the other hand we also have the stories of converts, such as those documented in the 130 page report from Cambridge Universityâs Centre for Islamic Studies: NARRATIVES of CONVERSION TO ISLAM: Female Perspectives, 2013.
It would be interesting to bring the two perspectives to the one table. It may shed some light on the reasons underlying why some women are leaving and some woman are joining the religion (actually quite a lot if you believe the newspapers).
There is an interesting article by Eve Ahmed, a British writer who rejected the religion of her Pakistani parents. She interviewed four women converts for the Daily Mail (“Why ARE so many modern British career women converting to Islam?”) . One of those was Kristiane Backer, 43, a London-based former MTV presenter. This is what she is reported as saying about Islam and the women leaving Islam:
“Kristiane Backer, who has written a book on her own spiritual journey, called From MTV To Mecca, believes the new breed of modern, independent Muslims can band together to show the world that Islam is not the faith I grew up in â one that stamps on the rights of women.
She says: âI know women born Muslims who became disillusioned and rebelled against it. When you dig deeper, itâs not the faith they turned against, but the culture.
‘Rules like marrying within the same sect or caste and education being less important for girls, as they should get married anyway ââ where does it say that in the Koran? It doesnât.
âMany young Muslims have abandoned the âfire and brimstoneâ version they were born into have re-discovered a more spiritual and intellectual approach, thatâs free from the cultural dogmas of the older generation. Thatâs how I intend to spend my life, showing the world the beauty of the true Islam.â ”
So the open question is whether injustices experience by Muslim women can be attributed to the teachings of Islam, or as Backer suggests, “cultural dogmas of an older generation” which should sound familiar in the wake of the “me.too” movement.
To my mind, this approach is far more enlightening and constructive; simply let people speak for themselves and of their own experiences. For those who do not want to commit to the pursuit of reason and evidence where-ever it may lead, then fine, as long as they do try to impose their dogma on others.
Typo in the last sentence: “as long as they do NOT try to impose their dogma on others.
I think Iâve been clear in saying that Iâm referring to Western scholars. I do mean by this non-Muslim Western scholars.
You have not been clear at all — to the point of evasiveness — about what you are claiming those non-Muslim Western scholars are saying. Is it that the truth of Islam is well established? If so I simply don’t believe you, and you are going to have to start naming names. Leaving it as an exercise for the reader won’t cut it. There are millions of people in the Western world who can lay some claim to the title of “scholar”, so you can find people to back almost any crazy idea you can come up with. But if you want to say that there is serious scholarly support for an idea then we need to be able to evaluate the scholars involved, and we need to know that there are more than just a handful of them.
Now of course this quite a different kettle of fish. Mohammed is so long gone that nothing about him can be known for sure, and it’s immaterial anyway, but if we’re talking about Islam in the modern world … I think it’s well enough understood that Islam is like any religion, at best decorative, and its practical faults are the faults of its practitioners.
I lean towards at least the general idea of Stephen Dutch “The World’s Most Toxic Value System” – the evils of Islam are principally really the evils of the Middle East culture it’s most known for. Indonesian Muslims will have their own Islamic culture that I guess must be a little less dreadful, at least not as notorious. If people are taking up Islam in the west, and managing to do so while steering completely clear of the ruinous Middle Eastern culture that it’s so strongly associated with, I’m sure they’ll be able to treat women like humans and so forth.
But it’s still a religious fraud, which deserves whatever mockery we can come up with.
jb you state: “…if you want to say that there is serious scholarly support for an idea then we need to be able to evaluate the scholars involved, and we need to know that there are more than just a handful of them.”
Exactly. We agree!
If we are going to make claims, in this case the claim that Prophetâs moral character can be described as âhighly questionableâ , then it needs to be backed by reliable scholarship.
Of course you want me to defend a claim that I never made, namely that “the truth of Islam is well established”. It should be obvious from what I’ve already written, that I’m here “to test my assumptions” and not to make such dogmatic claims. As a reminder this is what I wrote:: “This is what I teach my children and why Iâm here, namely to refute my assumptions about the Qurâan and the prophets.”
jb: “There are millions of people in the Western world who can lay some claim to the title of âscholarâ, so you can find people to back almost any crazy idea you can come up with.”
Which is why I’ve been explicit about what I mean by serious scholarship. To repeat: “evidence from scholars who have spent their careers studying the facts about the religion of Islam and its history and have reputations for integrity to protect”.
Clearly, if there exists serious scholarship to support the cartoon’s claim about the Prophet’s character then it is proving very difficult to find. So let’s move on.
Clearly, if there exists serious scholarship to support the cartoonâs claim about the Prophetâs character then it is proving very difficult to find. So letâs move on.
Clearly – it’s very difficult to find something when no one’s looking. Are you looking? Is anyone? Religious huckster or lunatic, and we care to look deeper? Not me.
Glenn — Well if you are here to “test your assumptions” it would, as I said before, help a lot if you let us know what those assumptions are. Are you asserting that Muhammad was not a man of “highly questionable moral character.” Fair enough, but if that’s what you think you should say so. If you aren’t willing to come right out and say what you believe then why should we take you seriously?
Glenn is clearly a sociology or another humanities subject teacher. Using post modernist rhetoric to waffle on for ages and say nothing at all. From histories I have read about Mo I can extrapolate the character of conquering despot. Apologists will try to assert that he was a product of his time and no more violent than the rest of the people in his world….same could be said about Hitler and Stalin. I rest my case…
Glen – Teach your children the same as I taught mine. “Question Everything”.
Donn: Stephen Dutch âThe Worldâs Most Toxic Value Systemâ
I vaguely remember that essay, but now trying to Google it just gets gets references to it on things like Reddit.
Can you find a link to it?
Alas, the original site is gone – http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM – but I’m guessing that it can be retrieved from web.archive.org.
It’s an essay by someone whose field of competence is elsewhere, so take with a grain of salt, but it does score some points.
M27Holts — My suspicion is that Glenn is a True Believer, but isn’t willing to be forthright about it because he imagines that if he conceals his own beliefs he can use the Socratic Method to confound our prejudices and lead us all to truth. (Hint: that never works!)
jb says: “Well if you are here to âtest your assumptionsâ it would, as I said before, help a lot if you let us know what those assumptions are. ”
Fair enough. My assumption is that the Prophet was of high moral character and this is supported by serious scholarship (see below). The test for me is whether those who claim the contrary have serious scholarship to back it up. I don’t bother with people who are outright dogmatic or bigoted because they make no public commitment to pursue truth through evidence and reason where-ever this may lead. However, some atheists do claim to uphold this principle and therefore offer the potential for learning and insights.
As to the issue at hand, I think we can agree that the cartoon’s claims regarding the Prophet’s moral character cannot be readily supported with serious scholarship.
In fact the cartoon leverages existing prejudices in the West that can be traced back to the propaganda of the ecclesiastics many centuries ago. It is ironic, don’t you think, that Westerners who claim to be so skeptical of their own religious institutions and teachings are so fixated in adhering to the prejudices of these same institutions and fail to practice due diligence.
As to what I would regard as serious scholarship that refutes the cartoon’s claims, one can begin with William Montgomery Watt is co-author of Britannica’s article “Muhammad: prophet of Islam”. He is Professor of Arabic and Isl?mic Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1964â79. Author of Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman; Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghaz?l?; General Editor of Isl?mic Surveys.
Conveniently, I found an excerpt from his first book posted on Fordham University’s website. This discusses “alleged moral failures” as well as the character of the Prophet in general.
Mockingbird: “Glen â Teach your children the same as I taught mine. âQuestion Everythingâ.”
I do. In fact I am doing it right now with these posts so be sure to be on your best behavior :-)!
Sorry,
I just thought I’d make the last part of the above post concerning scholarship more readable:
As to what I would regard as serious scholarship that refutes the cartoon’s claims, one can begin with William Montgomery Watt. Conveniently, I found an excerpt from his book, “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman”, posted on Fordham University’s website. This discusses “alleged moral failures” as well as the character of the Prophet in general.
William Montgomery Watt is Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1964â79. Author of Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman; Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali; General Editor of Islamic Surveys. He is also co-author of Britannica’s article “Muhammad: prophet of Islam”.
I suppose I am in your view “outright dogmatic or bigoted because [I] make no public commitment to pursue truth through evidence and reason where-ever this may lead” — since, to me, the only thing evidence and reason can tell us more or less for sure about Mohammed is that he was a religious fraud.
It’s easy for me to imagine that a professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies would have a longer and more comfortable career if he were to choose, out of the murk of ages, a relatively complimentary portrait of Mohammed. The author, in order to set up a good joke about two different branches of religious fanaticism, finds it convenient to choose a less flattering portrait. Either is fine with me, and the idea that someone’s going to get to the bottom of it and find out the truth seems like pure fantasy.
Glenn — OK, I’m satisfied. As an atheist I find highly risible the claims of many Muslims (and some Christians, although not so much these days) that the truth of their religion has been firmly established through reason and scholarship. However I personally have no terrible strong opinion about the moral character of Muhammad — especially as I am a strong believer in the principle that people should be judged in the context of their own times (i.e., I am not going to be tearing down any statues of Thomas Jefferson) — so I’ll leave it to the others to make their case if they care to.
I still don’t know whether you are a Muslim or not (you do come across as one), but I see no point in pressing you any further on it. And I’ll note in passing that while William Montgomery Watt was indeed a reputable non-Muslim Western scholar, he seems to have been quite friendly towards Islam; according to Wikipedia he is “a much-revered name for many Muslims all over the world” who “believed that the Qur’an was divinely inspired but not infallibly true”. I’d be willing to bet you can find equally reputable scholars who would disagree with him on many points.
High moral chatacter? Does that mean he genuinely spoke to god through his angels? And that word of god is infallible? I’m with JB. I will cease to argue. Didn’t somebody just site a geezer who I will quote here “If you argue with idiots, you become an idiot!”.
M27Holts, it seems to occur to me that the geezer quote involved wrestling with swine. But it may be kinder not to press that part in this context.
Glen: Thank you for your posts here. I think I can help you, you see, no-one knows more about -The Will of God – than I do.
The scholars you mention are only able to study the written word. The fact that the word is written proves it is the work of men. Men who cannot possibly know more about â The Will of God â than I or any new born infant or scholar on the surface of this planet.
Very simple, isnât it?
“having a reputation to protect” is the most powerful an inducement to lie the human experience has ever produced.
Not having Biblical miracles to back him, the acceptance of the Quran is based on the belief in the high moral character of the Prophet Muhammad. Classically, you may not be punished for blaspheming Allah; but you most certainly would be for casting doubt on the Prophet. All the characters in your cartoons, except the barmaid, have Allah; but only Islam has the Prophet. So it is a very sensitive issue, the character of the Prophet. Those are the toes you are stepping on.
Really any different? Jesus isn’t exactly analogous, since he was subsequently (?) appointed deity, and while alive it’s a little unclear to me if he even is supposed to have conversed with angels, but I don’t think it would have been smart to make suggestions about his moral character, back in the day.
Does this argument rest on the importance of Biblical miracles? Is that something Christians find so important that you could insult Jesus (or Mary, etc.) and get away with it, because miracles?
Though oddly I have heard a couple times that you’re redeemable if you blaspheme Jesus or Jehovah, but say a bad word about the Holy Ghost and you’re doomed.
I have not really considered the silliness of the holy ghost but now you mention it…..
In all this highly learned, and not so learned, debate, I am surprised that none of my fellow pedants has pointed out that the cartoon does not comment on the character of Mohammed, but in fact comments on the character of Trump!
Glenn Anderson and others may infer a character comment on Mohammed, not an unreasonable inference, but it is not explicitly stated!
(Btw, I don’t think any of you would disagree with Trump being described as of highly questionable moral character!)
SOG – ” none of my fellow pedants has pointed out that the cartoon does not comment on the character of Mohammed, but in fact comments on the character of Trump!”
Wrong !
SOG. It all comes down to facts in the end. If you discount the silly non-scientific philosophical ploy of trying to make all facts subjective, then you can always apply occams razor
At first I couldn’t quite make out the legend on Jesus’ beverage and guessed it might be Diet Coke, Trump’s fav. But upon closer inspection up to the limits of resolution, it’s more likely a can of Guinness? Maybe the Cock&Bull was closed for late news.
Firstly, Muhammad was very much a man of the world, having been trader, raider, warrior, “head of state”, man with many spouses, slaves, a concubine, had children. He declared war, concluded treaties, divided spoils of war, ordered assassinations. This compared to a itinerant, probably celibate, preacher with few worldly possessions, no weapons, etc. etc. that was Jesus. There is much more to pronounce moral judgment on Muhammad, if you choose to do so, compared to Jesus.
Secondly, Jesus had miracles, including rising from the dead. The role of miracles, example, the Christian writer Tertullian (155-240 AD) wrote, we are told, that Christianity is to be âbelieved because it is absurdâ, and that Christ was âburied and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossibleâ. There is no such argument in Islam; it is all based on acceptance of the veracity of the Prophet. (Well, the Quran is considered to a miracle, inimitable by human composers.)
Even today, one of the common methods of proselytization to Christianity (not Islam) is to demonstrate “miracles” in the name of Christ.
When I read Mockingbird’s post, I didn’t know the meaning of SAW. For other readers who may be unfamiliar with it, I’m now pretty sure it stands for Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam, or peace be unto him (PBUH, an abbreviation more familiar to me).
As for Donald, I hope (but do not expect) that he will find peace in Florida, and that if he does come back, it will just be for golfing.