Zapiro Cartoon

Taking a leaf out of the Prophet’s life
- by Mufti Zubair Bayat

(This article was published in the Natal Mercury Paper on Thursday, 27 May 2010 p.15)

The recent Mail & Guardian cartoon, which attempts to depict the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) lying on a psychiatrist’s couch and supposedly lamenting the lack of humour of his followers, has evoked an angry response and strong objection from the Muslim community.

Depicting images of God and the Prophet (pbuh) are strictly forbidden in Islam. The rationale for the prohibition of depicting the image of God is because He is beyond human perception. The rationale for the prohibition, inter alia, of depicting the Prophet (pbuh) is that he was too sublime to be truly portrayed. Furthermore, attempts at portraying him could result in his image being distorted. There are therefore no records of any authentic image or portrait of the Prophet (pbuh) anywhere in the world, from any period of Islamic history, which is a significant point to note.

Two things are wrong with the cartoon. Firstly, any attempt to depict him in illustration is an attempt to depict the sacrosanct, which is not allowed.

Secondly, the nature of cartoons is to satirise and trivialise. This is clearly not acceptable in the case of a personality who is held in the highest esteem by over a billion people globally.

In this particular cartoon, the insinuation is that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is in need of psychiatric help – an idea which prejudiced and hostile Orientalists have always attempted to project in their works. This dimension of the cartoon adds insult to injury and serves to rub the proverbial salt deeper into the wound.

When Muslims object, the stock response is that they do not appreciate freedom of expression. The media and others view this as an infringement of the right of freedom of speech. So it is made out, George Bush-style, that you are either for freedom of expression or against it! However, one aspect that is often overlooked is that no right is absolute; there are inherent limitations. Every right is counterbalanced against other rights. Every right comes with responsibility. And responsibility was certainly not displayed by the publishers of this cartoon.

Motive

Irrespective of what the motive was for publishing the cartoon – whether it was a cheap publicity stunt, a gimmick to boost waning sales, a deliberate provocation, or sheer ignorance – it was grossly offensive and highly insensitive.

The worldwide anger and protests following the publication of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet (pbuh) made it amply clear that Muslims will not accept his depiction as a caricature or a cartoon figure.

The media has a duty to act responsibly in respect of sensitive issues and not to push the right to freedom of expression to such ridiculous levels, where the lines of distinction between the profound and the profane are virtually obliterated.

Sensible leaders around the world, including the pope, issued strong statements condemning the inflammatory Danish cartoons when they appeared.

A spokesman for the US State Department, Kurtis Cooper, was equally strong in his condemnation: “These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims.

“We all fully recognise and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.”

Muslims, for their part, accept the principle of wholesome and constructive freedom of expression, but not the freedom to wantonly insult, which is sometimes deviously and deceptively masqueraded as freedom of expression. True freedom of expression is freedom from insult, not freedom to insult. Freedom to insult has ultimately resulted in hatred, bigotry and even destruction. Studies indicate that reckless use (or rather abuse) of freedom of expression contributed to a great extent to the genocide in Rwanda, as an example, leaving over a million dead.

Muslim outrage is often simplistically misconstrued as a lack of humour and over-sensitivity. Yet the idea that Muslims do not appreciate humour is far from the truth.

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself would indulge in light heartedness and humour with his companions, which is clearly recorded in his biography. But humour should not descend to the point of gratuitous and senseless belittling of the religion of another. Humour that is disrespectful, insensitive and offensive, is not humour, but is in fact hubris.

Each faith community feels a deep-rooted emotional attachment to the symbols and personalities it reveres. Muslims are no different.

Respect

The value system of Islam is underpinned by respect and reverence – reverence for God, for all the Messengers of God – including the prophets Abraham, Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), the angels, the holy scriptures, the holy cities, religious symbols and places of worship, and respect for elders, teachers, leaders, religious scholars, parents, relatives, all of humanity and the creation as a whole.

In our country, which has just emerged from the ugly era of racial segregation, cartoons or writings that perpetuate stereotypes and promote prejudice are unacceptable, as they malign sections of the community. Our beloved country desperately requires bridge-building exercises, and not the breeding of animosity and distrust, especially in the wake of the recent xenophobia and racial tensions.

With the World Cup barely a few days away, it was utterly irresponsible to publish the offensive cartoon. The anger this would provoke in the Muslim community was more than predictable. Was there a deliberate attempt to evoke a negative reaction from Muslims at this very crucial juncture? On the eve of an unprecedented international event in our country, an act such as this engenders a negative atmosphere, which certainly does not serve our national interest.

Despite this, the appeal from all Muslim religious bodies to the Muslim community is that they should not allow this provocation to lead to irresponsible action, for that is not what the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself would have approved of. Although Muslims are outraged, it is important that any contemplated protest action be carried out responsibly, through legitimate channels, and that Muslims continue to remain a law-abiding community. The Prophet (pbuh) was the subject of vilification, abuse and mockery in his lifetime, but he always tolerated, forgave and displayed magnanimity, even to his sworn enemies, a fact which is recorded and attested to by every one of his biographers.

Muslims and non-Muslims alike can take a leaf out of his sublime example!

– Mufti Zubair Bayat is the director of the Darul Ihsan Islamic Services Centre in Durban.
—————————-

There is no Zapiro, only Zuul – Azad Essa

—————————–

Mahmoud Mamdani talk on receiving honorary doctorate:

Beware Bigotry: Some Thoughts on Free Speech and the Zapiro Cartoons

——————————

‘Why I’m crossing swords with Zapiro’

By Ebrahim Rasool

One of my prized possessions is a 1987 United Democratic Front calendar by Jonathan Shapiro, or Zapiro, which has accompanied me in almost every office I’ve occupied.

It has served as a summary of most that I have valued in my participation in the Struggle, and a reminder of the power of the arts to communicate when intolerance shuts down other, more linear voices.

In the battle for ideas and a better life, there is a genre that pushes back boundaries, can be iconoclastic and subversive, surface truth and expose falsehood, and yet leave the powerful that are challenged perplexed, because no tangible law was broken. They feel subverted, but bear no external wounds.

This sense overwhelmed me on seeing Zapiro participate in the “Draw Muhammad Day”. I was perplexed. I can well imagine how delicious the prospect must be to take on one of the remaining boundaries in an increasingly post-modern world.

The prospect of “drawing Muhammad” is alluring to those who pride themselves on iconoclasm and subversion.

Put at the service of a higher purpose like extending the boundaries of free expression, the campaign to “draw Muhammad” has just the right mix of nobility that comes from extending the truth, and danger that comes from taking on a group of people who appear to have long ago traded reason for the more instant elevation to paradise.

So why would I, in my state of ambiguity, even dare to cross swords (or pens) with Jonathan Shapiro about a cartoon?

Maybe because I suspect that he identifies himself with higher purposes and that he is in a space of values that sets him apart from his contemporaries who initiated the campaign to “draw Muhammad”. Maybe it’s just useful to seize the opportunity to debate and tease out the complexities of an issue so as not to cede the ground to those who label, threaten and harm in a battle of higher purposes.

My participation in political struggle stemmed from, essentially, my convictions as a Muslim. But Muslims of my generation who joined the liberation movement to achieve a non-racial, democratic South Africa had to engage in a struggle against both apartheid and against the siren song of fundamentalism.

This fundamentalist instinct is always close to the surface of those – in this case Muslims – who were both so hurt by the systematic emasculation of Islam through colonialism, as well as the one moment of exuberance at the humiliation of the West in Iran.

In the scheme of things, apartheid’s most obscene manifestations have disappeared.

What remains to threaten the world is fundamentalism – not as the monopoly of Muslims – but as the property of all who have trouble living with uncertainty that comes from a more unequal world, where tradition and culture no longer transmit their values, where their identities are distorted and dignity defiled, their sovereignty compromised and their pride emasculated.

Fundamentalism is also the property of those who try to totalise a few truths and values they cling to, and try to maintain control over a few variables: waging war and doing harm; parading masculinity through controlling women’s place, dress and body; and isolating and totalising single values and virtues over all others.

What does all of this have to do with Zapiro’s cartoon? I raise this, I think, to invite Zapiro to understand the whole and to work at even higher purposes, and to fight real enemies.

We need to distinguish the powerful from the victims. When we “draw Muhammad”, are we not helping powerful extremists by indignifying and mobilising already emasculated victims? For those who write, draw, speak and act with conscience, is our higher purpose today not to defuse the fundamentalist instincts – whether they sit in the Pentagon, wear explosives in Palestine, march into Gaza, peddle fast-food salvation or instant paradise, or make the poor invisible in the economic forums of the world?

We need to understand that we, too, are capable of advancing a fundamentalist agenda when we fail to advance rights, freedoms and values in relation to each other, and instead choose one or a few that we are closest to. We adopt unwittingly the mantle of those we challenge when such distinctions evade us.

You see, Islam doesn’t have a problem with depicting the Prophet as mad, bloodthirsty and womanising. It doesn’t have a problem with depicting the Prophet humorously. Islam has a problem with depiction!

Every Muslim grows up either averse to or ambiguous about depiction. Some mosques still forbid photography. Muslims are ambivalent about the visual arts. Sculptures are no-nos. All of this emerges from Islam’s genesis in Mecca, when the Arabs had compromised faith in the One, Unseen God with a host of depictions in and around the Kaaba.

To this day, Muslim antipathy toward depiction persists because it detracts from purity of faith. The Islamic heartlands have been denuded of relics and artefacts in a sometimes overzealous interpretation of this.

To not know this, and to want to wage war against the intolerant fundamentalist strain in the Muslim community by using as the weapon of choice the very thing – depiction – that Islam emerged against, is to perpetuate the very conditions in the Muslim world that have bred violence. Muslims are brought up not to visualise or imagine the Prophet, but to mould their lives on the practice of the Prophet.

Zapiro, therefore, assists in convincing the majority of Muslims, who are ordinary, peaceful, tolerant, joking and humorous, that maybe there is something in that siren song which attempts to seduce them with the idea that there is only hostility with a world that disrespects their precepts of faith.

Zapiro draws like a modern-day Othello: virtuous, faithful, honourable, loyal, trusting. To a fault, I think. All of these virtues, isolated and separated from a higher purpose and a bigger picture, elevated above a capacity for empathy, and wrapped in an inability to make distinctions between immediate and ultimate, victim and perpetrator, cause and effect, often results in being manoeuvred to implement your immediate noble values but destroying that which is ultimately more deserving of being nurtured.

We need to nurture a gentler, more caring and free world with an enormous capacity for humour, that comes from those who are secure in their sense of dignity.

We must resist the siren songs of fundamentalists of all kinds. By pushing the boundary of Muslim aversion to depiction, we disturb the equilibrium that holds us all in check.

As for Zapiro, I refuse to burn my 1987 UDF calendar.

• Ebrahim Rasool is an MP and founder of World for All Foundation

• This article was originally published on page 15 of The Cape Argus on May 24, 2010

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

ZAPIRO CARTOON – LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF AL QALAM

The Editor,

The predictable hysterical response from the Muslim community arising from the publication of Zapiros cartoon completely lacks proportion to the nature of the cartoon. Inspired by a clergy, bent on consolidating their position as guardians of the faith, the masses have responded with gusto. The cartoon is in fact amusing and an appropriate comment on the Muslim community. Unlike the Danish cartoons, Zapiros was in good taste and without the degree of irreverence that Zapiro has shown other communities. In fact the Muslim community has largely rejoiced at his depiction of the Jewish community with utter irreverence, particularly in relation to the Middle-East conflict. This contradictory response has its own irony: the nature of the objection has given truth to the cartoon, which painted the Muslim community as one lacking a sense of humour, unlike other faith communities. In fact it was not long ago that the Council of Theologians in Gauteng who attempted interdicting the publication of Zapiros cartoon published a sermon on the humour of the Prophet.

The substantive objection to the cartoons is ostensibly the portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad, which according to the majority opinion is not acceptable. In fact a significant opinion bars all human images, not only that of the Prophet. This however ignores the portrayal of the Prophet in much Persian and Indian historical literature without the hysterical reaction we see today. Furthermore the Prophet Muhammad has been lampooned in all period of history, but this has not diminished his veneration among Muslims and respect among many non-Muslims for that matter. The prohibition on the depiction of the Prophet is not an article of faith, but rather an attempt to discourage the Prophet becoming a fetish and his image an object of worship. Today our world is defined by images, and it is difficult imagining anyone using Zapiros image as an object of worship. It is simply a representation meant to make a larger point one which seems to have been largely lost in the current furore. But there is no arguing against those who lack an appreciation for various art forms and whose interpretation of texts is based on literalism and Manichean dichotomies. Sadly they have made the Prophet a fetish, ignoring him as a compassionate being embodying virtue, justice, love and mercy. The current reaction does violence to this picture of the Prophet.

The current reflex reaction to any perceived slight to Islam, Muslims or the Prophet is simply an invitation to any nutter to get world-wide attention. But Zapiro is no nutter. He is a progressive and respected cartoonist, activist, andsocial commentator. To put limits on his art is to remove the very essence of who he is and what he does. It would be a sad day for our country if Zapiro was silenced either by Muslims or others. To put boundaries on his criticism will only result in those boundaries constantly changing. Today the Muslims are out of bounds, tomorrow the Jews and then the ANC or government. We should rather encourage more critical voices and take the criticism in the spirit of Zapiro an ethical, moral, principled and compassionate voice in a barren landscape.

With religious fanatics stoking the flames and with willing masses at their disposal it will just be a matter of time and a sad day indeed when the predictable death threat will be made against him. We should rally behind and defend this national asset. Zapiro, you owe no one and apology and power to your pen!

Shuaib Manjra

7 Muir Close

Rondebosch, 7700

0834012049

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On Comics, Zapiro & an Islamic response.

This piece is an old piece from Suhaib Webbs website, but fitting for todays events in South Africa.

Cartoons and Comics – A Call to Maturity and Self-Determination

by Abdul Sattar

So it’s happened again. They decided to republish the cartoons. Perhaps it is because they want to re-emphasize their opinions on the character and personality of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Maybe because they wish to provoke more reactionary Muslims into random acts of violence or demonstration. Maybe…just to show the world that they can, and stand proud in the gleaming light of free speech.

Anyone with a sense of justice can see that the apathetic Western reaction to these cartoons – full of hate and vitriolic sentiment targeted against the heritage, culture, and beliefs of over a fifth of humanity, is unjust – when compared to the resistance such cartoons would be met with if they were targeted at other groups.

The Muslims wonder why our community can be insulted, and threatened with deportation, our holy cities threatened with nuclear weapons by a U.S. Presidential candidate (Tom Tancredo), and our most sacred figures reviled? But if a whisper is raised against any other community – if a comedian goes off on a racist tirade using the N-word, or an award winning actor and director makes anti-semitic comments in a state of drunkenness – the entire Western world rises to say: “We will not tolerate your intolerance. We are better than your hate.” But when Muslims are lambasted across the country on conservative radio shows, urging violence against them, deportation, whole-scale attacks against their countries and forced conversion to Christianity……we hear no civilized response against the unholy right-wing war talk. When a mosque is burned down by a white-supremacist group in Columbia, TN, it does not even make the news. When the enlightened West is met with comments which declare “The Other” as inferior…..there is a complicit silence.

Muslims need to realize three things:

1. Do not be surprised or shocked, emotionally, or intellectually, that this is happening.

“…[They] will never be pleased with you until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Qur’an, 2:120)

When your Lord tells you that a group will NEVER be pleased with you, satisfied with you, or happy with you, until you follow their way, it behooves the Muslim to accept it as a fact. The continuous begging and pleading Muslims who yell: “Please don’t make fun of us! Please don’t ridicule us! We are people just like you! Please be impressed with our history!” is nothing short of pathetic – when you consider how sometimes the street mob goes to burn and attack their own streets in protest, as has happened in Pakistan, and a few other places in the Muslim world. A political cartoon painting Islam as violent – is given seeming credence when in reality, only a tiny speck of Muslims even think of reacting win such ways.

It is time for the Muslim to realize that the actions of a person who makes fun of the Prophet (s.a.w.), or even goes so far as to insult or ridicule God himself, is responsible for his or her own deeds. He or she will be held responsible for what they draw, say, or write on the Day of Judgment. It is not up to us to legislate against them in this world when they are living in their own countries, nor to beg powerlessly that they cease and desist their activities.

Should we defend our Prophet(s.a.w.)? Yes. Through teaching people who he was and spreading the Truth. But, It is time for us to stop being so emotionally surprised when Islamophobes insult Islam. They don’t believe in your Prophet. Or your religion. And they don’t like either of them, or you. We should grow up and deal with it. The Quran is preparing us for this reality with the verse above.

So let us be prepared.

2. If you are going to respond, respond in the manner of the Prophetic Sunnah (Tradition) which we are claiming to defend.

“And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace…” [Qur'an, 25:63]

Realize that the Islamophobes have the right to say or write whatever they want. They do. And no one will stop them. Your complaints will make them happier. They are not in a Muslim country. Our response should be a response fitting the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) which we claim to defend so staunchly.

When some enemies of Islam once walked by the Prophet (s.a.w.) in Madinah, they said to him, “As-Sa’mu Alaikum” (Death be upon you), trying to slyly make it sound like “Assalamu-Alaikum” (Peace be upon you). They didn’t write against him, draw against him – they spoke directly to him. He, with the calm demeanor of prophethood, simply responded – “Wa alaikum”, and upon you. He did not escalate or insult – he responded by reflecting their greeting, without mentioning anything negative himself or lowering his noble speech.

“And you [Oh Prophet] are upon the noblest of character.” (Qur’an, 68:4)

His wife `Aisha, who out of her love for him, acted in a way many Muslims today do and yelled: “May the curse of Allah be upon you, and his punishment, and his…!”

The Prophet (s.a.w.)  stopped her saying: “Calm down oh `Aisha, calm down. There is not gentleness in anything, except that it becomes more beautiful, and there is not harshness in anything except that it makes it ugly. So be calm oh Aisha.“

This exemplifies the Prophetic response. Calmness. Tranquility. Humility. He was active in spreading the message with “wisdom and beautiful preaching” with enthusiasm, vigor and strength, but he did not let insults take over his greatness. He engaged with those around him to teach them about God, and teach them about how to live their lives to the fullest. A model citizen. A good neighbor. A fortress of justice. An honest friend. A helper of the needy. A Messenger of God. This was his response. More than that, this was his driving mission.

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching.” (Qur’an, 16:125)

Also, that we engage those people who do believe in God, in working acts of righteousness and benefit for humanity.

3. It is time to stop being dependent on others to present a good image of us. They have not and will never do so reliably, save a few fair-minded individuals. Self-determination in our message, our image, and our work, is the only answer.

Yet another incident, when the Makkans used to try to make fun of the Prophet (s.a.w.) by twisting his name because of its meaning being “The one deserving of praise” , and calling him Mudhammam (belittled one) – he simply smiled and said, “They are making fun of a man named Mudhammam, but I am Muhammad!”

Rather than worrying about these insults, he spent his time propagating his message. He spent his time building his community and ensuring that every man, woman, and child could hear about what he had to say and how to worship God and come close to Him. So rather than focusing on what they produce, draw, write, and say – what has each of us done to paint the proper picture of the Messenger ﷺ? Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes are making millions painting a picture of a warlord and a “Prophet of Doom.” Why are we surprised when Allah (swt) told us it would happen, and more importantly, what have we done to spread a positive image of the Prophet (s.a.w.) actively?

Perhaps we are arguing about whether or not praying behind someone who eats McDonalds is allowed. Or whether wiping over our leather socks is permissible. Or if music with more than a duff is makruh or haram. Or maybe our mufti “saab” teaches that I shouldn’t talk about Islam, Quran, or the Prophet without being in his presence or even read a book without his stamp of approval, turning us to intellectual zombies, far from the example of the Sahabah and the righteous predecessors. Maybe we are busy arguing about tariqahs, madhabs, manhaj, `aqeedah, and other things which we have no understanding of beyond a few pamphlets and classes in our neighborhoods, and of course, the Internet.

I remember my father teaching me that when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, the `ulema and the their students were discussing whether or not it was permissible to eat crows. Unfortunately, it seems we have not learned.

It is time for the Muslim to be a self-determined, educated, citizen of humanity and of Islam. Someone who’s character aims to mirror the Prophetic character. It is time for the sisters to put down their mascara and their foundation, and the brothers to put down the Nintendo Wii and XBOX controllers, and stand up and become men and women, and stop being boys and girls. It is time for for them to become self-determined individuals, who understand that the honor of this Deen and its Ummah, can only be given by Allah, but they must work for it. Allah says:

“…God will not change the condition of a people, until they change what is within themselves.” Qur’an, 13:11)

It is time to stop burning flags, and start burning desires.

Stop yelling in the streets against people who are overjoyed at your anger, and whisper to Allah who will become overjoyed at your prayer.

Stop breaking, burning, and screaming.
Start building, learning, and calling.

Source: http://www.suhaibwebb.com/politics/it-is-time-for-muslim-to-stop-burning-flags-and-start-burning-their-desires-cartoons-and-comics-ust-abdu-sattar/

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PRESS RELEASE TO ALL EDITORS FROM THE UNITED MUSLIM FORUM OF SOUTH AFRICA

Issued: 23/05/2010

In view of the publication of the cartoon depicting the Holy Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), an urgent meeting was held by the South African Muslim leadership.

In attendance were representatives of the following organizations:

Jamiat ul Ulema of South Africa
Channel Islam International
Muslim Judicial Council
Media Review Network
Jamiat ul Ulema Gauteng
Sunni Ulema Council of S.A.
Muslim Lawyers Association
Muslim Students Association – Wits
Association of Muslim Accountants and Lawyers
Call of Islam
Jameah Mehmoodiya Springs
KZN Society for the protection of Human Rights
Jamiat ul Ulema KZN
Islamic Research Organisation
Radio Islam
Somali Association of South Africa
Saaberie Chishty

1) The meeting was unanimous in its condemnation of the cartoon as blasphemous, insulting, insensitive, and hurtful to the Muslim community and that the publication offends the religious convictions of the community.

2) The meeting also noted that the imagery of the cartoon was grossly offensive and that the words attributed to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in the cartoon was an absolute fabrication.

3) The meeting noted that there is widespread anger and deep seated frustration due to the wanton act of provocation.

4) The meeting noted that there were various options available to them including legal action and public participation in protest action.

5) A committee was established – United Muslim Forum of South Africa- and given a mandate to have a meeting with the Mail and Guardian to obtain an apology and appropriate assurances.
6) In the event that the apology and undertaking is not received, they were mandated to pursue the available options in the best interest of the Muslim Community.

7) Delegates resolved to embark on an education program for the Media fraternity focusing on the magnanimity of the personality of the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH), all other Prophets and Islam in general.

We call upon all Muslims to exercise restraint in these trying circumstances. We take this opportunity of thanking all those individuals, organizations, and religious groups for their support and solidarity.

Issued by the United Muslim Forum of S.A.

Convener: Zahid Asmal 0847868937 zahid@ciinetwork.net

Spokespersons: Iqbal Jassat – 0835943749 mrn_ij@telkomsa.net

Moulana Ebrahim Bham – 0837862859

Moulana Ighsaan Hendriks – 0833846973

__________________________________________________

Statement from SAMNET – Zapiro Cartoons

The Muslim community is outraged at the Mail and Guardian’s publishing of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, in today’s edition.

While we respect freedom of speech, it does come with responsibility and the Mail and Guardian has completely shirked this responsibility in the pursuit of sales and fame. A pertinent example is the virtual ban on a discussion of the holocaust in many countries in Europe and a taboo subject in almost all of our newspapers, in deference to the sensitivity of the Jewish community.

We call on all responsible people of all races and religions not to buy the Mail and Guardian, to withdraw their advertising and to ask vendors to withdraw the newspaper from their shelves and to return it.

We call on all Muslims to exercise their influence in asking vendors to withdraw the newspaper from their shelves.

The timing of the publication of this inflammatory cartoon is very interesting. It is as if the dubious claims of “Muslim terrorism” against the FIFA World Cup to be held in South Africa next month has not had the desired mass hysteria and demonisation of Muslims as has been planned by agent provocateurs, so the one way of ensuring the mass anger and “violent reaction” is to publish a cartoon of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

We therefore urge all Muslims not to play into the stereotype with threats and acts of violence against any party. Our plan of action must incorporate the law, the media, leveraging of advertising and other means in a sustained campaign and programme that challenges the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media.

A soda water type of reaction that feeds the stereotype does more harm than good and now when the attention of the world is focused on us just before the World cup, is not the time and place for any emotionally driven statements and acts.

There are groups that are plotting to “take over “the security apparatus from the state with their “expertise” in these matters and all they need is the threat of violence,  public disturbance or perceived threats to the World Cup or visitors to justify to the state the need for their intervention and involvement. We must not let this happen

We will be working with other organisations and groups to address this issue and ask people to contact our offices for more information. Cartoons cannot diminish the stature on our beloved Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him.

Dr Faisal Suliman

Chair SAMNET

info@samnet.co.za

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Zapiro cartoon…Is it about Prophets or Profits?

Sunday, May 23, 2010

(By David Bullard )

http://www.newstime.co.za/columnist/DavidBullard/9

The late Steve Irwin, better known as the Crocodile Hunter, made his name and a very good living from taking chances with dangerous animals. His favourite trick would be to get near the snapping jaws of a crocodile while the camera was rolling. His fame spread and he decided to get close to other dangerous animals until he met his untimely end by swimming underwater with a dangerous ray. Since then virtually every programme on National Geographic or Animal Planet features some whacko getting close to dangerous animals for our pleasure and amusement. Steve Irwin upped the game and these days no television network would pay for a documentary on the life of lions, however well filmed, unless there was some obvious danger to the presenter.

Series with names like “The 10 most poisonous snakes” invariably have an episode where the presenter gets bitten and has to be given anti serum after being flown by helicopter to the nearest hospital. But even the most ratings conscious wildlife presenter isn’t going to risk getting bitten by something that can kill you in two minutes…..just in case he can’t get the lid off the anti serum.

Last week Zapiro, South Africa’s most publicity hungry cartoonist, drew a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Predictably there was an outcry and there have apparently been death threats aimed at the editor of the Mail and Guardian and the cartoonist. Both claim that this is all about freedom of speech but it isn’t and let me tell you why.

The cartoon was apparently drawn because someone decreed that last Thursday should be “Draw the prophet Mohammed day”. That in itself is an obviously inflammatory action because the furore the followed the Danish cartoons of the prophet several years ago made it perfectly clear that many devout Muslims don’t like their prophet depicted as a cartoon figure. So to deliberately annoy a large group of people by suggesting that we do

something they don’t like is particularly insensitive. Why not just call it “piss off a humourless Muslim day”? By drawing the cartoon in the M&G Zapiro has effectively said to Muslims that he doesn’t give a rat’s arse about their sensibilities. That, at least, is the interpretation of many.

It’s too glib to dismiss this and say that Muslims should get a sense of humour. I’m sure many Muslims do have a sense of humour but it’s arrogant to assume that a sense of humour should extend to the deliberate mocking of their religion by someone from another religion. Knowing the situation Zapiro was plain dumb to draw that cartoon and Nic Dawes showed a lack of judgment in my opinion by running it. On the pure press freedom argument of course we should be allowed to do such things but there are greater issues at the moment that argue against that.

We are about to host the FIFA World Cup and last week there was a story that Al Qaeda had plans to launch a terrorist attack on stadiums. So how clever is it to run a cartoon so near to the World Cup which any idiot knows will antagonize Muslims? And what about the safety of the people who work at the Mail and Guardian and of the paper’s neighbours (of which I am one). If (heaven forbid) their offices were to be bombed by some deeply

offended extremist will the twisted, bleeding bodies of innocent M&G staff have been worth the sacrifice in the name of press freedom? I don’t believe so.

So why did Zapiro draw a not particularly funny cartoon of the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) talking to what is obviously a Jewish psychiatrist up in heaven? Did he do it to deliberately upset Muslims? Did he do it to point out that the prophet is no big deal and in need of psychiatric help? I don’t believe he did and I don’t believe Nic Dawes (the M&G editor) ran the cartoon with that purpose in mind. They did it for the money.

It’s well known that newspapers are floundering and losing ground to innovative and dynamic websites like Newstime. So every once in a while they have to come up with a publicity stunt to sell papers. One of the more recent was the announcement that Julius Malema had R51 million in his bank account and was being funded by someone. Have you seen anything to substantiate that claim in the past few weeks in any of the newspapers?

No….neither have I. The ill judged Zapiro cartoon is more about profits than prophets. If more people went out and bought the M&G last Friday a sub editor’s job might be saved. But more importantly, it gets people talking about how brave Zapiro is and don’t we newspaper people love our egos to be inflated? Unfortunately cheap publicity stunts do

occasionally go horribly wrong and this seems to be a good example of that. Bearing in mind the deep offence caused it might be advisable for both Zapiro and Dawes to eat humble pie on this one, offer a grovelling apology and make a substantial donation to a worthy Muslim cause.