JAPE OR JOKE: CARTOON CONTROVERSIES AND THE
CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
Author: Syed Mansoob Murshed (1)
This year, the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet
Muhammad (2) as a terrorist have sparked off a wave of violent
protests by Muslims, and a spate of pious pronouncements
by others regarding the freedom of the press. To Muslims, any
visual image depicting their Prophet (or, for that matter, any other
Prophet such as Jesus Christ) is anathema, because it potentially
deifies individuals other than the person of God, creating the risk of
idolatry. The Prophet Muhammad himself repeatedly took great pains
to emphasise his own mortality and other purely human attributes.
The Prophet Muhammad was born in 570 A. D. in the city of Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia. His father died shortly before his birth, he was soon to lose his mother and paternal grandfather, and went to live with an uncle from the age of 8. He was unlettered (3), growing up to become a travelling merchant, and at the age of 25 married an older woman named Khadija, whose business ventures he managed. Based on international trade, the city of Mecca had grown prosperous during that time. But, as with many other traditional societies, increased affluence brought with it dislocation and the decline of the traditional tribal systems of social protection. The old English proverb, "each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost" best describes early 7th century Mecca. Moreover, inter-tribal wars had become more violent in contrast to earlier times when internecine conflict was more muted. The peninsular Arabs, although sharing a common language, had little else that might have enabled them to forge a common identity, or bind themselves together as a nation. Above all, they lacked a great tradition, such as the monotheistic religions of neighbouring and more recently settled Jewish co-residents. Although the temple in Mecca known as the Ka'ba was believed to have been founded by Abraham, most Arabs were pagan.
In this setting the Prophet of Islam first received revelations of a new religion on the night of the 27th of Ramadan (the month of fasting for Muslims) in 610 A.D. At first, for two years, the Prophet chose not to go public, confining the message within a select inner group. The first important point to note about this new religion was that it was not new at all. It was regarded as another rendition of earlier revelations to other great Prophets. Although only Prophets in the Abrahamic tradition are explicitly mentioned by name in the Koran, yet the Koran states that every nation has been blessed with a messenger from God; the figurative number of 124,000 Prophets is cited in the book. Islam, in a nutshell, is meant to be the same religion as Judaism and Christianity, whose votaries are believed to have, in some instances, subverted some of its essence (for example, the western Trinitarian doctrine and the deification of Christ are just as unacceptable to Muslims as it is to older Unitarian eastern churches). Belief in all Abrahamic Prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus is an article of faith for Muslims. Many of the narratives of the Old Testament are also to be found in the Koran, albeit slightly altered and couched in less violent and graphic prose, such as the stories about Abraham's reluctant offer to sacrifice his son, the experiences of Joseph, the childhood of Moses, the exodus from Egypt, and interestingly the immaculate conception of Christ. The message of Islam has, since its very inception, been universal in nature, not based on a contract between God and a chosen nation, or conditional upon receiving a complex set of sacraments. It is arguably the first universal doctrine. The Koran (chapter 49, verse 13) refers to the creation of different nations and peoples, so that they may understand each other; no nation is inherently superior except in service to God (which ultimately refers to their morality). Unlike previous philosophies and religions, Islam is not particularist. It recognizes cultural, linguistic and racial diversity, and its message is directed to humanity in its entirety. Its creed is simple: requiring belief in one God, and attestation to the fact that Muhammad is that God's messenger. Note that this confession does not require submission to any temporal authority; Muslims do not have to render unto Caesar what is due to him, but only serve God. Nor is there any compulsion in religion (Koran, chapter 2, verse 256), the belief and practice of faith are entirely voluntary and not to be enforced by some secular authority.
The Prophet gradually began to preach Islam (which means peace) in Mecca, which at first met with derision, and later persecution. Yet his following grew, and his message particularly appealed to women and the socially or economically disadvantaged. One of his greatest concerns was with the lack of compassion in an increasingly individualistic/capitalistic (even neo-liberal!) Mecca. The Koran exhorts the faithful to be charitable, and look after the vulnerable; these groups are metaphorically referred to as orphans and widows. In a tribal or clan based society, state sponsored social safety nets are premature, as the 'state' itself has not yet evolved, however, the faithful are required to at least donate a small fraction of their wealth, which for the rich usually exceeds income, even in primitive Islam.
By 620 A. D, following the demise of his uncle and protector (Abu Talib) and his beloved wife Khadija (evidenced by the fact that he married no other woman while she lived) (4), he and his followers emigrated to the city of Yathrib (now known as Medina) where he was welcomed. There, in that city and under the primitive conditions of the then Arabia, he founded the first Muslim state. He was both Prophet and ruler, presiding over both the sacredotum and the imperium. The verses of the Koran become less metaphysical, and more concerned with quotidian matters. The fledgling Muslim city-state was, however, not to be left in peace, both from within and without. Despite the Prophet's attempt to co-opt Christianity and Judaism (religions known in Islam as people of the book because Muslims explicitly recognize the divine revelations made to them), the Jewish tribes in Medina ridiculed him. Belonging to an older monotheistic faith, Islam (or for that matter Christianity) did not appeal. They sided with his enemies in Mecca, and when one Jewish tribe (Qurayzah) switched sides, going over to the enemy (the Meccans) during the battle of the Trench, their men-folk were executed. Notwithstanding the fact that this act was harsh, it was in accordance with contemporary rules of war, the outcome of arbitration by another tribe chosen by the Qurayzah themselves to adjudicate on their treachery, and their fate followed repeated acts of defection, and even attempted assassination of the Prophet. In total, there were three pitched battles between the Muslims and their implacable Meccan enemies, which resulted in fatalities well below a thousand (which would be classified as a low intensity conflict according to the academic definitions proposed by the University of Uppsala's Conflict Studies Institute). The Prophet triumphantly entered Mecca in 630 A.D. without shedding a drop of blood. Prior to that he had even entered into a peace treaty with the Meccans under less favourable terms than his military position warranted; when the Meccans violated this treaty he marched on Mecca, which surrendered to him. No blood bath followed; the Koran exhorts the faithful to regard war as an act of last resort after all peaceful avenues have been exhausted. There are strict rules laid down in the Koran regarding the humane treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war. The former must not be harmed under any circumstances, and individuals in the latter category must be afforded an opportunity to purchase their freedom to which the captor himself must contribute. To liken the Prophet to a modern day terrorist is particularly egregious given his concern for minimising conflict and violence.
Of all great religious leaders, no one's life, particularly his later life, is as well known down to such minutiae including his dietary and sartorial habits or aspects of personal hygiene, as with the Prophet of Islam. This also makes him a historical figure in addition to being an object of reverence as a founder of Islam. The satirisation of a historical figure, about whom much is known, is potentially more damaging than when his life is shrouded in mystery. Caricature inevitably implies a degree of misrepresentation, which is more hurtful in the case of revered historical figures when compared to more mythical personages. Secondly, we know that the Prophet abhorred gratuitous violence. Thirdly, he was a philosopher king, both prophet and political leader. And, these two roles are not strictly dichotomous. Ridicule related to one sphere (politics) rapidly impinges on the other area (faith). All of these factors serve to turn what some might consider a good joke into a jape; an attack not upon an individual but on a faith which has 1.2 billion adherents, making up about a fifth of humanity. What is at issue is not the freedom of expression, but the malign intentions of some whose ultimate aim is to demean and provoke intemperate responses, disguised under the fig leaf of a passion for the freedom of the press. No right minded person would favour state interference into what is permissible in the media. But, just as the press refrains from making sweeping generalisations about certain racial groups (blacks) or nations based upon religion (Jews), the same principle should be applied to all faith based groups. Thankfully, most of the print media adheres to these rules.
Islam spread through much of the Middle East and North Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, the Iberian Peninsula, and eventually to parts of East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The great achievements of Islamic civilization in art, architecture, science, technology and literature are undisputed. Historians accept that for nearly a millennium following the mid-7th century A.D. we had an era of Islamic ascendancy in terms of achievement and power. Many present-day Muslim territories were first acquired by conquest by Arabs and later by Central Asian Turkish speaking peoples (except in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia). This did not mean that the adoption of the Islamic religion was enforced in conquered lands, in the vast majority of cases conversion was voluntary (including in Spain). Indonesia is home to the largest Muslim population of any nation state, and that country was not colonised by any Muslim power, choosing instead to adopt Islam despite never having experienced any foreign Muslim political suzerainty.
A related issue concerns tolerance of religious and cultural diversity. Most of the areas ruled by Muslims had substantial minorities belonging to other religions (the majority in India and Spain). Muslim rulers never imposed their own laws upon non-Muslim subjects. There is no systematic evidence of the maltreatment of minorities, especially of Jewish and Christian peoples, by Muslim rulers until the 20th century. For example, in the Ottoman Empire, each nation was governed by its own laws, and members of other religions could join the bureaucracy or the military. In Arab ruled Spain (which for a time was dominated by Moroccan dynasties) the equality of Christian, Jewish and Muslim subjects before the law, the right of all to conduct peaceful commerce and the ability of all communities to hold public office was absolute. In contrast, in most of Christian Europe religious intolerance was not only widespread but it was also violent, and persisted well into the 19th century. In Walter Scott's novel Ivanhoe, set in medieval England of the 1190s, a character named Isaac the Jew chooses to go to Arab Spain following the anti-Jewish pogroms. He chooses Arab Spain, not because it was a conveniently located neighbouring kingdom, but because he expected to be treated fairly, equally and justly there. He would not have chosen Rome, where he would be required to wear a yellow badge and be confined to the ghetto. When the gradually dwindling Arab rule in Spain finally ended in 1492 with the capitulation of Granada, the victorious Castillians did not treat subjects of other religious persuasions justly and tolerantly like their Muslim predecessors. Instead, they had a totalitarian intolerance of diversity, requiring conversion into the Catholic form of Christianity by all, and they also violated their treaty obligations (during the surrender of Granada) regarding religious tolerance. Some Muslims and Jews ostensibly converted, secretly adhering to their faith. There were several Muslim revolts, uprisings that were brutally suppressed. Large numbers of Jews and Muslims were expelled. It is said that some 3 million Muslims were forcibly deported, some simply dumped on the Moroccan coast line. The process of expulsion was long and painful, lasting for well over a century, and it was total; virtually no Jew or Muslim was left in Spain following this Renaissance holocaust. The earlier barbarity with which the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were massacred during the First Crusade is well known, as is Richard the Lion Hearted's slaughter of the residents of Acre during the Third Crusade nearly two centuries later.
This brings me to modern-day intolerance for Muslims in Europe, in countries like the Netherlands or Denmark. It is salutary to examine the views of the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders.(5) Mr Wilders favours altering the constitution of the Netherlands such that an explicit statement of Dutch identity built upon Judaeo-Christian and humanistic traditions replaces the current preamble stating that all who find themselves in that kingdom should be treated equally before the law. Surely, that will confer second-class status to the million or so non-Judaeo-Christian residents of the Netherlands. Perhaps, he regards Muslims, and their culture as inherently inferior, otherwise he would not have chosen to publish the Muhammad cartoons on his personal web site. Such views, and Mr Wilders is not alone in holding them, refuse to recognize the extraordinary diversity within the Islamic world; they instead tar all Muslims with the same brush. What he, and others like him, fail to recognize is that Islam and the Judaeo-Christian world share common roots. Muslims and Jews in particular have a lot in common, and share a long history of peaceful co-existence, in contrast to the historical experience of Jews in Christian Europe. In the period between the surrender of Mecca at the time of the Prophet (630 A.D.), and the settlement of European Jews in Palestine during the 1930s Muslims and Jews have rarely clashed. Mr Wilders somehow seems convinced that between 5-15% of Muslims residing in the Netherlands are potential terrorists or are terrorist sympathisers. How he, or the authorities he cites, arrive at this figure remains a mystery. Did they conduct household surveys? His proposed solution for this festering sore is administrative or pre-emptive detention, following the practice in Israel, an example which he extols. To many his suggestion would smack of all that is associated with arbitrary arrest, and detention without trial, as in Guantanomo Bay. Also, the state of Israel is not the finest exemplar of human rights. Furthermore, the term terrorism can be used rather loosely. Certain types of transnational terrorist acts, perpetrated by Muslims, are rooted in a deep sense of humiliation and injustice to their brethren all over the world (from Bosnia to Palestine to Kashmir). These are directed against the interests of the great Western power, and its allies. That sort of motivation does not describe the murder of Theo van Gogh by a mentally disturbed religious extremist. Other types of terrorism in Israel can be seen as the reaction of the (militarily and economically) weak against the strong, given the asymmetric nature of the war with a much more powerful enemy. Still another form of terrorism is perpetrated by the powerful, such as the state terrorism (killing of non-combatants) carried out by countries like the USA and Israel with much more destructive consequences. Ultimately, certain politicians will always look for scapegoats on whom they want to pin the blame for as many social problems as is practicable, detracting from real issues such as the nature of international capitalism. Studies across the world demonstrate that youth male unemployment (as with young second generation Moroccans in Holland) increases the risk of social violence. It is not culture but socio-economic factors that are to blame. Mr Wilders also wants repeat offenders who are immigrants with dual nationality deported and stripped of Dutch nationality. Besides being a rather harsh measure, one wonders whether he is referring to all immigrant groups, or just those with an Islamic background. Blanket criticisms of identity groups are rabble-rousing and can help tap into certain vote banks by appealing to baser sensibilities, but it usually results in a backlash from within the ranks of the injured party, which can only serve to intensify pre-existing social tensions. Fundamentalism (Jewish, Christian or Muslim) is a product of the contradictions that emerge when modernity and tradition confront each other, particularly where secular modernity fails to deliver on its initial promises.
Muslims living in the West must eschew extremism, no matter how wounded and humiliated they regard their civilization to be. It is instructive to remind ourselves of certain Christian fanatics in Arab ruled Cordoba in the 9th century, who courted martyrdom by repeating blaspheming Islam despite the exhortation of their judges to recant so that their lives could be spared. Little is achieved by such obstinacy. They must remember that there are many possible interpretations of their great religion which are fully compatible with modernity and democracy. Let us not forget that the root of that dreaded word Jihad is Ijtihad (to search). The doors of Ijtihad are not closed, but always open. Muslim laws and customs have gradually evolved, and even the Sharia was formulated over two centuries after the passing of the Prophet. They are, therefore, not immutable, and many traditional customs are just that, they are traditions that are not really grounded in the original essence of Islam. The position of women is a good example. In early Islam women enjoyed a very high status, and Islam was one of the first traditions to explicitly give women property rights. Passages in the Koran confer equal rights on men and women, if other verses seem less sanguine, should not the more liberal text be given more weight where a contradiction arises. The injunctions in the Koran with regard to modesty in female appearance are extremely ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Ever since the Crusades over a thousand years ago dislike for Islam has been prevalent in Europe. There has been a clash of civilizations between Christian (and very recently Judaeo-Christian) Europe and Islam. Sometimes this has taken the form of open war, at other times verbal vitriol characterised these hostilities. Muslims have come to be viewed as cruel, intolerant and fanatical. These notions can be traced back to the literary work of Dante and Chaucer in late medieval times. Even the name of the Prophet was corrupted to Mahound, and he was depicted as a devil worshipper. One only has to notice the occasional loathsome looks cast on head-scarf wearing Muslim women to appreciate the negative image of Islam in the West. Yet with a little goodwill, tolerance and understanding this clash of civilizations can be transformed into a dialogue between civilizations, based on our common humanity and the common spring from which all three Abrahamic religions originate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1 The author is Professor of the Economics of Conflict and Peace at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in the Hague,
the Netherlands, and is also Professor of International Economics at the University of Birmingham (Birmingham
Business School) in the UK. This article strictly represents the personal views of the author, and not necessarily
those of the institutions he is affiliated with. His mail-address is: murshed@iss.nl
2 Peace be upon him, or Salallah alaihe wa sallim in Arabic.
3 Unlettered does not in any way necessarily imply ignorant; in the Arabian peninsula great literary traditions
flourished that could be purely oral, and many gifted poets could not write, yet possessing a magisterial ability to
fashion words into poetry.
4 His marriage to the young Ayisha, which has been made the subject of such derisory remarks about the Prophet in
contemporary Holland, was a classic political alliance, aimed at cementing his friendship with her father (Abu Bakr),
who later followed him as the first of the four just caliphs (leaders) of Islam. It would be incorrect to automatically
deduce that he had physical relations with an under-aged minor, simply because he engaged in playful activity (such
as racing) with her. Moreover, it was quite common in Eastern civilizations to enact a marital contract well before its
consummation.
5 Based on his interview on the BBC World Television programme, Hard Talk, viewed on 22nd
March 2006.
