Two incomplete and complicit strands of thought characterise South African responses to the publication of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Mail & Guardian. The first strand of thought rooted in the Muslim community explains the offence caused by the cartoon through explaining that Islam has a problem with the depiction of animate objects, and more especially the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This strands argues that the M&G has demonstrated insensitivity, disrespected the religion and has offended Muslims. Obviously, more progressive writers seek to explore the important and complex relationship between freedom of religion, on the one hand, and freedom of expression on the other.
The second strand argues, to quote the Mail & Guardian editor, that the cartoon provided a “gentle and irreverent poke”. In other words no offence was intended and represents a good example of the free expression that catalyzes debate and asks us to speak about the uncomfortable. In “pushing the limits we extend the freedoms” would be an apt summary of the central argument.
Despite the wide chasm that divides these two strands of thought, they share an unintended complicity. This complicity is locating the debate within the Constitution without adequate reference to contextual questions on the meanings of the “Draw Mohammad Day” group on Facebook, the political import of the decision and the wider meaning for a deeper and longer struggle for hegemony, which is loosely referred to as “clash of civilisation”. In doing so, the ethical and political choice of publication of the cartoon is not brought to the fore.
Social media and political mobilisation
Social media will become an increasingly prominent means of political mobilisation and (potentially) democratises activism and makes hate spread more quickly. Facebook for instance has shut down racist pages and it seems that they have deemed the “Draw Mohammad Day” site to be offensive to its terms and conditions. Alternatively, it might just be that the counter-mobilisation proved more overwhelming — in other words the social media battle provides space for that most traditional of political virtue/vice: power. Social media in other words both reflects attitudes in society but also shapes them.
Let’s start at the beginning. Some terrorist group threatened the creators of South Park which depicted the Prophet Muhammad in one of the episodes. In response, a cartoonist, Molly Norris, produced a poster. After this a Facebook group sprung up with a call to submit cartoons of the Prophet on a specific day. Norris has distanced herself from the group and apologised to Muslims. Her reasoning suggests that her initial goals were being turned into something else. The creator of the Facebook group distanced himself from the group saying that: “I am aghast that so many people are posting deeply offensive pictures of the prophet.”
Facebook has since removed the original “Draw Mohammad Day” page so I have had to piece together the intent of the page from the cached version and range of reports. As I have not had the opportunity to read the comments on the site, l will assume that the creators had a benign but misguided intention (ie giving them the benefit of doubt). The intention seems to be protection of free expression. However, the logic in practice equates all Muslims with terrorists. The logic created by the crowd on this group seems to be as follows:
- Terrorists have threatened our freedom.
- The terrorists are Muslims.
- So let’s cause offence to all Muslims.
- By implication all Muslims are terrorists.
With such a provocative stance, the publicity for the page would obviously become viral. The establishment of a counter-page (called “Against Draw Mohammed Day”) spread the message and offered a social media outlet for protest. If numbers tell a story, the respective pages had close to 100 000 fans.
Clash of civilisations
A tell-tale sign on the “Draw Mohammad Day” page was the use of the infamous Danish cartoons. In so doing it provided the most visible link to a wider political phenomenon called “clash of civilisations” ostensibly drawn from the writings of Samuel Huntington. The common-place reading is that Huntington argued that culture and religion will be the major sources of conflict in the post-Cold War era. A closer reading reveals that Huntington is also arguing that democratic reforms should be attuned to cultural and religious context and thus not merely mimic Western transitions to democracy. In popular parlance, however, the “clash of civilisation” refers to a fundamental difference between Western and other cultures and religion, especially Islam. The “Draw Mohammad Day” is a product of this overarching description for two related reasons.
First, through seeking not to challenge terrorists but rather Muslims it strengthens and deepens the divide between these clashing civilisations through the following (possibly unrelated) arguments:
- Through challenging the Muslim community the freedoms for Muslim communities are expanded, which leaves Muslims without agency.
- The threats to freedom of expression are significant and justify pushing beyond limits established in our society. The end justifies the means in this instance.
- All Muslims are terrorists, so let us get them.
Second, the “Draw Mohammed Day” page closes the space for engagement rather than inviting dialogue. The choice of protest — depicting the Prophet — is highly offensive to the majority of Muslims and the method seeks confrontation not understanding. In establishing its method of protest, it sought to offend.
Hegemonic construction
Political activism — especially in the social media space — understands the need to build hegemony, especially through getting unlikely voices to support a particular stance. This is done to achieve what Antonio Gramsci has called “common sense”. This requires achieving a double movement in this case:
- Recasting the debate in terms of rights. The typical neo-conservative cannot sustain arguments based on a widening of freedom, however the South Park fan can certainly do this, much more authentically. However, the South Park fan takes on board the key assumptions of a neo-conservative agenda and widens it.
- Widening the appeal. Obviously, institutions like the press jealousy guard freedom of speech. The M&G, for instance has a proud tradition in doing just that. However, through recasting the debate in terms of rights, it widens the appeal. Rather than tackle the original equating of Muslims with terrorists, the debate is suddenly about freedom of speech.
(Obviously, even the creators of a group or page cannot direct the crowd, hence the earlier quotes from the founder of the page.)
The conclusion is that an arguably progressive publication publishes a cartoon by an obviously progressive cartoonist as an expression of free speech. The devastating irony is that it props up and expands the stereotyping of Muslims as dangerous, violent and destructive.
Consequently, I would contend that the creation and publication of the cartoon, rather than entrenching freedom of speech, supports the creation of a common sense that divides the world into mad Muslims on the one hand and the sensible others on the other.
The publication of the cartoon also reinforces the most destructive elements in the Muslim community who will start their own mobilisation with the refrain “we told you so”. In turn, it supports sections of the Muslim community calling for disengagement from democratic politics, as well as calls for “Jihad” against the publisher and cartoonists. (All the official Muslim bodies have called for restraint and engagement.)
The impact is that a polarised debate with power vested in the extremes of each “civilisation” holding sway and attempting to widen their influence. In so doing, a profoundly disturbing consensus emerges that reinforces the view that the civilisations are indeed clashing. I have no clue as to what the Constitutional Court would make of this cartoon but would argue that the decision marks the widening and normalising of the idea that the “civilisations are clashing”. In this sense, the decision to publish the cartoon runs counter to entrenching and widening of democratic freedoms and the spirit of the Constitution.
* PBUH = Peace be upon him
With a nod to Edward Said and Mahmood Mamdani
I don’t think Mohammed was a holy prophet at all. I think he was just an ordinary man telling stories.
I’m not a Muslim, obviously. And I don’t need to follow any of the rules a Muslim feels obliged to obey. I can draw Mohammed pictures is I want to. I can eat pork. I can drink alcohol. I can dress immodestly.
So, why shouldn’t I? Must I surrender my liberal-democratic freedoms out of “respect” for Islam?
What for? Why don’t Muslims reciprocate this respect they expect from non-Muslims? Why don’t they let non-Muslims simply go ahead doing their unislamic things? Especially in Islamic majority countries?
Interesting points you make. However, you miss the very nature of something ‘going viral’ on the internet. Once this occurs, the initial intentions tend to fall by the wayside with the majority opinion superceding them. Therefore hegemonic construction is inate in something going viral.
What concerned me the most in this debacle was the argument made by the applicants in the failed injuction against it’s publication and you (seemingly) that Muslims would immediately resort to violence rather than dialogue to air their grievances (an assumption which subsequent occurences proved to be spurious).
Furthermore to draw on Samuel Huntington’s largely (and correctly so) discredited, (by Edward Said himself) theory as a basis of your argument is beyond me. Particularly as you’re applying it to an entirely different level of analysis from what it was intended.
Ultimately though, if any divisions at all were caused by this cartoon, it was the correct division between a violent yet vocal minority of Muslims and the majority who are law-abiding citizens.
As far as I understand the Draw Mohammed Day, it is about asserting free speech. I find the belief that women must wear burkhas offensive, but I understand that others have different beliefs so I don’t go around insisting that Muslim women don’t wear burkhas.
Muslims don’t believe in drawing Mohammed. Fine. Don’t draw him. But when they demand that people who don’t share that belief conform then they are not asking for respect but rather for submission.
That is what Draw Mohammed Day is about.
Mvelase Thanks for writing. Good point on something going viral – the crowds take over. On Huntington – Yep, Said had a huge disagreement with him. Have finally got around to reading the original text, and personally I think there are some good points on democratisation he makes. But, I should have been a little more clear in the article on what Huntington meant, and what “clash of civilisation” means in a more popular sense. Point taken.
Sus4th Thanks for the comment. I suspect that is what the creators of the Facebook page intended (i.e. an expression of free speech), but it turned into a bit of hate fest. That is why I referenced the reactions of the people who created the idea and page.
And yes, I would not ask anyone to submit to a belief I hold. However, it comes with tolerance and respect for views you do share.
PS to readers – seems like facebook has reinstated the page. But, still need to verify.
Atlas Reader the threat to democratic freedoms comes from many sources, especially from those that seek to entrench differences based on culture and religion. There are some Muslims that do that, but there are also others of every conceivable description that do that. A real threat comes from those that spread intolerance and frame debates in a polarising manner. A question – Does that atlas come with a mirror?
Great article, if rather long! I think you’ve shown some unavoidable drawbacks of satire itself.
Satire is truth, but to be funny it can’t be boringly accurate. If the cartoon had included a disclaimer that obviously not ALL Mohammed’s followes lack a sense of humour, it would not have any effect.
The truth is that Mohammed has violent followers who are prepared to die and kill for his cause. So does Jesus (think of the guys who murdered abortion doctors). Any attempt to say something different goes against the truth – uncomfortable as it may be!
But it’s also true that thanks to the War on Muslims … sorry, “Terror”, the Islamic faith has become a scapegoat for all that’s wrong in the world. It’s unfair and it isn’t right, but it’s true – and means a side-effect of mocking Islam is it gives the anti-Muslim brigade a boost – especially when the mockery comes from an intelligent and thoughtful source like Zapiro or the M&G.
So satire’s only recourse is to sit on the fence and poke fun at the crazies on all sides. If it can’t avoid boosting one ghastly group when it mocks another, it must at least be able to say, Careful: you may be next.
Take away satire’s right to make fun of ANYONE and all you suceed in doing is watering down the truth.
Respect doesn’t come in to it.
Something at interests me, it that your are using, mainly American, examples in your argument. And while I see they may be relevant, to prove your point in that in some sense the ‘American’ attitude to other religions has affected us all. It is also a little tarring everyone with the same brush, to assume that every non Muslim individual this in the same way as a country which has been basicly horrendously manipulated by the media, and propaganda on a level which we over here have not come close too.
Having seen first hand how fundamentalist Islam not only threatens but shuts down democratic freedoms in Taliban controlled places like Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan where girls are not educated while boys are; young boys are taken against their will and forced to join terror groups and where any law is enforced by the gun and whoever has the most guns, it continually amazes me that there is no criticism from within Muslims. Are they too afraid or are they in total agreement? 21st Century Islam is a very threatening religion while 10th Century Islam was a peaceful religion. How has the modern world changed this?
PeterH – Thanks. I agree, as long as those doing the satire realise there acts have consequences and take some responsibility. And, moreover that in exercising these rights we balance the rights of others. That is democracy! (Oh, and I really need to learn that a blog post should be 700 words at a maxium)
Brigs – Thanks for the comment. I am arguing that if we are not more careful we will all (Muslim and non-Muslim) be led into this “clash of civilisation”, not that every non-Muslim has the same view. I certainly did not intend readers to think that all non-Muslims are the same.
AntK There is huge debate in the Muslim community about everything, in fact on even the smallest issues. Hopefully, this opens debate and ensures that Islam has a dynamism that is crucial in this context. I would seriously suggest reading Mamdani’s “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim” as it provides a really useful historical account of understanding where we are coming from, and shows how intertwined the ascendancy of the Taliban was to “strategic interventions” by the West, especially the American government.
A bit of a “hate-fest”? Well, here’s a bit of a news bulletin for you Ebrahim — many non-muslims regard the bitter death threats and the vitriol spewing from “angry” Muslims to be nothing less than a hate-fest as well. And you reap what you sow — the Hindus call it karma. Not that I’m a hindu, mind you. I eat crayfish, oysters and beef cheeseburgers, drink beer and swim wearing a speedo. So, that betrays that I’m not Jewish or Muslim too.
But I can get really angry at being told by religious angry-people that I should obey THEIR stupid religious rules. I really don’t care two hoots if THEY obey their own rules or not — that’s entirely their call. But they have no business expecting ME to dance to their mad tunes.
Ebie. What is civilisation? How does one define being civilised ? … Then surely, when one declares a clash of civilisations, one of course assumes that BOTH are civilised. Does one believe therefore that … because one belongs to, and is part of, a nation, a believer in (of?) a particular religion, or is a product of a people once pronounced a civilisation (as in the Mesopotamians or the Aztecs, or the Dravidians)… indeed does one qualify and is one entitled to assume NOW that one is civilised?
The arrogance of that assumption!
May I humbly declare myself civilised, in the belief of my right and those of others to critical thinking, the right to differ, the right to express that difference openly, never to take a life on the basis intolerance of another’s opinion or belief, the ability to laugh at myself as much as at others(some do label this a sense of humour). Was this seemingly ‘clumsy’(to some) play on the words civilised or civilisations not the right of a civilised individual to play with, to have fun with, to explore and experiment with, concepts as they apply NOW, Ten and Five and Two thousand years later… or indeed ONE DAY after they were set or formulated?
How uncivilised of some to deny others these rights!
Peace!! Peace be upon all those on the face of this planet.
tzME-Thanks for a thought provoking comment. I tend to agree with you that “civilised” is a very contested concept. In this post, I was using the “clash of the civilisations” to show how normally rational people can take up positions they think is correct, whilst serving some other agenda. At times, I think everyone is unwitting accomplice, even if on different issues. Peace!
atlas reader Wear that speedo, if you must. (A mirror could come in handy). As long as you extend the same rights to people who practise religion then that is fine by me. Just remember that your rights and their rights are intertwined, and as such both sets of rights have limitations.
I never said that some Muslims are excluded from this hate fest. In fact, many Muslims have spoken out against the threats received by the M&G on this particular matter.
The Qur’an is replete with admonitions to moderation. In fact I am well aware of many quarters in the Islamic World that condemn, without any authority, cartoons of the Prophet.
Did you know that the picture-forbiddance comes directly out of the Bible, from the Books of Exodus and Deutonomy? These compilations were assembled around 500BC, from manuscripts gathered from temples of Israel. From these manuscripts, priests chose what they believed should be in the Torah and what should be left out. They used around 12 different manuscripts all written by different authors during this exercise. The Ten commandments in Exodus and Deutonomy were not part of the original Exodus and Deutonomy stories that we have now. These were inserted into these Books, and thus show that the priests prefered this version of the Ten commandments over the original ones. So we don’t know for sure if the words used in the Ten commandments and other image-restrictions as we read them now, were the original words given to Moses.
“EXO 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of