Mick Hartley

I’m a bit confused by this. At MEMRI they show a couple of episodes from the Iranian TV series “40 Soldiers”. The first one depicts the Muslim siege of the Jewish fortress of Khaybar, back in AD 629. To save you watching the whole thing (over 50 minutes) I can confirm that the Muslim army, led by Imam Ali, manages to conquer the fortress in the end. Before their final showdown, Ali and Jewish leader Marhab indulge in some theological banter:

Ali: “You are a well-known hero, but even great heroes do not rely only on their arms of steel, but use their minds too. Think about it. All the monotheistic religions continue one another, and do not run parallel to one another. The path that began with Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus culminates with Muhammad.”

Marhab: “Enough talking, Ali. If you are a man, let’s see you voice the battle cry. The people of Khaybar know that I, Marhab, am armed to the teeth with weapons and iron, and that I am experienced and well-versed in battle. The moment the sharp blades reach me, I will draw my sword and spear.” […]

Ali: “Despite your thirst for our blood, we have an affinity to you.”

Marhab: “Our path differs from yours.”

Ali: “How can you say that? The paths of all the prophets are the same.”

Marhab: “What you are saying is false. The path of Moses is different.”

Ali: “Your Moses is our Moses too. A Muslims who does not respect and honor Moses is not a true Muslim.”

Marhab: “Stop talking, Ali. You have your religion, and we have ours.”

Marhab is duly slaughtered.

Could there possibly be a modern-day lesson intended here for the Iranian audience?

But early on in the course of the action we see – and this surprised me – the Prophet himself, Mohammed. Admittedly we only see him from the side or the back (and he has ever such a holy voice) but it’s still him (or perhaps Him). It’s still a portrayal of Mohammed. Which I thought was the thing that wasn’t allowed, on pain of riots, boycotts and death. So why is it OK here – unless Iranian embassies throughout the Muslim world suddenly become targeted by enraged demonstrators – but not OK in Denmark? Could it be that it’s not the actual portrayal that’s the problem, but the fact that it’s not complimentary? That the real affront to Muslim sensibilities is not that the Prophet is represented, but that he’s represented in a less than adulatory fashion?

Well yes, I thought so – but let’s at least be clear about what’s going on.