I have begun reading Leo McKinstry’s book about Sir Jack Hobbs, whom he describes in his book’s subtitle as “England’s Greatest Cricketer”. So, greater than W.G. Grace then? That’s what McKinstry says, and he emphasises this by telling, at the beginning of his book, on pages 5 and 6 of the Introduction, about how Hobbs surpassed Grace’s record for the number of centuries scored by a batsman in top class cricket (“first class” cricket as we cricket people call it), and of what a sensation this caused in England. This happened several decades before cricket was toppled by soccer as England’s greatest sporting obsession.
Hobbs began the 1925 county cricket season scoring heavily, and the centuries piled up, a century being a personal score of a hundred or more runs by the one batsman. But as Hobbs neared Grace’s record of 126 centuries, and as press and public interest grew, the nerves cut in and started affecting the performances of the usually nerveless Hobbs. The centuries slowed to a trickle. Once, when he got out for 54 (which would normally be rated a decent score), Hobbs walked back to his home pavilion at Surrey’s Oval cricket ground in complete silence, so deep was the gloom and disappointment of the spectators.
But, Hobbs having got stuck within one century of the Grace record, Hobbs’s team, Surrey, were playing Somerset at Taunton. On the first day of that game, August 15th 1925, Somerset were dismissed cheaply and Hobbs reached 91 not out, just a handful of runs short of reaching the record. And the next morning, he inched his way to century number 126. Equality with Grace was apparently what mattered, rather than doing one better, and with the pressure off, Hobbs’s first class century number 127 followed in the second Surrey innings of that same game.
Cue the celebrations:
Across the nation, Hobbs was acclaimed as the greatest sportsman of his age. ‘Jack Hobbs has taken the sporting world by storm. In two days and the same match he has equalled and surpassed the greatest feat ever performed in the annals of cricket; declared the Daily Mirror. Even King George V, a monarch notorious for his gruff reticence, sent a fulsome message of congratulations from Balmoral via his secretary Lord Stamfordham, expressing ‘much pleasure’ at Hobbs’s ‘remarkable success, whereby you have established a new and greater record in the history of our National Game’. Nor could the non-cricket world ignore the event. ‘Britain welcomes a new cricket hero; the New York Times told its readers, explaining that, ‘England has been in something akin to ferment this summer.’ …
But then comes this:
… A ferment of a different sort arose in Britain’s Indian Empire in the wake of Hobbs’s triumph. On the day that Hobbs beat Grace’s record, the Star published a cartoon by the brilliant New Zealand-born illustrator David Low, later to be renowned for his savage depictions of the European dictators of the 1930s. This 1925 cartoon, which perfectly captured the Hobbs mania that had gripped Britain, showed the Surrey player, bat in hand, towering over a series of other historical figures, including Columbus, Lloyd George, Caesar and Charlie Chaplin. Fatefully, Low also inserted in the line-up the Prophet Muhammad, standing on a pedestal and gazing up at Hobbs. When the image appeared in the Indian papers, it caused fury in the Muslim population, not just because Islam regards any portrayal of the Prophet as sacrilegious, but also because Muhammad was placed in a position of inferiority to a mere cricketer. According to the Calcutta correspondent of the Morning Post, the Hobbs cartoon ‘convulsed many Muslims in speechless rage. Meetings were held and resolutions were passed.’ So serious was the problem that the Indian Viceroy, the Marquess of Reading, wrote to the Cabinet in London to convey the feelings of Muslim outrage.
I note with approval that the internet allows us to see what all this fury was about:
Google quickly showed me this cartoon reproduction, which is apparently to be found at the Mohammed Image Archive. There are many other depictions of Mohammed (that being the third version in this posting alone of how this personage is spelt) on view at the other end of that link, but I could not find the above cartoon, although presumably it is there somewhere.
Nor have I been able to determine whether Indian Muslims issued any death threats, against David Low or against anyone connected to or working for The Star. From the reference to “meetings and resolutions” I get the impression: not, or the death threats would have got a mention also. But I would love to know.
Looking at the cartoon itself, and ignoring for a moment the proscription of any graphic portrayal of Mohammad, it strikes me that Christiandom might not have been overly pleased had the cartoon instead portrayed Jesus Christ as a co-equal to Charlie Chaplin, Christopher Columbus, and Adam, and inferior to a ballplayer.
(As for the proscription of any image of Mo, I note that there was little consensus in the Muslim world about this issue at the time of this cartoon. Prior to the 1990’s the main proscription concerned a Muslim using an image of Mo for idolatrous purposes, or as a means of seeking intercession, or any use that was disrespectful).
Personally, I find it annoying that Charlie Chaplin could be considered the inferior of a ballplayer. I mean, c’mon – “genius entertainer of millions” versus “I can hit that ball with this stick”? Get real.
(So many oxen to gore, so little time.)
And, in sunny Viet Nam, the South thereof, there is an interesting religious group called the Cao Dai.
They arose in relatively recent history and seem to be a conglomeration of “bits they liked” from all sort of philosophies.
Fierce believers in the separation of Church and State, except for themselves, they had their own army and small arms factory and fought EVERYBODY during the 1960’s and ’70’s. Extra points for being pretty much in Cu Chi Tunnels country.
Anyway, among their “saints” are: Charlie Chaplin, Victor Hugo of Les Miz fame and Joan of Arc. No “ball-players” that I recall.
The Cao Dai seemed to survive the “shut-downs” visited upon Catholic and other Christian churches in the South, post 1975. Determined survivors.
As the OP suggests that muslims under the authority of the Raj did not issue public death threats, perhaps the overt reactions would have been not that dissimilar in that respect at that time.
However long before this incident, the British Empire chose to ban public offering of bibles in Khartoum rather than risk the resulting riots, whereas Qu’rans could be offered legally and safely in Glasgow – though I suspect the “Free Qu’rans” stall I saw in Buchanan Street yesterday would not have been there a century ago (or twenty years ago). It’s remarkable how offering death threats – and carrying them out – gets a religion noticed and respected in certain quarters.
“(As for the proscription of any image of Mo, I note that there was little consensus in the Muslim world about this issue at the time of this cartoon. Prior to the 1990’s the main proscription concerned a Muslim using an image of Mo for idolatrous purposes, or as a means of seeking intercession, or any use that was disrespectful).”
So far as I know, there is no backing for any such specific proscription in Islamic scripture. Indeed, it could be argued that to treat images of Mo differently is idolatry on the part of Muslims, as only Allah is worthy of such respect. However, Muslims have never been very consistent about this. On the one hand, they have long treated copies of the Koran with reverence, not permitting their destruction or for non-Muslims and others in a state of ritual impurity to touch them. (So handing out copies of the actual Qur’aan in Glasgow would cause a riot, although they don’t count translations of the Qur’aan as genuine, so those would be OK.) And there’s that business about bowing down to a big black rock, of course. And on the other hand there are actually many historic depictions of Mo created by Muslims themselves. I think the scholarly consensus is that these are forbidden, but for a different reason.
The proscription in Islam is actually against Muslims creating or using any depictions of animate life, meaning birds, animals (including imaginary ones), and people. (Trees and plants generally are allowed, as they’re supposedly not animate.) This is not only because images were previously used as idols, but also because it imitates Allah’s act of creation, because it is an imitation of the ways of non-Muslims, and because the presence of pictures prevents the angels of mercy from entering a house. The legality of making photographs is disputed – some argue that it is merely capturing a naturally existing ‘shadow’ rather than drawing it oneself, which is allowed, while others argue that the outcome is the same, so the legality of producing it should be too. For this reason, scholars advise it is safer not to do it, but that you cannot criticise Muslims as being un-Islamic if they do. However, television is definitely banned, for a long list of reasons that would be familiar to any Western critics of the ‘Idiot Box’.
Given that they forbid any images of animate beings, to have a specific rule banning images of Mo would make no sense whatsoever. So there must be something else behind it.
Possibly it’s seen as a case of “reviling Allah or his messenger”, which is apostasy, or “mentioning something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam”, which is a breach of the terms of the dhimma treaty by which non-Muslims can live under Muslim rule. Although this would not be specific to just images, and does not generally apply to non-Muslims under non-Muslim rule. Generally speaking, orthodox Sharia doesn’t bother giving rulings for places where they have no jurisdiction, since Dar al Harb is already an offence against Allah that must be exterminated with an offensive jihad!
Thus, there seems to be no clear source for this supposed proscription in any school of Sunni orthodoxy. I personally suspect either it was made up to fool gullible Westerners, or possibly is one of those common misunderstandings of the details of the orthodoxy found among ordinary worshippers that it is convenient for the scholars not to rush to correct.
Certainly there is no rule against offending religions generally. Mo himself did so, in an event highly reminiscent of the current situation. When he first started preaching against the local tribal gods, the Arab tribesmen came to his uncle Abu Talib and demanded he be handed over to their justice for insulting their gods and their religion. His uncle refused, although he pleaded with Mo to desist. Mo of course refused, and continued to preach under his uncles protection. When Abu Talib died, Mo had to flee Mecca and escaped to Medina where the Jews there protected him. Eventually he returned to Mecca in triumph and smashed all the other idols in the temple. It’s not religion in general they protect, only Islam, and monotheist religions that they can pretend are corrupted versions of Islam in disguise.
I rather doubt that George V sent a “fulsome” message, but the meaning of that word seems to have been lost.
They were indeed translations – a sign assured passersby that everything was in English.
While the Blair-begun undermining of traditional local culture by mass importation from the middle east, backed by hate-speech laws, may indeed have gone far, I think starting a riot in Buchanan Street just because his colleagues witnessed an over-eager muslim on the stall allowing a shopper to touch an Arabic Qu’ran without first verifying their orthodoxy is a degeneration yet to come. 🙂
That cartoon is an insult to Bothammed.
In view of next weeks attempted Tory remainiac MP coup please sign:
https://www.change.org/p/beaconsfield-conservative-association-deselect-dominic-grieve-mp?recruiter=147296440&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_message.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi.lightning_2primary_share_options_more.control&utm_medium=whatsapp
and this one as well:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/224908
Thanks
Islam does not claim that Muhammed was God – or a supernatural being of any sort.
This is why some factions of Islam do not, historically, have a problem with showing Muhammed in an illustration.
However, all factions of Islam hold that “mocking” Muhammed must be punished by death – Muhammed made this clear himself, and even in hard cases, such as an old blind poet or a pregnant poetess (in both cases the death penalty was carried out).
So the question is – does the cartoon “mock” Muhammed, if (if) the answer is “yes” then, according to Islamic Law, both the person who created the mockery, and anyone who helps spread the mockery, must be killed.
Not a “perversion of Islam” Mrs May, not “extreme Islam” Mrs May – just Islam as taught and practiced by Muhammed.
What the cretins in the goverment-media complex call “Radical islam” is, absolutely ORTHODOX islam. A DEATH CULT of epic proportions. A DEATH CULT that notably allied itself with both nazi Germany and the execrable soviet empire.
Pondering this David Low cartoon some more, I think that an important point about it, which Leo McKinstry alludes to (“perfectly captured the Hobbs mania that gripped Britain”) but which I did not expand upon in my posting, is that it isn’t really true that Low is mocking “Mahomet”. It’s the people who think that Hobbs is a giant historic figure compared to Adam, Caesar, Chaplin, Mahomet, Columbus and Lloyd George – bigger than all of them put together – whom Low reckons to be somewhat ridiculous. Low is not bigging up Hobbs. That has already happened. What he is doing is cutting Hobbs mania down to size, by sending it up.
Not that such subtleties are going to make any difference to a great mob of Muslims who are either determined to see an excuse – or who genuinely do see a reason – to rage at the infidels.
Nevertheless, Low is not praising Hobbs. Nor for that matter is he ridiculing him. And he is not ridiculing Mahomet either. He is ridiculing a somewhat ridiculous, albeit pretty harmless, media frenzy.
I take it that there is no objection to the portrayal of Mahomet with a sword.
As I understand it, innovation in interpretation is not part of the faith, so if portraits of Mahomet (portraits made after his death) were once acceptable, when did they become unacceptable? I think that Brian’s interpretation of the cartoon is correct, it is more like a send-up of media hype.
Wasn’t Charlie Chaplin a commie? The late Auberon Waugh once promised to decapitate any statute of Chaplin on that basis, should one be put up, after some other statue was ‘beheaded’. Within about 3 months, a statue of Chaplin appeared in London, but Mr Waugh did not fulfil his promise. He did however, suggest that statues should have removable heads so that as fashions change, they could be trimmed to the winds with minimal effort.