The bomb exploded on the symbolic 11th of September 2012: riots erupted across the Middle East and North Africa– either spontaneously or carefully planned, but probably both – following publication of a controversial film, or rather its trailer, “Innocence of Muslims” that allegedly insulted Islam and the sacred figure of the prophet Mohammed. One result of these riots was – not for the first time in the region – attacks on several diplomatic missions of the Western states that resulted in deaths of four American diplomats, including the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, as well as deaths of over 50 protesters.

The film itself is but a silly, poorly-acted travesty that does not actually take itself seriously and is probably even less historically accurate than “Inglorious Basterds” or “300”. However, one could argue that whilst certain aspects of the film – for instance the sexual orientation of Mohammed – can never be proven or disproven right, historical references to the bloody nature of Islamic conquest and oppression and massacring of Jews are valid. Further not-so-subtle allegories bring light to child-abuse and denial of rights for women, both of which are amply-documented predominantly in the contemporary Muslim countries – in particular the more fundamentalist ones, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan . Beyond the apparent farce there is an exposition of criticisms applicable to certain – no matter how allegedly miniscule in percentage – groups of Muslims. Thus the film is neither baseless nor hate-igniting, since there is no call to violence whatsoever, yet it is thought-provoking.

More interestingly, the film had been virtually unknown in the Western world -- for over two months prior to the recent events. Those very few who knew about it, largely ignored it. It took an Egyptian TV channel to actually make the “Innocence” so (in)famous as it is today, starting a wave of anger-filled and violent protests across the Muslim world. There is little doubt that it was deliberately used to re-ignite hatred towards the US, Israel and the West amongst the spitfire population of the Middle East and North Africa. Who actually offended more Muslims – a wannabe movie director who failed to fill the first two rows of a cinema at the premiere of his movie, or the Egyptian (and later all major Middle-Eastern) media that screened it to tens millions of viewers, who they knew would be furious?

Leaving speculations aside, we could simply analyse the well-documented irony of these riots: in their fury over a film that portrayed them as savage beasts, Muslim protesters burned cars and buildings, trampled on each other and preyed on diplomatic workers. The latter were immune by the diplomatic law and innocent in that particular situation. The mob were neither legally allowed, nor in any way excused by circumstances to act as they did. The police in those countries were accomplices to the crimes, as they were reluctant to intervene. The barbaric manner that these protests have taken – not for the first time in the recent history of the region in question – clearly exposes lack of civil upbringing in modern Islamic states. Moreover, Libya and Egypt – the two main theaters of action of these protests – have been overtly craving for democracy since the beginning of the revolutions now known as part of the Arab Spring. They have overthrown the rule of their tyrants and seem to have established the rule of the mob.

Instead of letting the crowd slip the leash and embarrassing themselves and their religion – through their action – the offended side should have engaged in a dialogue. They should have let their religious scholars and historians destroy – and there is little doubt it would be an easy job, considering how flawed the film is – the essence of the “Innocence” through reasoning, retorts and skilful arguing. Had they merely attempted to do so, they would already have proven the director of the film wrong, by showing that they are not those brutes he painted them to be. Intellectual battle would have benefited first and above all Islam itself: they would have proven to the world and to themselves that the allegations of the film are wrong. Instead they reverted to anger and violence, thus suggesting the film was right.

Perhaps, though, Muslims consider it beyond their duty to defend their world view, assuming that their opponents or third party simply take the holiness and sacredness of the prophet Mohammed for granted.

The whole notion of Islam having a prophet, about whom one cannot humorously speculate without fear of fatwa issued against them, seems to place it above all other religions. Why can one talk nonsense about Jesus or Moses and not about Mohammed? Why with the former two the worst that can happen is popular ridicule or ignoring, whereas with the latter it is feasible threats of death? Why do imams and high-standing clerics openly disseminate hatred towards the Jews and Christians, and consider it acceptable? Frequently, in order not to answer these inconvenient questions, people prefer to hide behind the vague idea of political correctness, which makes it so simple to redirect the point of inquisition from the actual source of conflict to the personal values or beliefs of the inquirer themselves: “Your question is politically incorrect… You generalise… You cannot ask that… Are you racist?..”

To what extent is it actually a matter of respect for other cultures, rather than seeking a way to evade enquiries into the sensitive and controversial, yet crucial issues?


Political correctness is dangerous in that, today, in its popular application, it has essentially become a line drawn to separate people into two camps – the tolerant ones and far-right. Not only does political correctedness place anyone expressing moderate hard-line views amongst extremists, fascists and racists, but it is also hazardous in its potential to swing the political pendulum from the nationalist extremity of the 1930s to another modern extremity – utter apathy: failure to react to the issues raised by the difficult Western-Muslim relationship in a moderate yet firm way, which will inevitably lead to the formation of truly far-right movements that, gaining momentum from either disillusioned or insecure center-rights or those fearing or opposing the apathetic attitude of existing governments to the Islamic sense of superiority, may truly gain massive force with catastrophic consequences for both worlds.

Until we stop indulging Islam in allowing it to maintain what it considers its “special” status, violence will persist and will again be “excuseable” or “justified”. [No Fear]

Until radical clerics and fervent followers of Islam learn to peacefully co-exist with other religions as well as to accept the idea of nonviolent civilised dialogue – as opposed to brutal feral rioting, which we are constantly witnessing – in response to any expression of opinion they deem offensive or blasphemous – bloodshed will continue. [No Hatred]

Unless there be prompt modernisation of Islam and undermining of fundamentalism, it is highly unlikely to be part of the harmonic and stable co-existence of world religions, but would rather act as a threat to unbalancing it. [No Threat]

It is of utmost importance not to let the political correctness to cloud the judgement as to what Islam perceives itself to be and how the double-standard attitude of certain more fundamental countries of the Middle East and North Africa could affect the Western World.
More ambitiously and optimistically, attempts should be made to bridge the rift between the two worlds. But to build a bridge, both sides need to be on equal level…


***


P.S. (added 5 days after writing the original article):

As if by magic, a high-profile Pakistani politician offered to be an example of the above-described tendency of certain influential representatives of Muslims to issue reasonably credible death threats against those mocking or criticising their religion. Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, the minister of railways of Pakistan announced the following during the latest news-conference in Pakistan:

"I offer 100'000$ for the head of the [Innocence of Muslims] fllmmaker.... I invite the Taliban and al Qaeda [to carry out the assassination]".

After he had been asked if, being a government official, he was worried about commiting a crime - essentially becoming the organiser of assassination - he simply responded:

"I am a Muslim first, then a government representative."


I shall leave it to the readers to contemplate on these words...

Angel Versetti