As you know, there is no greater issue facing the world today than the matter of cartoons. Who draws them? Are the cartoons funny? Do they depict images of holy personages and thus prompt violent reprisals? Why does Garfield like lasagna so much? All of these questions are important.
I’ve always thought cartoons were a serious matter, certainly worth committing murder and setting fires, and I’m glad the rest of the world has finally caught up with me. In recent weeks, European newspapers have been taken to task for publishing political cartoons that included drawings of Mohammed and which suggested modern Islam is sometimes a wee bit violent and radical. Outraged by these allegations, Muslims have responded by killing people.
Man, you know the world is crazy when even a straight summary of the news sounds like a joke. (See also: “The vice-president shot a lawyer.”) Technically, what the Muslims — and not all of them, just the crazy ones — have been rioting about is that in their view, ANY depiction of Mohammed, even a flattering one, even taken from his good side with him smiling like a matinee idol, is blasphemy. They seem to have ignored the actual CONTENT of these cartoons, missing the fact that by lashing out, they’re proving the cartoons’ point. That, or they’re oblivious to irony.
Some moderate Muslim writers have observed that while the Koran might forbid drawings of the Prophet, that rule doesn’t apply to non-Muslims any more than the rule against eating pork applies to non-Jews. But others say that since Muslims consider the likeness of the Prophet to be sacred, non-Muslims should refrain from depicting him out of respect.
Westerners are thus caught in a difficult position. On the one hand, we agree with the idea of respecting other people’s religions. But on the other hand, we think the policy against showing pictures of Mohammed is stupid. (You can’t even draw a PICTURE of your guy?! Why the freak not?!) We can’t just come out and say that, though. The newspaper editorialists can’t say, “We uphold the Danish papers’ right to publish those cartoons, largely because we think the ‘no drawings of the Prophet’ rule is silly.” That would just fan the flames.
There’s even some debate over whether depictions of Mohammed really ARE forbidden by the Koran, and I have no way of finding out a definitive answer. Even if I read the Koran — which is unlikely, given that I’m still working on “The Five People You Meet in Heaven” — I suspect that if it’s anything like the other works of scripture I’m familiar with, there are many passages that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. For all I know, the part about Mohammed pictures could also be interpreted to mean, “Kill anyone who DOESN’T draw pictures of the Prophet.” I’m no Islam scholar.
If drawings of the Prophet are forbidden, though, how good a drawing does it have to be for it to count? Does it have to really look like Mohammed? How does anyone even know what he looks like, considering there weren’t cameras when he was alive and no one’s allowed to draw him? Does this cartoon, which I drew and which has an all-star cast of religious figures, qualify as blasphemy, even though it’s just stick figures?
What if a lazy cartoonist merely SAYS a character is Mohammed, and puts forth no effort to achieve a good likeness, as in the following “Ziggy” comic?
Theologians may discuss these questions for years, or until they are murdered by extremists, whichever comes first. In the meantime, let’s enjoy two “Family Circus” cartoons that parody radical Islam without using the Prophet’s image. Leave it to Bil Keane (and occasionally his son Billy, who fills in some weeks) to show us the way.
Those are the actual cartoons, by the way, the way they originally appeared in newspapers, completely unaltered by me. You can trust me on that. The Koran forbids lying. (I think.)