A four-way orgy involving Jesus, Mohammed, Moses and Buddha.
Cartoon published in the Israeli magazine Nana.

Some eyes threaten like a loaded and levelled pistol, and others are as insulting as hissing or kicking; some have no more expression than blueberries, while others are as deep as a well which you can fall into.- Ralph Waldo Emerson

     Of the original twelve Mohammed cartoons published last October in the Danish newspaper The Jyllands-Posten, the one that has captivated me the most is the cartoon above by Rasmus Sand Hoyer - which illustrates the prophet carrying a sword and defending the two abaya-clad Muslim women behind him. As a lover of art with a background in literary criticism, I treat an image as if it were a book, that there is story behind it. Surely, one can analyze an image to death – à la masturbation intellectuelle – and still not reach a mental orgasm; however, it is virtually inevitable not to acquire some type of symbolism or meaning from it, no matter how simplistic or absurd it may seem.

     This particular cartoon fascinates me because it is replete with ironies. Notice, for instance, that the prophet’s eyes are not revealed. What is Hoyer, the cartoonist, trying to say? That we, the observers, are not allowed to see the prophet’s gaze? Wouldn’t this, in and of itself, be a form of censorship, or is Hoyer trying to save us from some wicked spell? Could it be that the prophet is Medusa in disguise and that anyone that he gazes at turns automatically into stone? And these stones, are they gathered by the Hajj pilgrims who travel to Mina and then hurled at the Devil who is symbolized by stone columns? Yes, we – the observant Western infidels – have become stones, but what is ironic is that we are the very same stones that are being used to “kill” the Devil. Does this mean that the West is destined to save the world from total darkness and destruction?

     A popular expression states that the eyes are the windows to the soul. It is by gazing directly at someone’s eyes that one could grasp a hint of that person’s character or intentions. In this cartoon, Hoyer hinders us from perceiving the prophet’s soul; we may easily assume that the prophet is ready to pounce on his enemies as suggested by his warlike stance, but what if the look in his eyes is really that of fear? Maybe the prophet is really blind, or is afflicted with some ocular disease; after all, desert heat can cause dry eye which can lead to further irritation and possibly loss of vision. Instead, we are subjected to the prophet’s protruding nose – which somewhat functions as his eyes. The prophet senses that he is confronted with danger, and he “sees” to it that he and his female consorts are protected. Notice the excessive roundness of the consorts’ eyes; they appear to be made up with mascara or false eyelashes. One would say that the consorts are either Western (Danish) women who converted to Islam or simply Muslim women who use Western-made beauty products. Though they may appear totally submissive to the prophet, notice how the size of their bodies is nearly equal to his. If they want to, they could easily overpower the prophet, kill him, and finally liberate themselves from his clutches. But of course, that’s just wishful thinking. In any case, it is amusing to think – and ironically so – that an all-bellicose prophet would have to depend on two submissive women for moral support and extra defense. Don't let the innocent look of the women fool you: for all you know, they could be hiding explosives underneath those hideous black potato sacks.

     Many Muslims – especially those who are Koran-illiterate – will tell you that the Koran forbids all graphic representations of the prophet. The truth is that such prohibition is not found in the Koran but rather in the Hadiths which record Mohammed’s words and actions. It is important to know that opinions vary among Islamic scholars regarding the degree of offensiveness of portraying the prophet. Some say that making images of Mohammed would lead to idolatry – which is the most commonly held view among Muslims. Some say that it is allowed as long as the images are not taken as the true representation of Mohammed – which explains the preponderance of Mohammed images through the centuries. And some say that it is forbidden to depict not only the prophet but all people and dogs as well – which explains why you don’t see Muslim women wearing poodle skirts or Madonna T-shirts (oooops! I meant to say Madonna the singer, not Madonna the mother of Jesus).

     If there is anything offensive about the cartoon, it is definitely not the representation of Mohammed as a terrorist. This is too simplistic, and superficial. What would even be more offensive to Muslims – especially those who lack imagination or power to analyze – would be the emasculation of their beloved prophet. And this would be the biggest irony that the cartoon could render: that a dagger-brandishing powerful prophet is reduced to an ordinary, petty and vulnerable warrior.