Political Cartoons and Islam: Overview
Political cartoons have long been a means of social commentary, using humor to address various issues, including political, economic, and social topics. When religion, particularly Islam, enters this discourse, it can provoke significant reactions and tensions among different communities. The controversial depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons, notably those published by a Danish newspaper in 2005, highlights the sensitivity surrounding religious representation and the potential for outrage within the Muslim community. This incident sparked widespread protests and violence, illustrating the deep-seated issues regarding freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs.
The relationship between political cartoons and Islam has evolved, especially in the context of global events, such as terrorist attacks that have implicated radical Islamist groups, leading to increased scrutiny and criticism of Islamic culture in Western societies. The debates surrounding these cartoons often involve discussions of racism, censorship, and the limits of free speech. Notable incidents, including the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, further exemplify the volatile nature of this intersection. The dialogue around political cartoons and Islam continues to be a complex and sensitive issue, reflecting broader societal tensions and differing perspectives on cultural expression and religious respect.
Political Cartoons and Islam: Overview
Introduction
Social commentary through humor is a means to address a range of social issues in an indirect or subtle manner. There are a variety of media venues utilized to make this commentary. These range from stand-up comedians to television and movies. Cartoons have long been an effective means of bringing into focus many of these critical social issues, through or with a humorous approach. Cartoons historically have been utilized to address societal debates ranging from civil rights, business, economic inequality, political disputes, and even war. When the subject of religion is introduced into this dialogue, it creates anxiety and consternation among various factions and communities. For example, the use of cartoons by a Danish newspaper in 2005 depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in a negative light created outrage in the Muslim world.
Understanding the Discussion
Aniconism: Practice of avoiding the use of graphic representation of divine figures in any form.
Islam: A monotheistic religion tracing its roots to Saudi Arabia and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.
Political boss: A professional politician who controls a party machine or political organization based on populist support, and, in some instances, uses devious or illegal methods.
Political cartoon: A graphic representation of political individuals and/or situations that create a humorous parody of actual issues of debate and controversy.
Racism: Any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin color or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Social commentary: The act of expressing an opinion or stance on an issue, usually with the hope of effecting change.
Terrorism: The use of force or an act of violence by an individual or group, which is meant to create fear and panic among a society. These acts are directed against people or property.
History
The use of images to communicate views and beliefs is something that goes back through the history of mankind. The use of images identifies and nurtures preconceived ideas or feelings based on commonly recognized metaphors. For centuries, these images have been used by monarchies and groups to promote agendas, unity, and cohesion. Before the use of the written word, images were used to provide a documentation of events.
The use of humor and parody to communicate views and opinions made people scrutinize the accepted views of a society in an effective, but non-threatening manner. One of the earliest examples of US political cartoons is from the late eighteenth century and produced by Benjamin Franklin. In an attempt to drive home the point of unity against Great Britain for the thirteen colonies, Franklin depicted a serpent divided into thirteen parts, with the names of the respective colonies under each section of the serpent. The line under the depiction simply stated "Join or Die."
The caricatures of American political "bosses" of larger city political operations in the late nineteenth century became very influential in the political arena. These individuals would use a political base to exert influence over city or county political institutions, deriving power and influence in these communities. The organizations these bosses operated were identified as "political machines." The news agencies of the larger urban areas utilized these caricatures in their cartoons to combine humor and sarcasm to address the abuses of politicians and their associates. Their depictions generally focused on some physical aspect of these individuals, which were overemphasized caricatures and stereotypes of the individual.
One of the most recognized of these bosses in the 1870s was William "Boss" Tweed of New York City. The use of exaggerated caricatures of Tweed's large and corpulent physical appearance was a means of identifying and drawing focus to his various questionable activities. Tweed's notoriety and eventual decline was chronicled by cartoonist Thomas Nast in the journal Harper's Weekly.
The US and European news organizations continued to utilize these cartoons in the twentieth century to identify opinions and views on political and social issues. Political parties and interest groups use these exaggerated caricatures to communicate their views or opinions as well. Governments incorporated the use of caricatures of their enemies during World War I and World War II as a means of propaganda. These caricatures of a nation's enemies created desensitization and nurtured hostility by playing on stereotypes.
During the 1960s, the anti-war movement incorporated the same use of these types of caricatures as a means of articulating their political opposition against the US's political and social agendas. The media began to introduce political cartoons to address previously taboo issues, exhibiting perceived hypocrisies of society and government. The mainstream media's use of political cartoons continued to utilize this political satire to draw scrutiny to issues as a means of commentary and editorial.
The use of political cartoons during the 1980s and 1990s took on a broader base of social and religious issues, and generated greater controversy. Political cartoons have addressed issues such as famine, disease, racism, marriage between people of the same sex, undocumented immigration, LGBTQ people in the military, religious conservatism, marital infidelity of leaders, and socioeconomic inequality. These cartoons draw attention to these issues through a level of humor, but also speak to the social, political, or cultural situation being characterized. The political cartoons have grown more irreverent as the world has moved into the twenty-first century. Critics of these social commentaries may express the opinion that the cartoons are inappropriate and done in poor taste.
Cartoons and Islam Today
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York City and Washington, DC; on March 11, 2003, in Madrid; and on July 7, 2005, in London by radical Islamist terrorist groups generated political and social debates over the relationship between Western powers and Islamic culture. These attacks, and the ensuing war and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, led to a backlash of anti-Islamic and anti-Western rhetoric, and in some cases outright racism among the respective societies. The anti-Islamic debate and attitudes were aggravated in Western Europe after the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. Van Gogh's body was found with a letter (stuck to his body by a knife) in which his life was threatened for his work on a film criticizing the Islamic culture's treatment of women.
In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten began running a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, identifying its hopes to widen the debate over criticism and self-censorship. These cartoons were reproduced in other countries around the world, and eventually filtered into Middle Eastern countries.
Once the cartoons and caricatures of Muhammad began to be seen on a large scale in Islamic communities, there was outrage at the perceived blasphemous and disrespectful attacks to the faith. Widespread riots and civil unrest occurred around the world. The Danish embassies in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria were all set on fire. In the Gaza Strip in Israel, protesters set fire to flags of various Western European nations (e.g., French, German, Danish, and Norwegian), and Western businesses and buildings were vandalized, with a death toll identified as about one hundred.
In October 2005, Danish Islamic imams and the ambassadors of eleven Islamic majority nation states requested a meeting with Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss their concern over what they believed was a growing air of negative public comments against Islam in Denmark. The prime minister refused the meeting and a formal letter was posted to the ambassadors, expressing the Danish government's support of freedom of expression and opposition to censorship. Danish Muslims filed a complaint against Jyllands-Posten with the Danish courts in October 2005. A January 2006 decision was made by the local prosecutor to end the investigation, expressing the opinion that the cartoons did not constitute a criminal infraction of Danish law.
The cartoons, specifically a bomb in a turban, continued to spark protests and controversy. In 2006, French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo republished the Jyllands-Posten cartoons alongside a few of their own Muhammad caricatures, prompting similar outrage. Then, in 2011, the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris was fire-bombed, and the newspaper’s website was hacked in advance of another issue mocking Islamic extremism. Protesters characterized these cartoons as blasphemous examples of imperialistic racism. Supporters saw these cartoons as emblems of freedom in regard to speech and censorship. On the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, violent protests broke out in Egypt over a fourteen-minute YouTube video known as “Innocence of Muslims.” The clip portrays Muhammad as a lecherous and abusive false prophet. Protests in Egypt and Libya spread to other Muslim countries, and anger over the short film was initially cited as motivation for the attack that killed US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
In January 2015, the office of Charlie Hebdo once again came under attack in a globally recognized incident of terrorism—one of the worst in French history. Two masked Islamist extremists entered the building and proceeded to shoot and kill several members of the weekly’s staff, including its editor in chief, Stephane Charbonnier, reportedly in retaliation for Muhammad. By the time the attackers had fled from the scene by car, inspiring local authorities to begin a hunt, they had left twelve people dead. The following day, after robbing a gas station, the two men hid out at a printing plant, where they were eventually shot and killed two days after the attack. Authorities also connected the Charlie Hebdo massacre with a hostage situation that occurred at a kosher grocery store in the city that same day. A lone gunman took several people hostage inside of the store, killing four before he was shot and killed by police officers. The gunman had been demanding that the authorities let the two men from the shooting go free. All three of the men had claimed connections with either al-Qaeda or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Citing a need to mark the beginning of a trial related to the 2015 attack, Charlie Hebdo republished the Muhammad cartoons in 2020.
These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.
Bibliography
Cane, Robert. "Cartoon Crisis: Islam and Danish Liberalism." Society, vol. 44, no. 1, 2006, pp. 80–88. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23055004&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Davidson, Lawrence. “Terror in Paris.” Humanist, vol. 75, no. 2, 2015, pp. 21–23. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=101084137&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Grabar, Oleg. "Seeing and Believing." New Republic, vol. 241, no. 19, 2009, pp. 33–37. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44685257&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Hassner, Ron E. "Blasphemy and Violence." International Studies Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, 2011, pp. 23–45. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=59091686&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Hayward, John. "Protecting Freedom of Speech, 140 Characters at a Time." Human Events, vol. 68, no. 36, 2012, p. 20. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=80242496&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Higgins, Andrew, and Dan Bilefsky. “French Police Storm Hostage Sites, Killing Gunmen.” The New York Times, 9 Jan. 2015, Accessed 15 Oct. 2015. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Hull, Gary. Muhammad: The Banned Images. Voltaire, 2009.
Levs, Josh. “A Timeline of the Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack.” CNN, 9 Jan. 2015, Accessed 15 Oct. 2015. Accessed 23 May 2024.
March, Andrew F. "Speaking about Muhammad, Speaking for Muslims." Critical Inquiry, vol. 37, no. 4, 2011, pp. 806–21. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=65162723&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Moloney, Gail, Peter Holtz, and Wolfgang Wagner. "Editorial Political Cartoons in Australia: Social Representations and the Visual Depiction of Essentialism." Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, vol. 47, no. 2, 2013, pp. 284–298. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=87621565&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2024.
Onishi, Norimitsu. "Charlie Hebdo Republishes Cartoons That Prompted Deadly 2015 Attack." The New York Times, 1 Sept. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-trial-france.html. Accessed 23 May 2024.
"Speak Up." National Review, vol. 64, no. 19, 2012, p. 16. Academic Search Complete, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79294157&site=ehost-live. Accessed 23 May 2024.