THE ZAPIRO CARTOON – HAVE WE BECOME CARTOON CHARACTERS?

Shuaib Ismail Manjra

Friday Sermon delivered at Claremont Main Road Mosque on 28^th May 2010

The last week has evoked within us a sense of déjà vu, or should I say Groundhog Day, for those familiar with the movie. We have a sense that we have been down this path before. More importantly however it evoked in me a sadness – a sadness that we have not learnt any lessons from our past experiences. Our reflexive reactions to the provocations of Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh and the Danish cartoons have become predictable, laughable and have lost its desired effect. In fact it has had the opposite effect; rather than defending or promoting Islam we have become in the eyes of many intolerant, violent, ignorant and irrational. We however celebrate our pyrrhic victories which lie in apologies and bans …… but do we win the hearts and minds of people which is our intention and our mission – to teach good character, to follow the middle way, and to teach with wisdom, beauty and goodness.

The community’s response to Zapiro’s cartoon was, to say the least, disappointing. The cartoon was, after all, a gentle reminder to us that we need a sense of humour, respect for criticism and not to react violently and irrationally to any perceived slight. There was no caricature, there was no insult and there was no attack. There was no hurtful speech, no hateful speech and no destructive messages.

So what were the objections to Zapiro’s cartoon – and I must remind you that the objections become more and more ridiculous with the passage of time, as people began to deconstruct each and every element of it, even reading into the margins of its discourse.

• The first, most serious and sustainable objection was the depiction of the Prophet ﷺ, which most Muslims saw as verboten.
• The second was that words ascribed to the Prophet in the cartoon were never uttered by him. Fearing I guess that Zapiro’s words would become hadith and find its way into the books of prophetic sayings!.
• Third that the fact that the Prophet was in a psychiatrists chair signifying that he was mentally unbalanced.
• Then came the charge that the psychiatrist was white …. and looked Jewish. This was a symbol of a colonial mindset and possibly racist.
• Muslims then objected to the charge that they were humourless.
• Then came the charge that Zapiro was part of the larger conspiracy against Muslims – along with the reported threats by Muslims to attack the World Cup, the Draw Muhammad Cartoon campaign. This campaign was  linked to the Islamophobia in Europe – with the burqa ban in France, the minaret ban in Switzerland and moves afoot to extend these  bans in other countries as well.
• Last but not least that this reflected, subliminally at least, a colonial project. That Zapiro was a reflection of the powerful and Muslims the powerless subaltern community.

Ebrahim Rasool and Mahmood Mamdani provided more sophisticated, educated and nuanced view on this. But both however objected to the cartoon.

The issue has its genesis last Thursday night when the Jamiat-ul-Ulema in Gauteng became aware of the imminent publication of which ‘depicts’ the Prophet. Without having sight of the cartoon or preparing proper legal papers they attempted to interdict the M&G in the early hours of Friday morning. The Muslim judge threw out the case.

The Muslim radio stations and the Friday pulpits were mobilised as theatres to whip up emotions around this issue, casted as an attack on the person of the Prophet, Muslims and Islam. After generating hysteria the Ulema and others then appealed for calm when the issue threatened to get out of hand. History has shown that once you inflame a community there is no going back to calm the situation. It is akin to setting a crowded theatre on fire and then appealing for calm.  Every media network latched on to this story

It was in this context that I was forced by my conscience to write to the media defending Zapiro and his cartoon both in the interest of fairness and free speech and to condemn the overreaction to the cartoon. The major papers in all centres carried my letter resulting in a fury of rage from a number of quarters, not least of all my family and friends. I had become an outcast.

The battle lines were drawn. To quote George W Bush – “you are either with us or against us”. The discourse is cast within the following framework: if you object to the cartoon you love the Prophet, you do so out of a sense of conscience and religious conviction. If you do not find it objectionable then you are not doing so out of good conscience, or religious conviction, or love for prophet but out of a need to serve some other master, or to be otherwise. Progressives cannot have a conscience – only an ego.

This has become a clash of civilisations – not between Islam and the West but rather between the pre-modern and the postmodern.

On the other hand, the renowned labour journalist and activist Terry Bell, amongst others, called me to express his support, and queried the fury around the cartoon. To Terry, as an objective observer, the cartoon represented the Prophet as a humane and compassionate being. Support also came from friends whose support was based beyond friendship – but on a principled position.

I respect those who opposed the cartoon on the grounds that it violated their sensibilities. I can respect that view, which is based on centuries of belief in the prohibition of the Prophets depiction, even despite the lack of direct textual evidence to support their view.  I am also conscious of the hypersensitivity of Muslims in the context of Islamophobia that seems so pervasive in Europe and the urge to view everything within the lens of this Islamophobia or within a grand narrative conspiracy that includes much within its ambit.

My approach was based on two angles: one relates to the substantial aspects of the cartoon and the depiction of the Prophet, and the second to the Muslim reaction to its publication.

Firstly the context is important. The media this past week was carrying hysterical responses from Muslims on this matter. Provocative emails and sms’s were clogging cyberspace.  The Friday pulpits were being used to raised the tempo on this issue. And the death threats were bound to come, and did. There was a meeting in Gauteng consisting of prominent Ulema and lawyers where a lynch mob mentality prevailed with the discourse of violence predominating. The majority at the meeting felt that Muslims had a "shariah obligation" to execute Zapiro and M&G editor Nic Dawes, but this would be suspended on issuing an apology. As it was articulated, actions such as boycotts were considered only because of an inability to  implement "shariah obligations". One lawyer said if anyone wanted to carry out their "shariah obligation", the Muslim Lawyers Association would defend them in court. Even organisations such as the Call of Islam and MSA got on to this bandwagon and endorsed a statement arising out of this meeting – a statement that was outrageous in its content but excluding specific reference to violence that characterised the meeting. For those who deny the hysteria just look at the letters section of today’s M&G to disabuse you of such thoughts. Against this backdrop I felt the impulse to provide a counter voice and hopefully a more sane voice.

The impulse to act also arose out of a deep respect for Jonathan Shapiro - as a social commentator, as a cartoonist and an activist. Jonathan has served the UDF, the TAC and various civil society groupings with distinction. He has been consistent in his stand for a just world – not just in his drawings, but in his activism. To me he is an ethical, moral, principled and compassionate voice in a barren landscape. Jonathan has taken a consistently pro-Palestinian position and a progressive and unequivocal one at that, to the ire of the Jewish community. The way he was being vilified saddened me.  Suddenly people began to see the Jewishness in Jonathan and some even stooped to cast him as a Zionist. These characterisations were racist, I believe, since they only came to the fore in association with a negative view of Jonathan. I saw Jonathan’s intervention as that of an independent, objective observer, not someone part of a greater conspiracy or agenda.

My third point of departure was my contention that elevating the depiction of the Prophet as a core belief was disingenuous. It is a firmly held belief but not a core belief, particular in view of a lack of textual evidence to sustain this argument. There is a historical context that prohibited depiction, particularly in the form of statues. It was to prevent the idolisation of the Prophet or any other human figure for that matter in a context where society had just emerged from polytheism and idolatry. It was to prevent the Prophet becoming a fetish. Today our world is defined by images, and it is difficult imagining anyone using Zapiro’s image as an object of worship. It is simply a representation meant to make a larger point.  We seemed to have lost sight of this in our responses. Nor am I arguing for a laisse faire attitude to the question of depiction. But our world is one of images. We have animated films on the life of the prophet, through which our kids enjoy and arguably learn more about the Prophet than in madressah. In our enthusiasm to prevent images of the Prophet and to follow the lead of some of our Ulema, we seem to forget that these self same leaders prohibit any images, including photography. So if we want to extend the argument regarding representation let us be consistent and not only prohibit images of the Prophet. Furthermore, it is common cause that even should the prohibition of the depiction of the prophet be an element of Islamic law, this would not apply to those not professing to be Muslims, as with other elements of Islamic law.

Furthermore the discourse around the prohibition on depicting the Prophet is emblematic of Sunni universalism that straightforwardly dismisses as non-existent alternative views within the Umma.  I say this because the Shia tradition has numerous depictions or representations of both Muhammad and Ali. In fact Zapiro claims that in his research for his cartoon he relied heavily on historical Shia and Turkish depictions of the Prophet.  Aside from the Shia tradition, Sunnism in Turkey, Afghanistan and India has spawned numerous depictions of Muhammad. In fact some of these artworks grace museums around the world.

On the other hand Zapiro’s cartoon was in good taste and without the degree of irreverence and insult shown in the Danish cartoons or the ones published on Facebook. The setting of a psychologists chair does not have a deeper meaning except to provide a vehicle depicting the angst of a Prophet concerning his humourless ummah. I repeat there was no caricature, there was no insult and there was no attack. There was no hurtful speech, no hateful speech and no destructive messages. My one criticism of Zapiro is that he could have made the prophet a more handsome figure – which he was. If we closely read the Sirah of the prophet we see a human being with angst who often sought the counselling of his wives. Whether it was in the post-revelationary period, which the Quran refers to in Surah Muddathir, where he was shaken and sought comfort in the company of his wife Khadija, who was much older than he was. On another occasion when he feared that he was being followed by a phantom figure he sought comfort in this same pillar of strength, Khadija. On another occasion during the Treaty of Hudaybiya where there was virtually a mutiny against the prophet for the significant compromises he offered his enemies, he sought the wise counsel of his wife Umm Salamah. This is not to suggest in the least that the Prophet was mentally unbalanced, but rather that he was human with anxieties and concerns. But this did not cause him to act irrationally.

To me the key message of the cartoon was a simple one: a knee jerk hysterical reaction to anything we mildly perceive to be offensive, will only inspire more people to attempt to elicit this reaction. We need to get a sense of humour and ride this. The Prophet Muhammad has been lampooned in all periods of history, but this has not diminished his veneration among Muslims and respect among many non-Muslims for that matter. In fact if you go down the road to one of the larger bookshops you will find biographies of the Prophet which are far, far worse than what Zapiro has drawn. Yet it elicits no response, simply because we do not read, but rely on reproductions or hysteria to inform us. It seems that we need focus for our anger – and oftentimes this global anger is directed at the wrong person, simply because we have anger to vent! The disempowerment of Muslim communities causes us to direct whatever little power we have in the wrong direction. I contend that the current anger is not directed at protecting the Prophet, but rather to address our own insecurities.

Now if we look at the broader issues of depiction and representation, I believe that Zapiro did not depict the Prophet, but rather used a representation of him, if you allow the nuanced difference. Representation is a "sign that stands in for and takes the place of something else". It is a symbol or sign or signifier. Cartoonists use depiction, representation, symbols, signs and signifiers to make a point. A representation does not equate with depiction. So Zapiro did not intend drawing Muhammad but rather representing him, no more than anyone else can draw the Prophet, simply because there are no accepted images of him – the success of the initial prohibition. In fact this representation could have taken the form of a dot, a turban or a veiled figure. It would make no difference. So People can draw caricatures of the Prophet. They are not really caricatures of the Prophet but rather of their own imagination. A story from the life of the Prophet will illustrate this. The  Makkans used to try to make fun of the Prophet by twisting his name from  Muhammad meaning, “the one deserving of praise” , to Mudhammam meaning the “belittled one”. The Prophet simply smiled and said, “They are making fun of a man named Mudhammam, but I am Muhammad!” Similarly the cartoons that people draw are of their own imagination, not that of the Prophet.

For those who want to deconstruct the cartoon one could argue that there is no reason why the figure should not be someone else other than the Prophet. Furthermore Zapiro has 'represented' Jesus, Moses and God in his previous cartoons - with no outrage from the Muslim community. Aren't all our Prophets equal?

When we consider how the Prophet dealt with his lampooning, attacks and insults we see that he reacted to them with virtue, justice, mercy and love. In his sunnah (prophetic example) we learn a response of compassion, not hate and hysteria. We seemed to have lost this core message in our fetish to protect the depiction of the Prophet.

Let us consider his treatment at Taif where he was stoned until he bled and had to seek refuge in a palm grove; when the angel Gabriel appeared to him ready at his command to destroy the city, the prophet instead prayed for the people of Taif and for their guidance without malice, without hate and without retribution. We learn of the story of the women who used to daily throw her garbage at the prophet while he was en-route to the mosque. The one day where she did not appear, he enquired about her whereabouts and was told that she was ill. He visited to pray for her recovery.

The third example comes from the case when some enemies of Islam in Madinah greeted the  Prophet with the words, “As-Sa’mu Alaikum” (death be upon you), playing on the Muslim greeting “Assalamu-Alaikum” (peace be upon you). They didn’t write against him or draw against him – they spoke directly to him. He, with the calm demeanor simply responded – “Wa alaikum”, and upon you. He did not escalate or insult – he responded by reflecting their greeting, without mentioning anything negative himself or lowering his noble speech. His wife `Aisha, who out of her love for him, acted in a way many Muslims today do and yelled: “May the curse of Allah be upon you, and his punishment, and his…! “The Prophet stopped her saying: “Calm down oh ‘Aisha, calm down. There is not gentleness in anything, except that it becomes more beautiful, and there is not harshness in anything except that it makes it ugly. So be calm oh Aisha”.

This exemplifies the Prophetic response. calmness. tranquility. humility. He was active in spreading the message with “wisdom and beautiful preaching” with enthusiasm, vigor and strength, but he did not let insults take over his greatness. He engaged with those around him to teach them about God, and teach them about how to live their lives to the fullest. A model citizen. A good neighbor. A fortress of justice. An honest friend. A helper of the needy. A Messenger of God. This was his response. More than that, this was his driving mission.

The words of the Quran both directed and described his behaviour:

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching.” (Qur’an, 16:125)

“And you [Oh Prophet] are upon the noblest of character.” (Qur’an, 68:4)

“And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace…” [Qur'an, 25:63]

This brings me to the critical debate which this cartoon has evoked – that between freedom of expression, and the rights of a community and respects for their beliefs. Where does the freedom of expression end and where do the rights of the community begin. I do not have the answer, but the South African Constitution delimits freedom of speech where these is incitement or hate speech. I consider Zapiro’s cartoon to be neither. I, like our constitution do not espouse freedom of speech as an absolute right but one that is tempered with cultural, religious, and other sensitivities. The critical question then is who sets the limits. Do we allow each community to set its own limits? For example if Jews believe that they are the chosen people, with the promised land of Judea and Samaria for them to rule and control until the coming of the Messiah and use scriptural evidence to support this, then it becomes an essential part of their belief. It becomes part of their Judaism. Does this make it untouchable? Does criticism of this make us anti-semitic? If Christians believe in the sanctity of the Trinity - we then have no right to criticise it. The point I am making is who draws the line of acceptability. Who demarcates the balance between freedom of expression and the rights to respect for ones belief? If we leave it up to individual communities then we would be without a critical society. Freedom of expression, sadly or fortunately, is a double-edged sword. This is something we need to learn to live with in our secular democracy. The line between the two is determined through a dialectical relationship between the two and would constantly change. No one can draw a line in the sand between the two. It is like society in constant flux. This may not appeal to a fundamentalist view of the universe. But I have bad news for them. Living in a secular democracy is going to throw up complex challenges that will entail ambiguities, doubts and challenges to our beliefs.

Last but certainly not least, in a country wracked by poverty, drug abuse, social disintegration, crime, corruption and mis-governance can we afford to waste our time on this nonsense. Imagine the time, effort and money spend on addressing this issue. We could spend our energies constructively elsewhere. But having said that I admit that this debate adds to the rich mosaic of our democracy.

On the other hand  if we ignored the cartoon what difference would it have made. And no, it would not have made people more careful in future. In fact it has had the opposite reaction - everyone now provokes us with this sort of thing, knowing we will react - and irrationally too.

Let us rather be pro-active and draw pictures of the Prophet in all his love, compassion, fairness and justice. And for those critics, my views in no way diminish my love or respect for the Prophet of Islam and of all humanity.

In conclusion there are critical elements that this debate has brought to the fore:

Those of us who read Nic Dawes editorial in today’s M&G are bound to be impressed with his  clearly engagement the issues in an honest and transparent way. He speaks about what he has learnt, what mistakes he made and what principles are inalienable. There is an apology for causing hurt and a commitment to greater sensitivity. But also a firm commitment that the rights of the free press and freedom of expression will not be curtailed. We also learn the power of negotiation and dialogue. The apology from the M&G came about through such a process. But we also had all parties claiming victory – which is a marker of a successfully negotiated settlement. But we also learn that while we may ban, threaten and bully newspapers, the world-wide web is a free space that allows ideas to flow and permeate without restriction. Thus these instruments of the past grant hollow victories. Hallowed victories are achieved through gentle persuasion through love, compassion and example.

Critical question which require engagement include: How do Muslims live in a secular, democratic society where a market- place of competing  ideas will constant challenge the other? How do Muslims behave as model citizens and conduct ourselves when  criticised? How do Muslims use the instruments of dialogue, negotiation and communication to win respect rather than through vituperation and violence. How do Muslims communicate their sensitivities to others without threatening them or their beliefs in freedom of speech? And importantly jow do we give effect to and expand the spirit of the Compassion Charter we launched last week in this very mosque.

I thank you.

(I hereby acknowledge the contribution to this paper by a number of friends. In protecting their anonymity, I take full responsibility for the contents of this talk)