Help In These Times raise $5,000 in two weeks! Donate now!
Help this website survive! Donate to In These Times now!
PrintDiscuss
Views » February 21, 2006

Islam vs. the West: Clashing Sensibilities

By Salim Muwakkil

The violent reactions of some Muslims vindicate the arguments of neoconservatives that Islam is an inherently anti-modernist religion.
Tags   
Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

Were it plausible, I would suggest that al Qaeda and American neo-conservatives planted the cartoons published last fall in a Danish newspaper that satirized Prophet Muhammad. The Muslim masses’ predictably furious response to the cartoons provides perfect inversely proportionate illustrations of the two cults’ clash-of-civilizations scenario.

But in fact, this increasingly rancorous dispute does pit two foundational principles against each other: Islam’s proscription against portraying its Prophet, and the West’s reverence of free expression. Muslims have a religious obligation to take offense at “desecration” of Islam, while Western nations feel compelled to speak up in protection of free speech.

These clashing views have put in motion a cycle of mutual antagonism that is likely to keep spiraling downward unless cooler heads prevail.

This Islamic ire is not difficult to understand, really. When Louis Farrakhan allegedly called Judaism a “gutter religion” in 1984 he was denounced from pillar to post, and more than 20 years later he still catches flack for those reported remarks. Congress even got into the act, unanimously passing legislation condemning Farrakhan’s words. The phrase “freedom of expression” was seldom heard during this controversy; nor were there reiterations of Farrakhan’s words in gestures of sympathy for that libertarian concept.

At that time, Americans seemed to understand that expressions of religious bigotry had to be resolutely condemned. This was a progressive step for a nation once mired in anti-Semitic bias. Muslims are asking similar condemnations of the cartoons they construe as attacks on their religion.

The cartoons were offensive not only because they depicted the Prophet, but because the depictions were disrespectful of the deep reverence Muslims have for the founder of their religion. Whenever Prophet Muhammad’s name is mentioned (even in informal conversations), believers always add “peace and blessings be upon him.”

The offense is compounded by what many feel is the West’s hypocrisy on the issue of free expression. Several Muslim commentators have noted that freedom of expression stops at holocaust denial in a number of European countries, including France and Germany (where the cartoons were published in solidarity with the concept of free expression).

All of this is taking place in a global context informed by a history of Western imperialism and a current resurgence of that aggression. Islamist groups long have argued that the West has launched a new crusade against Islam. Following the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that argument has a lot more traction.

In a post-9/11 world, growing numbers of Muslims feel they are being demonized by an increasingly Islamaphobic West. And, several Islamic and human rights groups have documented increasing incidents of persecution against Muslims. That sense of injustice has helped to propel the electoral success of Islamist parties in Gaza (Hamas), Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood) and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Islamists are using the cartoon flap to give popular resonance across the Islamic world to their notion of a new Crusade.

Jihad Unspun, a Web site that reflects the radical views of Sunni “mujahideen” presents an example of this mindset. In a recent editorial, the Web publication denounced the military aggression that “has swallowed Afghanistan and Iraq, and is heading towards Iran, Syria and Pakistan.” Referring to the cartoon flap, the editorial added, “The new phase of the crusades, this time on cultural and social levels, has been sparked not by the U.S. but her low-profile and smaller allies in Europe.”

Of course, Muslims also have some growing up to do. The violent protests run counter to Islam, which forbids any compulsion in religion and it does not require non-Muslims to follow Islam’s religious rites. What’s more, such reactions vindicate the views of those neoconservatives who argue that Muslims are inherently anti-modernist. “As a Muslim, I can understand the emotional intensity of the issue, however, responding through violence does not uphold the dignity of our faith,” said Mahdi Bray, head of the civil rights bureau of the Washington-based Muslim American Society. And, according to commentators from the various regions of protest, only a small minority is engaged in violence.

Muslims also have to understand that the freedom of expression ideal is one of the West’s distinguishing principles. Just as it allows for religious satire, it also allows for religious freedom. In fact, the West’s statutory protections have likely shielded many Islamic minorities from nativist opposition.

This is a clash of sensibilities, not civilizations. But if Western and Islamic governments allow the cultists to push the agenda, the choreography of polarization will take over.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983. He is the host of "The Salim Muwakkil" show on WVON, Chicago's historic black radio station, and he wrote the text for the book HAROLD: Photographs from the Harold Washington Years.

More information about Salim Muwakkil
Tags   
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    It is true two completely different views in life have collided head on. But unlike other conflicting views colliding in the past, the Muslims have been responding with hate and violence. Not all Muslims of course, but it seems radical Muslims have taken control of what is said to be a peaceful religion. I am not saying that is a lie, but I have not seen enough results to back that claim up. Although Islam may feel they are under attack, Westerners feel the same pressure due to the radical Muslims who have declared war on the different values they disagree with. The violent reaction over the cartoons and the threats to kill the people responsible for drawing the cartoons is senseless and brutal. The free speech that they want to end is the same freedom that allows them to practice their religion freely in any Western country. I look forward to this cartoon debate shaping the world around us in different and new ways, but at the same time, the two values in conflict must be defended fully. How that is possible is not an easy question to answer, but once Muslims realize the violent reactions are only causing more and more of an image problem, maybe then can they look for different methods to defend what they believe in. I think the West must also take a look at their values, as Western media has failed its largest test, and allowed this terror and violence to control it. But in the end, I personally believe more good will come from this issue than the harm that is being done, as it has served as a wake up call for both values. I posted the cartoons on my website at http://www.obber.com. I don’t believe brushing this under the rug is going to help much. I also put together a small documentary related to this issue, one that is meant to show the reason why such cartoons would be drawn in the first place.

    Posted by stncrtsw on Feb 21, 2006 at 4:26 PM

    Mr Muwakkil, I believe that your suspicion as to the cartoons being planted is certainly reasonable. Fleming Rose is an ardent Zionist and knew the reaction the publication of such work would cause. Couple that with the fact that he is friendly with Daniel Pipes, extreme Muslim hater, warmonger and racist pig, and it becomes more than a suspicion.

    We can also thank the media for doing their usual yellow and jingoistic journalism by covering only the violent demonstrations and giving no coverage to the millions of Muslims who protested this insult to their faith peacefully. And let’s not forget that the much-demonized Hamas also came out strongly opposing the violent reaction and calling for calm. Of course this got zero American press. Surprise.

    No, this was an intentional incitement, designed to encourage Europeans to go along with our new crusade. It will backfire, but that has never stopped the neocons before. They are afterall, safe.

    Under their rocks.

    Posted by opeluboy on Feb 22, 2006 at 12:47 AM

    “It will backfire, but that has never stopped the neocons before. They are afterall, safe.
    Under their rocks.”

    Unless they go hunting with Dick Cheney

    Posted by FraM on Feb 22, 2006 at 8:12 PM

    Are we talking about Danish Neocons here or more U.S. bashing?

    Along with freedom of speech we used to believe in the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Posted by whattheheck on Feb 22, 2006 at 8:41 PM

    If nothing else, the cartoons demonstrated how incredibly easy it is to incite large numbers of Muslims to violence. Again.

    Lets see, just for fun. How many people were killed as a result of the extremely offensive “piss Christ”? Of Farrakhan’s nastiness regarding Jews and “blue eyed devils”?

    Maybe the anthropologists are wrong after all. Some cultures are not only superior to others, but vastly so. . .

    Posted by wolf on Feb 22, 2006 at 10:15 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 88 posts.

Appeared in the March 2006 Issue
Also by Salim Muwakkil
If you like what you're reading, why not help pay for it?
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS