Phiz is old British slang for a human face or facial expression, derived from visage or physiognomy.
This is the second part of a two-part column on the forbidden images of Mohammad. I am doing it because it can and will be done in defiance of Islam and of the Left.
Many of these images are old and uncredited, dating back centuries. Many of them are from the 19th and early 20th centuries, a few are from the Draw Mohammad Day in 2010, or are otherwise contemporary. And a few, to judge by their styles, crudity, and character, are of Medieval origin. But, regardless of the period in which they were created, they are all fanciful representations of Mohammad, because he is a person no one living or dead had ever seen, whose historic existence is doubtful (see Robert Spencer’s Did Mohammad Exist?)l, but whose image per Sharia is prohibited on pain of death. There are more than you could imagine; this is but a handful. Some are benign and adulatory, some are tasteless, some are humorous, and subject specfic. All “objectify” various, individual perceptions of Mohammad. So-called “Islamists” would have everyone believe that the depiction of Mohammad is a recent phenomenon, when in fact, according to Robert Spencer, his image was depicted on Middle
Eastern coins over a thousand years ago.
Practically the only renderings of Allah are glowing pentagrams with embedded Arabic inscriptions, or they are just the name, Allah, in Arabic, which suffices for Islam as a representation of Allah. Christianity traditionally has portrayed God as a bearded old man in a nightgown, sandals or flip-flops. Islam refuses to attempt any human objectification of Allah, because doing so would be “blasphemous” and worthy of a death fatwa.
Enjoy the freedom of speech.
As a precedent, I am dedicating this column to a partial roster of the tireless, courageous, and dogged fighters for freedom and the freedom of speech:
Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Anne Marie Waters, Katie Hopkins, Daniel Greenfield, Bosch Fawstin, Diana West , Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushie, Milo Yiannopoulos (whose original surname, Hanrahan, is the surname of one of my detective heroes). It is also dedicated to the scores of men and women who have been silenced (permanently) in their opposition to Islam and its campaign for global supremacy and the annihilation of the West and Israel, or who are outspoken but still invisible to the Sharia-compliant MSM and our dhimmi governments, or are suppressed, defamed, or ignored by them. It is also dedicated to all the victims and escapees of Islamic honor-killing in the U.S., Canada, and the world over. Au contraire, Mr. Obama, the future belongs to them, not to you or to Islam.
In 1997, the fledgling Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) brought their wrath to the Court, petitioning then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist to remove the sculpture from a marble frieze in the Supreme Court. CAIR outlined their objections as thus:
1. Islam discourages its followers from portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword "reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors."
3. Building documents and tourist pamphlets referred to Mohammad as "the founder of Islam," when he is, more accurately, the "last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham, Moses and Jesus."
(Quite the contrary, CAIR. Mohammad [if he existed] was the founder of Islam. There was no Islam before him, and no other “prophets” of it. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were copped from Judeo-Christian texts by tongue-in-cheek scribes long after Mohammad was pushing up daisies.)
Rehnquist dismissed CAIR's objections, saying that the depiction was "intended only to recognize him [Mohammad] ... as an important figure in the history of law; it was not intended as a form of idol worship." He also reminded CAIR that "words are used throughout the Court's architecture as a symbol of justice and nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone." Rehnquist did make one concession, though, and promised the description of the sculpture would be changed to identify Mohammad as a "Prophet of Islam," not "Founder of Islam." The rewording also said that the figure is a "well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Mohammed, and it bears no resemblance to Mohammed." Rehnquist more or less told CAIR to go suck an egg.