‘Reaction is symptomatic of wider political tensions’

Leading South African Muslim scholars and intellectuals this week distanced themselves from what they called the ‘over-reaction” of sections of the international Muslim community to the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

But they also insisted the reaction should be seen in a broader political context. ‘Freedom of speech is never an unfettered right,” said Shamil Jeppie, senior history lecturer at the University of Cape Town. ‘No one has the right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema. Similarly, the publication of cartoons in an environment where the Muslim world feels besieged and materially prejudiced is not a neutral act of free speech.

‘It is hypocritical of the West to hold out freedom of expression as an absolute value. We know the depiction of body bags being shipped back to the United States from Iraq is forbidden directly by the government or through media self-censorship.”

Sa’diyya Shaik, of UCT’s department of religious studies, echoed this view: ‘What has happened is symptomatic of wider political tensions.”

Shaik said she believed people had the right to satirise the religious views and symbols of any religion, including Islam. Equally, followers of the religion had the right to be offended and express their outrage. But the most appropriate response was to object in a dignified way or to ignore the provocation. She added that Muslims might reflect on the Prophet’s own non-violent response to insults: ‘God will judge between us on the day of reward. ”

Shuaib Manjra, a medical doctor and activist who describes himself as an ‘unfettered anarchist” said there was more important work for Muslims to do than march in protests.

‘This issue is being used to manufacture or propel religious nationalism. Elements are rabble-rousing and then taking people to the streets. I believe they do it to bolster their credentials. The reaction of many Muslims has been embarrassing. The Prophet and God have been denigrated in worse ways — without such a reaction.”

Manjra said it was ironic that copies of the cartoons had been spread throughout the Muslim world by email. ‘If the cartoons are seen as blasphemous, why have we become the messengers of that blasphemy?”

Commentators point out that secu-lar society holds certain objects too holy for desecration. In South Africa and many other countries, desecration of the national flag is forbidden by law. Manjra pointed out that it was illegal in some European countries to deny the Holocaust. ‘How well,” Jeppie asked ‘would South Africans react to abusive depictions of Mandela?”

He said the cartoons had offended him more because of their racism than for theological reasons. From his experience of living in Europe, he believed that anti-Muslim prejudice was more xenophobic and racist than political or theological.

Depictions of Muhammad are forbidden by Muslim convention rather than by any specific commandment of the Qur’an, and not all adherents understand it in the same way.

Historically, depictions of Mohammed, particularly figurative miniatures, have featured in Islamic art. During the 15th and 17th centuries, images of the Prophet, veiled and unveiled, were common in Persian, Indian and Turkish painted manuscripts.

Manjra said the ban arose from a belief that depictions sometimes acquired a secondary life of their own. ‘In a post-modernist world, we are used to understanding depictions as a form of reality.” Interfaith activist Mohammed Kagee stressed that Islam ‘was conceived as a religion in reaction to an idol-worshipping culture”.

As Islam also recognises Jesus, critics point out that they should also protest against depictions of him, and protest with Christians at satires of Christianity.

To be consistent, newspaper publishers and editors who have refused to publish the current cartoons to avoid giving offence should also ban reviews of films such as The Life of Brian and similar iconoclastic, satirical or belittling films, books and art. Christians have long contended that the secular humanist world engages with Islam far more circumspectly than it does with Christianity.

A rabbi who asked not to be named, said that he would protest if Jewish religious symbols were denigrated as the cartoons had denigrated Islam, but he added a cautionary note: ‘Is a commandment in Islam held to bind everyone? My view of the world as a Jew is not binding on you.

‘It is not so much our capacity for tolerance that is being tested by the cartoon issue, as our understanding of where the lines between different religions and interest groups are drawn.”

Colin Bower is a freelance journalist and the author of Open Minds, Closed Minds and Christianity