Published 27 May 2010 on http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/tayoblog
The latest Zapiro cartoon seems once again to put this question in the public domain. Muslims are getting hoarse, shouting at the top of their voices that the Prophet is beyond depiction and beyond any criticism. Cartoonists reply that there is nothing really sacrosanct that their art cannot touch, and touch up.
Zapiro’s current cartoon makes an entirely different point about Muslims and their lack of humour, but it is this particular question that receives attention in the public debate. Is the Prophet Muhammad so off-limits that the freedom of expression should be curtailed? Is he really as sacred as the freedom of expression?
This question seemed very relevant to theological debate within Islam, the significance of which has escaped most commentators. Zapiro and other cartoonists, in a completely unintended way, may be playing an important role in restoring a sense of balance in how Muslims view the Prophet Muhammad.
Muslim responses to any cartoon on the Prophet appeared to take the usual route. If we can believe the papers, there are threats against Zapiro and the M&G, and there are calls to express anger with restraint. Interestingly, Muslim responses orbit around the freedom of expression. They are hurt, angered and insulted, they say. Zapiro has gone too far! They will not sit still in the face of this provocation! All these responses orbit around expressions and representations. They hardly go beyond the right to represent something.
There is a kind childishness in Zapiro’s latest cartoon. He has simply taken up the challenge, put up this time in Pakistan, that the Prophet Muhammad would not be depicted on computers in that country. Zapiro signed up for that challenge, as many others have done in defiance of Pakistan’s equally juvenile attempt.
It is not always childishness in the cartoon depictions of the Prophet, though. Very often, there is evident glee in tearing down sacred symbols in the name of freedom of expression. With one stroke, cartoonist claim to be underdogs against the onslaught of religion. In the process, though, the real centres of power are left untouched as the faith and belief of ordinary people everywhere are laid to waste.
Perhaps, however, we should go beyond the freedom of expression in this case. The special nature of the Prophet is a highly significant point in Islamic theology and ritual practice. Perhaps, just perhaps, the cartoons might be an important contribution in this domain. Zapiro was clearly having fun, but his buffoonery was telling us something about the sacred and the human.
I turn your attention to the study of comparative religion, where scholars have pointed to the oscillating nature of religious biographies. Sometimes, these biographies emphasized the human nature of important religious figures; while at other times, they emphasized their special, divine qualities. There is a subtle and enduring balance and tension between these two poles.
This tension is clearly evident in the Qur’an, and in subsequent Islamic historical recollection of the Prophet. In the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad is asked to tell his contemporaries that he is “is merely a human being like you.” At other places, he is set apart from his followers: “Muhammad is not the father of any of you, but a Messenger and a Seal of the Prophets.”
When the Prophet Muhammad died, we are told in tradition that one of his eminent companions threatened to cut off the head of anyone who dared to make this claim. Another more closer companion of Muhammad reminded him that “Muhammad was merely a messenger,” and in fact mortal. Even in this anecdote, one can see a tension between an elevation of Muhammad, and his humanization.
What does Zapiro have to do with this religious artefact? In my view, quite a bit! And in order to understand this, one has to appreciate something about modern Muslim religious debates.
As in the past, the tension between the human and special nature of the Prophet is found in modern Muslim religious debates and conflicts. At the heart of an ongoing debate, also in South Africa, lies the tendency in popular Islam and Sufism to focus on the Prophet Muhammad as the foundation of human existence, the door through which salvation and mercy flows. His metaphysical existence forms the ground of all existence.
Against this trend, reformist movements emphasized the Prophet’s role as conveyor of divine truth. The emphasis is on his role as transmitter. One might see this as a de-sacralizing movement in its own right. However, this reform movement has also emphasized the absoluteness of his words and deeds. Thus, within this de-sacralization, Muslim have elevated his every word and deed to an extent never seen before in Islamic history. The general trend is that his words and deeds should not be the subject of reflection, nor open to deliberation over values. They should be approached as absolutes, carried out without any human interrogation.
In short, all movements in modern Islam emphasize the utterly divine nature of the Prophet. One turns to his person as the foundation of human and non-human reality. The other turns his personality into an absolute.
In Modern Islam, the Prophet Muhammad has lost balance between his human and extraordinary nature. In desperation against secularization, Muslims have emphasized the extra-ordinary nature of Muhammad. The humanizing element, clearly in the Qur’an and in Islamic tradition, has been forgotten.
But all is not lost in this mad, globalizing world. Religion is no longer only the product of intense theological debate and discussion. It takes place in cafes, at dinner tables, in newspapers, but most of all on the Internet. For the humanity of the Prophet, moreover, it might just take place in a cartoon.
In spite of themselves, the cartoonists might be doing a service to Islamic theology. Their humanization of the Prophet Muhammad, particularly clear in Zapiro’s cartoon, could be taken a reminder to Muslims to re-examine their divinization of the Prophet Muhammad.
