An instructor who showed an Islamic painting during a visual analysis was publicly impugned for hate speech and dismissed without due process. As a scholar specializing in representations of the Prophet Muhammad, it is my duty to share accurate information about the painting at the heart of the controversy.
Honest historians see two different impulses in the chronicles of the West. In one, the West respects what it considers to be “the Other.” But we also know of another side of the West, like the “Reconquista” of Al-Andalus, resulting in a Jewish- and Muslim-free Iberian peninsula.
Western scholarly approaches tend to approach African and Islamic studies in separate lenses: “too Islamic” to be a legitimate subject of study for most anthropologists and Africanists, and “too African” to be of interest to Islamicists, thereby causing African-Muslim scholarly voices to fall through the cracks.
Taking Frank Herbert’s ideology seriously offers a more precise, if uncomfortable, explanation of how he leaned conservative. It also exposes the American Right’s troublesome alignments with Islamic thought.
As a kid who grew up in a mixed Alevi and Sunni neighborhood in Malatya, I listened to all the stories related to the meaning of the ashure pudding. Before then, I just assumed that the pudding was an Alevi-specific dessert.
Standing next to the king was his wife, Queen Soraya Tarzi, who was to Amanullah what Khadijah was to the prophet. As her husband finished his speech, the queen smiled and looked at the king with pride and affection as she gently tore off her veil, sending shockwaves throughout Afghan society.
Hind marched with Quraysh to battle, then stormed the field with other women to mutilate the corpses of the Muslims, slashing off noses and ears and fashioning them into necklaces. It’s said that she gouged out the liver of Muhammad’s uncle Hamza and bit into it.