Lampooning Religion

By Nathan Geffen

There are two questions to answer about Jonathan Shapiro’s cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed: (1) did he have a right to publish it and (2) should he have published it?

These two questions are often mixed up in discussions of freedom of expression. Many grotesque expressions, including much racism, are protected –their proponents have the legal right to express them– but these expressions are also rightly criticised as wrong.

The Equality Act describes the legal boundaries of freedom of expression. But some lawyers think its prohibitions are dubious and overbroad. The Constitution is the guarantor of rights in South Africa, so the first question can be answered by examining section 16. It only allows the legislature to prohibit certain kinds of expression such as propaganda for war or inciting imminent violence. Clearly Shapiro’s cartoon was neither of these. That leaves only one remaining ground. Expression may be prohibited if it incites hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and constitutes incitement to harm. [1]

Whatever you think of the cartoon, even if you think it is anti-Islam, it is very difficult to argue that a light-hearted comment on Muslim humour constitutes hatred for Muslims. Moreover it definitely does not incite harm against Muslims. Consequently there were no constitutional grounds for Shapiro being prevented from publishing it. Indeed, this is why last minute legal action by the Council of Muslim Theologians to stop its publication failed.

The first question is not a minor one. Many writers have vehemently criticised Zapiro’s cartoon. Some have been dogmatic Islamic fundamentalists, but some have been progressive Muslims or liberal thinkers. [2] Few of these antagonistic critiques of the cartoon have defended Shapiro’s right to publish it despite finding it offensive. This is not a minor omission, for in so doing they give succour to the intolerance of the Council of Muslim Theologians. [3]

The second question, should Shapiro have published, is a more complex and subjective one. Whether or not you think he should have published the cartoon depends not only on your religious beliefs, but what kind of cartoons you like and the degree to which you are nervous about a debate with the potential to turn violent. Before giving my answer, I want to point out some of the problems in a speech written by one of Shapiro’s critics, Mahmood Mamdani, that he delivered upon receiving an honourary doctorate at the University of Johannesburg. [4]

Mamdani is a respected scholar who has written a well-received book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, that criticises the way the Western world has dealt with Islam. Some respected progressive Muslim leaders have emailed Mamdani’s speech widely, apparently aligning themselves with its content. Much as many progressive Jews appear to suspend their critical thinking when it comes to Israeli crimes against humanity, so too it seems progressive Muslims have not taken cognisance of the flaws in Mamdani’s speech.

Mamdani compares Shapiro’s cartoon to the infamous Danish cartoons. But he fails to note that Shapiro depicted a sympathetic and likeable Muhammad, while several of the Danish cartoons depicted Muhammad as a terrorist. Mamdani distinguishes between blasphemy (which he appears to condone) and bigotry (which he doesn’t), where the former is what Muslims do when they criticise their establishment and the latter is apparently what non-Muslims like Shapiro and the Danish cartoonists do.

He writes, “Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a tradition from within. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on that tradition from the outside.” The effect of this is to discourage non-Muslims from criticising Islam. It is eerily similar, although not identical, to an argument I hear frequently from Zionists who ascribe any criticism of Israel to anti-semitism. Presumably then, it is only Shapiro’s Jewish birth that permits him to draw former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a Nazi SS officer, and his “Western” cultural identity that affords him the right to draw the Pope in a condom as a comment on the Catholic contribution to the spread of HIV? No, the legitimacy of an argument is based on its logic, not the identity of its source.

Mamdani brings up Rwanda as an example of where free speech spurred on a genocide. It is absurd to imply that Shapiro’s cartoon is even vaguely analogous to radio DJs calling for Tutsis to be murdered.

But this is the most disturbing paragraph in Mamdani’s speech, “The colonizing discourse historically focused on barbarities among the colonized – sati, child marriage and polygamy in India, female genital mutilation and slavery in Africa – and presented colonialism as a rescue mission for women, children, and minorities, at the same time claiming to be a larger project to civilize majorities. Meanwhile, Western minorities lived in the colonies with privilege and impunity.”

This exemplifies ethical relativism. Undoubtedly Mamdani does not condone child marriage, female genital mutilation and slavery. But the context of his comment, with its emphasis on criticising western colonialism can only comfort those who do condone these evils. Moreover, I would be very surprised if Mamdani has any sympathy for the Muslim theocracies and their oppression of women and gays or the myriad of human rights abuses perpetrated daily and ubiquitously in the name of Islam. But there’s not a hint of criticism of these. In an article that bemoans western colonialism (which has been responsible for a great many human rights catastrophes) and welcomes the rise of India and China and their “significant Muslim minorities”, there’s not the slightest appreciation of the religious fascism epitomised by the Iranian government on the one hand and the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the other.

On the contrary, Mamdani’s unintentionally sinister comment, “I want to take this opportunity to reflect on times and places when humour turned deadly” fails to acknowledge that the only deadly threats emanating from Shapiro’s cartoon are those directed by Muslim fundamentalists against the Mail & Guardian and Shapiro.

Now to answer the second question. A valid criticism of Shapiro’s cartoon is that he chose to publish it in the context of the Everybody Draw Muhammed Day, a somewhat gratuitous event which was open to abuse by Islamaphobes. Nevertheless, there are several reasons for believing he should have drawn it, the timing aside. Shuaib Manjra [5] and Terry Bell [6] have offered various arguments in support. I offer one more.

Every day, but especially Sunday, on South African television, on radio and in newspapers, churches, synagogues and mosques theologians freely express their views and evangelise. More than occasionally they express views that are antagonistic against atheists, agnostics, the non-religious, other religions, women, people with HIV, people who have sex outside of marriage, people who have abortions, gays and the science of evolution. With few exceptions they express views of dubious rationality and scientific accuracy.

But religion is no longer the sacred untouchable it used to be. It has become acceptable, thankfully, to question, debate and criticise religious beliefs. Just as the religious have been free to criticise the non-religious, the opposite is now possible too.

I am an atheist (and a cultural Jew). Many religious beliefs are scientifically untenable. People have the right to hold these beliefs and I very seldom discourage anyone from their religious convictions. But I and my fellow atheists also have a right to question, criticise and even lampoon religious views for they have no special exemption from critique. It is my personal view that it is irrational to believe that it is sinful to depict the Prophet Muhammed. I therefore welcome a cartoon that playfully challenges this belief. It is one of the joys of living in a democracy that we have the freedom to lampoon religion. I don’t like Richard Dawkins’ tactless, humourless way of criticising religion, but Jonathan Shapiro’s light-hearted cartoon seems to me to be just the way to do it.

Finally, the Mail & Guardian’s public statement in the face of immense pressure (and death threats) that they will honour “the prohibition on representation of the prophet” compromises their independence. [7] It opens the gates to the polygamists, Africanists, Zionists and religious fundamentalists of all stripes to claim a deep injury, and insist that newspapers cease publishing uncomfortable views. That is a deeply worrying precedent that stifles freedom of expression. [8]

Footnotes

1. This is a bit simplistic. Defamation, false advertising and copyright infringement are also examples of unlawful expression, but these are not relevant to Shapiro’s cartoon.

2. To his credit, Jonathan Jansen criticised the cartoon, but did defend Shapiro’s right of expression. See Jansen, J. 2010. The Times. Being respectful is a choice. http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article472250.ece/Being-re...

3. For the record, the Council had the right to try to stop Shapiro from publishing but in exercising that right they demonstrated their intolerance.

4. Mamdani, M. 2010. Beware Bigotry: Some thoughts on free speech and the Zapiro cartoons. Talk at University of Johannesburg on receiving honourary doctorate. http://www.mediareviewnet.com/index.php/201005271563/Exclusive-/Beware-B...

5. Manjra, S. 2010. Business Day. All power to Zapiro’s amusing pen.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=109870

6. Bell, T. 2010. Mail & Guardian. Bigotry rides rampant. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-27-bigotry-rides-rampant

6. Mail & Guardian 2010. M&G statement on Prophet Muhammad cartoon. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-27-mg-statement-on-prophet-muhammad-...

7. I am grateful to Doron Isaacs for comments. I take sole responsibility for the content of this article.

Posted on Jun 07, 2010 by Africartoons