The imageless law splits into incomparable affects across Judaism and Islam.

Evidence

The law that forbids any image or likeness, parable, or simile ( Gleichnis) has to be distinguished from itself and seen as incomparable insofar as two distinct feelings emerge at its place, which is no longer one by virtue of the sublime. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 609 (#expands, via linked claim)

It is indeed striking to consider that having broken new ground in turning critical attention to the Muselmann, the Muslim, and having significantly participated in the renewed discussion of the theologico-political, Agamben summarizes the spheres that are abandoned by the Muslim onto a new indistinguishability in the following terms: “At times a medical figure or an ethical category, at times a political limit or an anthropological concept, the Muselmann is an indefinite being in whom not only humanity and non-humanity, but also vegetative existence and relation, physiology and ethics, medicine and politics, and life and death continuously pass through each other” (Agamben, Remnants of Auschwitz, 48). There would be, then, no theological zone of indistinguishability, nothing between the Jew and the Muslim. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 1262 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: One law produces two incomparable sublime feelings in Jews and Muslims — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 609; Hegel paired Judaism and Islam under shared monotheistic servitude and sublimity — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 631; Hegel saw Islam, like Judaism, as a pure unity of religious-political abstraction — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 641 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• One law produces two incomparable sublime feelings in Jews and Muslims #expands (0.93) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 609
• Agamben closes the theological gap between Jew and Muslim by conflating them #complicates (0.74) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 1262