Is Islam Tolerant?

Heartland History

Historically the Koran's commendation of Holy War is not just of theoretical concern.  The heartland of the early church, the places where the apostles preached and founded churches, underwent a subsequent history bathed in blood. Not a little of this blood was spilled by readers inspired by the Koran. Churches mentioned in the New Testament include Antioch, Smyrna and Ephesus:

"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.  And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.  And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26).

"Then suddenly, by a forced march, he [the Mamlook Baybers] surprised the great city of Antioch.  After four days the walls were scaled on 18th May, 1268. Every man in Antioch was massacred and all the women and children were sold as slaves. The immense wealth of this great city, once the Roman capital of the East and, in 1268, one of the rich depots of the oriental trade, was distributed among the Mamlook soldiers. Then Antioch was burnt to the ground.  It has, to this day, never recovered from Baybers' visitation...Baybers took much trouble to pose as the Muslim hero fighting religious wars, a position greatly facilitated by the fact that his principal enemies were Christians or 'heathen' Tatars. His insistence on the fact that religion and morality were essential to victory had its roots far back in Islam, even in Judaism.  For the same reason, non-Muslims were often massacred, prisoners of war were beheaded and churches were razed to the ground.
(The Lost Centuries, John Bagot Glubb, p. 278 and p. 281).

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (Revelation 1:11).

"Bayazid had never been able to take Smyrna which was held by the Knights Hospitallers. From Kutahiya, Tamerlane marched, in December 1402, to besiege the town, which was built on a promontory jutting out into the sea...Many of the knights, however, were captured and decapitated and their heads built into a tower.  When Tamerlane moved to Ephesus after taking Smyrna, the children of the city came out to meet him singing, in the hope of winning his favor to spare Ephesus from pillage.  Annoyed at the noise, the Conqueror ordered his cavalry to ride them down, and the children were trampled to death beneath the hoofs of the horses...Throughout the whole of his career, Tamerlane claimed incessantly to be a pious Muslim.  His letters were full of quotations from the Qoran and the name of God was always on his lips."
(The Lost Centuries, John Bagot Glubb, p. 450 and 453).

The Wolf and the Lamb

In Sura 2, Mohammed condemns military aggression:

"And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:..." (Sura 2:187).

But the huge empire Mohammed's successors built up, in the name of religion, was not constructed on the basis of conflict in self-defense only!  As in Aesop's tale of the Wolf and the Lamb, to the conqueror, any rationale will do: "Wolf, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: 'Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.' 'Indeed,' bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, 'I was not then born.' Then said the Wolf, 'You feed in my pasture.' 'No, good sir,' replied the Lamb, 'I have not yet tasted grass.' Again said the Wolf, 'You drink of my well.' 'No,' exclaimed the Lamb, 'I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.' Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, 'Well! I won’t remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.'" (Aesop's Fables, The Wolf and the Lamb).  And, except for Indonesia, the high-water mark of Islamic military expansion is also the fold of the faithful.

People of the Book

Mohammed began his prophetic career showing favor toward the 'People of the Book,' even suggesting that Christians and Jews who follow their religions may be saved:

"Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites -- whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved." (Sura 2:59).

But his tone grows shriller and harsher as it becomes clear neither Christians nor Jews were prepared to accept his new revelation. He came in time to condemn Christians as 'infidels':

"Infidels now are they who say, 'God is the Messiah, Son of Mary;' for the Messiah said, 'O children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' Whoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him the Garden, and his abode shall be the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers." (Sura 5:29).

Mohammed's early dreams that the Jews would acknowledge his prophetic vocation were dashed on the rocks of reality; ultimately he would end up at war with the Jews of Arabia. He condemns them in the Koran as "a people who understand not":

"They (the Jews) will not fight against you in a body except in fenced towns or from behind walls. Mighty is their valor among themselves! thou thinkest them united -- but their hearts are divided. This for that they are a people who understand not." (Sura 59:14).

Both of the Koran's two conflicting perspectives on the "People of the Book" attract followers today. Islamic fundamentalists travel in the direction of medieval theologian ibn Taymiyya, who accuses Christian-loving Muslims of infidelity:

“Whoever believes that churches are houses of God and that God is worshipped therein, or that what Jews and Christians do constitutes the worship of God and obedience to Him and His Prophet, or that God likes such practices and approves of them; and whoever assists them to keep their churches open and to establish their religion, and does so out of a feeling of kinship or out of a sense of obedience—whoever does all these things is an infidel.” (Quoted p. 21, Freedom House, 'Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques,' [Document No. 52])

In the Arabian Peninsula

Mohammed's grudge-match with the Jews ended with the Jews expelled from the Arabian peninsula: "The time came to raid the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa. One day Mohammed assembled the Jews in their market and urged them to accept him as the prophet of God...The Jews replied, 'O, Mohammed, you seem to think we are your people.  Do not deceive yourself because you encountered a people with no knowledge of war and got the better of them; for by God if we fight you, you will find that we are real men.' [Ibn Ishaq, p. 363; Ibn Athir, I, p. 154]...This was followed by a blockade until the Jews surrendered. Mohammed had ordered their death, but they appealed for mercy. Subsequently they were exiled to the north; their removable assets were distributed among the army and their land confiscated. Tabari reports that Mohammed's fierce anger was followed in later years by an order: 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.' [Tabari, IV, p. 1006; Ibn Ishaq, p. 369]" (The Emergence of Islam, Mostafa Vaziri, p. 34-35).

"In the course of Mohammed's long persecution of the Jews, he made his decisive final message clear to his community: 'Let not two religions be left in the Arabian peninsula.' [Ibn Ishaq, p. 689]" (op. cit., p. 48).

Mohammed's conduct of his campaign against the Arabian Jews set a low standard on the human rights front: "Sa'd judged that all the 700 men should be killed, their wives and children sold into slavery and their property divided among the Muslims. Mohammed cried aloud: 'You have judged according to the very sentence of Allah above the seven skies!' The next day Mohammed ordered another trench to be dug, this time in the souk of Medina. Some individuals were spared at the request of the Muslims, but the rest were tied together in groups and beheaded; their bodies were thrown into the trench." (Mohammed, a Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p. 207).

The religious authorities of this country today haven't relented:

"You cannot allow Christians, Jews and Polytheists to stay in the Arabian Peninsula, regardless of whether they are women or men. This is so because Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) told us to drive them out of this Peninsula, and the Muslims have no need for them." (Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, quoted p. 87, 'Religious Edicts,' (Book, 36), Freedom House, 'Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques').

The reader will recall that this is the issue which drove Osama bin Laden into opposition, when the Saudi royal family graciously permitted American military personnel to enter the country, provided they conceal any unIslamic religious affiliation. In the vain hope of appeasing a fanaticism which cannot be appeased, the Bush Administration has complied with bin Laden's request and evacuated American forces from Saudi Arabian soil.

Dead Poets Society

Mohammed was not only spiritual leader to his flock, but their temporal ruler as well. In this capacity he compiled a human rights record which, while unsurprising for the seventh century, is no example to follow. He had people executed for lampooning him in verse:

"...Salim ibn Umayr took upon himself the job of getting rid of Abu Afk, a tribesman of Banu Amr ibn Awf. The latter was a poet who composed verses disparaging Mohammed and the Muslims and inciting his own tribe to rise against them. Even after [the battle of] Badr, Abu Afk still composed and disseminated abusive verse. Salim attacked Abu Afk in his sleep in his own yard and killed him. Likewise, Asma, daughter of Marwan, of the tribe of Banu Umayyah ibn Zayd, used to insult Islam and the Prophet by encouraging bad feeling against the Muslims. The Battle of Badr did not make her reconsider. One day, Umayr ibn Awf attacked her during the night while she was surrounded by her children, one of whom she was nursing. Umayr was weak of sight and had to grope for her. After removing the child from his victim, he killed her; he then proceeded to the Prophet and informed him of what he had done. When her relatives returned from the funeral, they asked him whether he had killed her. 'Indeed so,' said Umayr, 'You may fight me if you wish. By Him Who dominates my soul, if you should deny that she composed her abusive poetry, I would fight you until either you or I fall.' It was this courage of Umayr that caused the Banu Khutmah, the tribe of Asma's husband, to turn to Islam." (Muhammad H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 242).

Unfortunately Mohammed, whose every tic and quirk is considered instructive by Muslims, did not respect the people's right to free thought and free speech: "A few months later, when the poet Ka'b had returned to Medina and was writing more defamatory verses to stir up sedition, Mohammed had him assassinated." (Mohammed, a Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong, p. 185). Safety, Mohammed explained, lay in keeping quiet:

"They [the Jews] then came to Mohammed pleading their cause and accusing the Muslims of having killed Ka'b deliberately, in spite of his personal innocence. Mohammed answered, 'The man whom you claim to be innocent has indeed harmed us deeply and composed libelous poetry against us. Had he remained quiet like his co-religionists, nothing would have befallen him.'" (Muhammad H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 249-250).

Later, after Mohammed's conquest of Mecca, those not covered by his pardon included two songstresses, one of them named Fartana:

"Indeed, most of the men condemned to death had been forgiven. Only four were executed...[including] one of the slave women of Ibn Khatal who used to castigate the Prophet in song. The other slave-woman ran away, but was brought back and later forgiven." (Muhammad H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 411).

	George Sale's Translation of the Koran.
	Rev. J. M. Rodwell's Translation of the Koran.

Spanish Martyrs

Muslims point with pride to the tolerance Muslim rulers afforded their Christian subjects in conquered nations like Spain. But a closer examination of the advertised toleration shows something else: "In 850 a monk called Perfectus went shopping in the souk of Cordova, capital of the Muslim state of al-Andalus. Here he was accosted by a group of Arabs who asked him whether Jesus or Mohammed was the greater prophet. Perfectus understood at once that it was a trick question, because it was a capital offense in the Islamic empire to insult Mohammed, and at first he responded cautiously. But suddenly he snapped and burst into a passionate stream of abuse, calling the Prophet of Islam a charlatan, a sexual pervert and Antichrist himself. He was immediately swept off to jail." (Karen Armstrong, Mohammed, p. 22).

"Perfectus, who served at the basilica of St. Aciscius just outside the city walls, was stopped one day on his way to market by a group of Muslims. Seeing that he was a priest, they asked him to explain the 'catholic faith' and to share with them his opinions about Christ and Muhammed. Fearing that he would only provoke his audience, Perfectus declined. But when the Muslims swore to protect him, he proceeded, in Arabic, to decry Muhammed as one of the false prophets foretold by Christ and as a moral reprobate who had seduced the wife of his kinsman.

"Though angered by the harsh attack, the Muslims respected their oaths and let Perfectus go on his way. But a few days later the priest ran into some of the same group, who no longer felt constrained by their earlier promise. Seizing Perfectus, they took him before the magistrate and testified that he had disparaged the prophet. As they led Perfectus to prison to wait out the holy month of Ramadân, he repeatedly denied his guilt. Only when he realized that his fate was sealed did he repeat his denunciation of Islam. On April 18, 850, Perfectus was decapitated before the crowds that had gathered to celebrate the end of the feast." (Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain, Chapter 2, The Martyrs of Cordoba).

What is troubling about Perfectus' execution is the realization that he could not, consistent with the Lord's demands on His people, have responded to the Muslims' challenge in any way that could have preserved his life. The Lord said, "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 10:33). Nor is there any way a Christian could weigh Jesus, the mighty Maker, and Mohammed, a creature, in the balances and acknowledge Mohammed as the greater. If any less constitutes 'insulting' the Prophet, a capital crime, it's a wonder there were still any Christians alive in Spain to see its ultimate liberation.

House of Saud

The royal house of Saudi Arabia maintain that terrorism is un-Islamic, with some justification as seen above. But the ideal of tolerance they do find compatible with Islam is this:

"Saudi Arabia does not permit the worship of any faith except Islam on its own soil. The prohibition was not officially suspended even during the Gulf war. Although Americans were preparing to fight, and perhaps die, for Saudi Arabia, they were not permitted to post pictures of Jesus, Moses, Abraham, or, for some reason, Adam and Eve. According to instructions from the U.S. Army distributed over Christmas shortly before the war, American soldiers were not allowed to display crosses, Jewish stars, or any other non-Islamic religious symbols. They were not permitted to hold Christian or Jewish services on Saudi soil. They were even ordered not to play Christmas carols unless they were instrumental. 'Jingle Bells' was 'acceptable,' the leaflet said." (Judith Miller, God has Ninety-Nine Names, p. 491)

It is astonishing that nominally Christian U.S. presidents consented to stamp out the free exercise of religion for Americans stationed in Saudi Arabia. When this officially Islamic regime proclaimed a jihad against the secular Baath party, one of whose founders was a Christian: "The fatwa, published in the Saudi, Arab-language paper Al Muslimoon, states: 'In the name of God...the jihad taking place against the enemy of God Saddam, ruler of Iraq...is the legitimate jihad on the part of Muslims and those assisting them in this respect..." (Judith Miller, God has Ninety-Nine Names, p. 493)...what did we do, naturally, but join in.

The Pot and the Kettle

Nominally Christian rulers have also committed atrocities, such as Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Truly the behavior of these nominal Christians was shameful.  Yet no one holds up these monarchs as exemplars for Christians, whereas Muslims do hold up Mohammed. And Christians, from the very beginning, have always known better, even while not living up to their own profession:

"We are worshippers of one God, of whose existence and character Nature teaches all men; at whose lightnings and thunders you tremble, whose benefits minister to your happiness.  You think that others, too, are gods, whom we know to be devils.  However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man.  It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion -- to which free-will and not force should lead us -- the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind." (Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, Chapter II).

Here, for another example, is the admirable Edict of Milan:

"When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security...We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship.  When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion..."
(Edict of Milan, Internet Medieval Sourcebook).

By contrast, intolerance is enshrined within the Koran itself. It is tragically true that those calling themselves Christians have not always lived up to their Lord's calling:

Mass Murder   Return to Answering Islam...

Danish Cartoons

Just as if centuries had not intervened, the same dynamic the Spanish martyrs encountered has recently been on display in the case of the Danish cartoonists.

Islamic tradition as recorded in the hadith prohibits, not only depicting the late prophet, but depicting anyone or anything:

The hadith do not make the same claim to verbal inspiration as is made by the Koran, but are human testimony to the sayings and doings of Mohammed. They are evaluated the same way as any witness testimony. When a report is confirmed by numerous independent witnesses, as in this case, then it is likely genuine. Some interpret this verse of the Koran to prohibit "statues:" "O believers! surely wine and games of chance, and statues, and the divining arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s work! Avoid them, that ye may prosper." (Sura 5:92). Others read 'idols.'

Oftentimes Muslims have ignored Mohammed's prohibition of representational art. Having myself attended art school while the New York School was still trying to suppress realistic art, I can attest it is not an easy thing to stamp out. At least in my case, their implication that, if I wanted to draw pictures like that, I must not be very bright, made little impression. Little children draw pictures of mommy and daddy; who can tell them they mustn't? Media reports of a Muslim prohibition of Mohammed pictures specifically are evidently a compromise between Mohammed's actual teaching -- no pictures at all, unless abstract -- and the irrepressible human desire to depict, which has at times swept up Mohammed himself in its train:

If Muslims are serious about banning all depiction of Mohammed, they will first have to burn down their own museums. Some contemporary Shiites permit depicting Mohammed: "Shiite Muslims do not impose a blanket ban on representations of the prophet and some in Iran's provincial towns and villages even carry drawings said to be of Mohammed." (Iran: U.S., Europe Should Pay for Drawings, by NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer, February 11, 2006). Ayatollah al-Sistani's website, www.sistani.org, addresses the permissibility of drawing in general:

"§ Question : Students are asked to draw a human being or an animal; the requirement is such that it is difficult for the student to refuse the assignment. Are they allowed to do the drawing? ...
"§ Answer : Drawing a non-sculptured figure is allowed. Based on obligatory precaution, it is necessary to refrain from drawing a sculptured picture of a living being." (www.sistani.org)

It is unclear what the Ayatollah means by "drawing a sculptured picture," which is prohibited, though perhaps he alludes to modeling in light and dark as is characteristic of Western art. Sketching in the shadows provides the viewer with another viewpoint, as it is said, 'the sun never sees a shadow.' It seems unlikely, however, that the decorated pillow to which Mohammed objected was done in elaborate chiaroscuro.

The Ayatollah permits respectful images of Mohammed:

"§ Question : Is it permissible to draw or produce a scene which shows the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), one of the past prophets or the infallible Imams (a.s.), or other luminaries and show it in cinema, on television or theatre?
§ Answer : If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." (www.sistani.org.)

In some periods Muslims have obeyed Mohammed and have practiced abstract art and calligraphy solely. After all, Mohammed's criterion for exoneration: that artists must not only depict, but also animate, their creations, will be met by few. Those who believe everything they hear may expect Pygmalion to make the cut. Another interesting case is Jesus, reported in the Koran as a sculptor who fashioned clay birds which He then animated. (Of course, the people who originally crafted this story sought to underscore His deity, but the Koran is a grab-bag, bringing together miscellaneous incompatible information.) In the misguided governmental flood of empathy which has nurtured and validated the protestors' sense of grievance, I have failed to detect a tear for the artists whose entire profession has thus been consigned to hell-fire.

In those periods when Muslims obey Mohammed's prohibition of representational art, they also interpret the second of the ten commandments disjunctively, as intending to prohibit all representation:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6).

Christians usually understand this commandment to prohibit two things in conjunction, namely 1.) making graven images, AND 2.) bowing down to them. During their abstract periods, Muslims understand the commandment disjunctively: do not make graven images at all, whether you subsequently bow down to them or not. Experience fails to show that making graven images inevitably leads to idolatry.

People have at times done exactly what is prohibited: 'bow down' before (i.e. venerate) images. Christian iconoclastic movements have arisen in response to these evident abuses. The reformers' concerns on this score midwifed the production of pictures titled 'Still Life with Pears' and 'Landscape with Ducks,' images whose designed-in inertial drag precluded their plummeting down the slippery slope to pagan idolatry. Even religious imagery need not always prove a snare; Christian experience shows it can have a 'safe' didactic use.

In addition to his generalized malediction against all artists, Mohammed also reportedly warned his followers against exaggerating his importance:

The newspapers report that depicting Mohammed is prohibited to prevent idolatry. It is not clear why non-Muslims must be stopped from worshipping Mohammed when they feel no such inclination. In the past non-Muslims have felt no inhibition against producing images of Mohammed, even, oddly enough, on the frieze of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Moreover, those offended also describe the drawings as 'insulting.' How can these images be idolatrous if they are also insulting, and how can they be insulting if intended as worship? We expect a pagan sun-worshipper to sing hymns of praise to the sun, not to hurl insults and abuse at that luminary. Worship entails praise, not insult. If these cartoons are insulting as alleged, then the accusation that the Danish artists offered them as idolatrous worship is absurd.

Islam is not in principle opposed to satire and lampoon of people's most deeply held religious beliefs: "Narrated Al Bara: The Prophet said to Hassan, 'Lampoon them (i.e. the pagans) and Gabriel is with you.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 435.) Other people's most deeply held religious beliefs, that is to say. Those protesting demand no more and no less than that non-Muslims share the reverence they feel for their beloved prophet...or at least keep quiet if they don't.

The Koran itself hurls gross insults at other faith traditions. For instance: "Those who claim that God is one of three have lied and committed unbelief...If they do not stop from propagating this lie, a severe punishment will fall upon them...The Messiah, son of Mary, is only a prophet, one among many prophets who preceded him." (Sura 5). Without actually hitting the target (Trinitarians do not believe that God is "one of three"), this statement intends to insult Christians, minus Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. Muslims feel free to insult other faiths, but will allow no insult on the return path.

This ratcheting effect: Islam may freely insult, but not be insulted,-- produces a lop-sided result, where an openly blasphemous project like The Da Vinci Code may proceed without hindrance, but no insult against Mohammed is permitted. Incidentally, it is possible to blaspheme Jesus, because He is God incarnate. It is unclear how, if Mohammed is clearly understood to be a man and nothing but a man, it is possible to blaspheme against him. The cartoonists stand accused of insulting a man, not God; yet some Muslims accuse them of blasphemy. Recall, the anti-idolatry crowd wants to avoid images of Mohammed precisely to forestall any deification of this figure. The anti-idolatry crowd and the anti-blasphemy crowd need to sit down together and figure out once and for all whether they want to worship this man, or not. Then they can tell the rest of us what we are to do.

Blasphemy is by definition insult against God or what falls within the sphere of the divine: "blaspheme...To speak in terms of impious irreverence of; to revile or speak reproachfully of instead of reverentially: used of speaking against God or things sacred. [...] blasphemer...One who blasphemes; one who speaks of God in impious and irreverent terms." (Webster's International, 1965). To the pagan polytheist, the sphere of "things sacred" is quite extensive, but to the monotheist, there is One potential object of blasphemy. Some Muslims are quite willing to define insulting Mohammed as 'blasphemy,' and describe their prophet in conventional theistic terms as a being all of light: "'Imagine the most beautiful man in the world, the most handsome,' he said expansively, then waited a few seconds. 'He is not 1 percent as beautiful as the prophet, God's prayers and blessings upon him. He was so beautiful because of his closeness to God. He was all light. He had no shadow, according to his companions. How can you take an imprint of that?'" (Saudi Teacher Counsels Calm to Angry Students, by Faiza Saleh Ambah, Special to The Washington Post, Wednesday, February 8, 2006). This group badly needs to sit down with the anti-idolatry brigade, to learn why Mohammed must be counted in the sphere of the creaturely, not of the divine. As Abu Bakr explained upon Mohammed's death, "O Men, if you have been worshpping Mohammed, then know that Mohammed is dead. But if you have been worshipping God, then know that God is living and never dies." (The Life of Muhammad, Muhammad H. Haykal, p. 506). Since 'appearing in the funny papers' happens to other folks, why should this one individual be exempt? How can it be 'blasphemy' for a mere man to turn up in the funny papers?