What was it that prompted throngs of protesters across the Arab world to rise in fury against the United States? What was the impetus for the violence that left an American consulate burning, an American-run school destroyed, many injured and some dead, including UC Berkeley alumnus and ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens?
A video, it seems. That’s right, a video — purportedly a trailer for a movie called “Innocence of Muslims” — made by no-name bigots in Southern California seeking to offend followers of Islam. As film critic Ann Hornaday has noted, the trailer is so pathetically poorly made, so vulgar, jumbled and incoherent that it looks “less like promotional scenes culled from a fully realized motion picture than a primitive piece of cynical agitprop.”
It is tragically ironic that Christopher Stevens was murdered in the city he helped save from annihilation in 2011. But a deeper irony lies at the heart of all the violent outpourings of anti-American rage that continue to sweep across the Muslim world as people call for America to punish the makers of the video. Less than two years ago, the streets of Cairo, Tunis and Tripoli were packed with demonstrators demanding freedom and self-government. Over the past few days, demonstrators have taken to the streets again — this time to exhibit widespread intolerance of free speech, the bedrock principle of any democratic society.
Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker had an appropriate message for the mobs: “Hey, demonstrators: Anybody can make a movie. It doesn’t mean anything. And by the way, anybody can burn a Koran. Or a Bible. Or smear feces on a crucifix. Or … ad infinitum. We tolerate rudeness because the alternative — state-enforced politeness — leads to the guillotine.”
If the riots of the past week have shown us anything, it is that there is a sizable strain within political Islam that is unable or unwilling to tolerate rudeness or worse. This strain has revealed itself before on a smaller scale — when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie because of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in The Satanic Verses, when Theo van Gogh was murdered after creating a movie about violence against women in some Islamic societies, when protests broke out after a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
But more than the current crisis, those instances reflected actions by a smaller number of extremists, rather than widespread fury. It appears that the collapse of Arab dictatorships, which had for years suppressed expressions of popular rage, has merely exposed the intolerance of free speech — and therefore the elusiveness of democracy — that afflicts the Middle East.
As we observe the chaos convulsing in postrevolutionary Arab countries, we should be reminded that democracy is more than just the absence of formal dictatorship — it requires at least some degree of respect for freedom of expression and a willingness to be confronted with new, provocative, distasteful and even offensive ideas.
That is why the calls for censorship in response to the video, aired in major newspapers across the country, have been so disturbing. In the opinion pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, commentator Mustafa Malik called for America to “revisit free speech” in the wake of the Middle Eastern riots. More outrageous yet were calls, most notably in a USA Today piece by prominent University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler, for the creator of the film to be arrested and jailed for offending Muslims. The Boston Globe’s Farah Stockman also suggested that those behind the film should be “held accountable” for violence that took place on the other side of the world.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration is not without fault in this regard. Alarmingly, it appears that the White House signaled to YouTube that it should consider taking down the video, which a YouTube spokesperson already said was “clearly within” YouTube’s guidelines for permissible content. And the Cairo embassy’s apologetic statement about the video, issued prior to the violence, is not beyond criticism. Mitt Romney could have issued an honest defense of the United States’ principle of free speech in the context of the embassy attacks. Instead, he characteristically distorted the record, mischaracterizing Obama’s position and the timeline of events for political gain.
Christopher Stevens fought and died for what he called a “free, democratic, prosperous Libya.” The free Libya Stevens imagined would undoubtedly have afforded its citizens the right to speek freely. We can best honor his memory by affirming our commitment to freedom of expression, not shrinking from it.
Contact Jason Willick at [email protected]
Follow him on Twitter @jawillick.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
How many layers deep can you pile the hypocrisy? Iraq’s small Christian communities have been under attack ever since the removal of Saddam Hussein. Similarly the Egyptian Coptic community has had churches burned and its members killed. Anybody at the United Nothing–or in the westen media–upset about this? Meanwhile there are 40 million Muslim Uighers in western China subjected to severe repression, one of their leaders was on CSpan last year describing it as a “cultural genocide”, so they’re in good company with the Tibetans now. China doesn’t even permit outsiders to travel into that western region, so there’s not much news. Curiously no one else in the Muslim world seems to care, might this be due to their ethnic origin being non-Arabic? China just sent a rep to meet with Karzai in Afghanistan and they announced China will be training the Afghan police after the U.S. leaves. How about let’s go right now and let them deal with the medievalists.
Why are non-muslims afforded the luxury of individualization but Muslims worldwide are forced to become part of “group-think” and robbed of their personal choices, beliefs and actions?
A group of psychotic criminals are usually referred to as just that- a group of psychotic criminals. However, when they happen to be muslim, they suddenly become representatives of a global religion numbering in the billions.
The conceptualization of the muslim world does not allow for muslims to be individuals and we must seize with the caricaturing and stigmatization. The protests and murders have more to do with nationalism, social inequality, economic poverty and political instability than they do with any inherent quality of Islam.
Anyone actually look at the posters those people were waving and listen to their chants? They seem to feel that the United States and the West (which has been effectively colonizing the region since at least 1812 and more blatantly since 1919) exploit and dehumanize them. They most likely seem to view the comically-horrendous film as another example of this.
Nonetheless, their actions are obviously not permissible or worthy of apology. We must; however, realize that to confine these people to petty archetypes does not further the debate nor does it keep our diplomatic missions and international standing both safe and respectable.
Of course, when I say “they” I mean the individuals directly involved, not the “islamic world”.
Numerous highly respected polls, some commissioned by Muslim news services, reveal while not a majority a significant number of Muslims supportive of the sort of violent reactions we have seen in the past week. While the problem is not Islam, per se, it is the widespread interpretation of it by so many Muslim leaders and their followers. To pretend that this intolerance is limited to the beliefs of just a few extremists is quite erroneous.
Intolerance of non-believers is widespread throughout the Islamic world and is little criticized by Muslims. Look at nearly every major paper in the capital cities of predominantly Muslim societies, for example, and you will see cartoons of hooknosed Jews doing harm to some Muslim innocents. So when Muslims say they are tolerant people, this is proven to be disingenuous on a near-daily basis.
The support of Muslims for actions that seem to oppose the United States and the West is more indicative of the socio-political situation than it is of any interpretation of Islam. Intolerance of non-believers? There are massive and historically significant groups of Christians, Jews and other non-muslims in essentially every Muslim country. The issue has always been political. The Israeli wars over the last few decades, the ongoing colonization and marginalization of the people, the American and European support for the Saudis, for Mubarak (until it appeared inevitable he would fall), etc. There is no wonder that many people oppose the West. It has never been about religion or ethnicity. The forefront of the Palestinian struggle, for example, has historically been composed of secular Arabs, Muslim and Christian. The rise of Hamas was due to Israeli support that backfired. Muslims say they are tolerant people because they are- both historically and legally. However, no one is tolerant towards their oppressors. If American policy shifted, if European policy shifted, and if the world began treating the Middle East as an actual and legitimate entity rather than as a oil-pump, then perhaps portrayals and opinions would change as well. I hope people don’t honestly believe the people in Egypt protested for religious reasons… the religious leaders have been continually telling them NOT to. They protested because for them the movie was another slap to the face, Muhammad , of course, has become an metonym for the Islamic world and to insult him is to insult these people.
Cartoons of hooknosed Jews are of course outrageous and hurtful, but are they so different from the caricatures of Muslims that have been appearing in the West since at least 1880? It has always been the sleazy Turk, the sly and distrustful Arab, etc. Even the New York Times, in the aftermaths of 9/11 adopted more than a few Islamophobic stances and even recently I saw an article headline that read: “Why are Muslims so Violent?”. I will remind you that it was the Muslim Ottoman Empire that offered education and homes to Yitzak Rabin and David-Ben Gurion, when similar attendance at elite institutions would have been impossible for all but the most wealthy Jews in America or Europe at the time.
In 1918, during the war with the Ottoman Empire, articles in America and England depicted Muslims as rapists, murderers, horrible and harmful demons. During the 1960s independence war in Algeria, more than a few prominent French newspapers (Le Figaro) and generals called for a chemical and genocidal campaign against Muslim rebels.
Muslims are, in the altered words of Nietzsche, a people with pride and strength. Thus, the reaction to their subjugation by the West has been one of disgust, disbelief and outrage.
On the question of Israel, I must also point out that the government actively lobbies against Jewish-Muslim weddings, comparing the offspring of such unions to “missing children,” and the very nature and philosophy of the Zionist state is one that places Jewish people and Judaism as the supreme force in the nation. Operation Naschlon, in 1948, drove out innocent Muslims from Israel under the threat of death. To understand Muslim impropriety, one must understand European, Israeli and American intolerance towards Muslims and Muslim peoples.
Those cases of people depicting Jews or Westerners unflatteringly must be understood as reactions to the West, there has been no tradition of ethno-centrism or intolerance in Islam for most of its history.
You said “There are massive and historically significant groups of Christians,
Jews and other non-muslims in essentially every Muslim country.”
I highly doubt that. In 1948 all the Arab countries ethnically cleansed Jews our of their borders and only Iran had a small population of Jews left. In non-Arab Muslim countries, Christians and Jews are tolerated as long as they don’t hold leadership positions and pay a jizya, or special non-believer’s tax. The truth is Muslims really are “a people of pride and strength”, and that is the problem. They are too proud to coexist peacefully with people who cherish secular civil rights.
20% Christain in Syria, about 15% in Jordan, 12% in Egypt, 20-30% in Palestinian territories. Name one country in which jizya is paid? Also Turkey is more secular than England and Israel, by a long shot. There have been Jews in power in the Baath regimes in Syria and Iraq.
“Colonizing”? Paying them a fair market price for their oil after we built the infrastructure for them? They didn’t even know how to put out a well fire until some Texas roughnecks figured out how to do it. Was it “colonization” to do nothing in response to the creation of OPEC but pay them what they wanted? Do you think that if the roles were reversed the middle eastern regimes would respect the property rights of others? They welcome the head of the genocidal regime in Sudan–he has stated “there is no genocide in Islam” (if we want to commit mass murder that’s o.k.). Nothing has really changed with these people since they invaded Europe in the 8th century.
In Sunday’s SF Chronicle, Mustafa Malik (identified only as a commentator) argues that America’s tradition of free speech is at fault for widespread, deadly muslim rioting (including the death of Ambassador Stevens), and to ask that we curtail that tradition in respect for muslims. It is a testament to our free, non-secular society that a major newspaper devoted a full page for Mr Malik to instruct us.
Yes, do not shy away from free speech — it is people’s right in a democracy to say incredibly stupid, even offensive things. However, many of the comments below conflate Islam and violence in such an absurdist manner, that it is not difficult to see that the sin of intolerance is not only to be found amidst protestors in the Middle East. Sweeping generalizations are ignorant and even poisonous. Just as Ambassador Stephens should not have been held responsible for the disgusting actions of a few, Libyans, the Middle East, and Islam in general should not be condemned for the actions of a few insane terrorists. Doing so diminishes the love and respect that the Ambassador held for Libyans, and that they held for him, as Libyan counter-protestors’ signs so concisely demonstrated: “Christopher Stephens was a Friend to All Libyans,” “Islam Against Terrorism,” and “RIP Ambassador Stephens”
Unfortunately, the film is a work of religious hatred. But the Muslim response to it actually gives its castigation of Islam some credibility.
And for those who say that the murder of Stevens and the other violent demonstrations were just the work of a small minority, kindly not that Islamofascism is spearheading similar attacks on civility in at least a dozen Muslim countries, including that pet of Berkeley leftists, the Palestinians.
Finally, Islamic barbarism continues in the attempt to murder one of the religion’s most respected critics:
AN IRANIAN foundation has reportedly increased a bounty for the death of Salman Rushdie, saying that if the British writer had previously been killed for blasphemy an anti-Islam film currently enraging Muslims would never have been made.Iranian media quoted Hassan Sane’i, a cleric heading the 15 of Khordad Foundation, as saying in a statement that he was “adding another $US500,000 ($474,000) to the reward for killing Rushdie.”With the increase, the foundation was now offering $US3.3 million for the death of Rushdie, who since 1989 has been the target of a Iranian fatwa calling for his murder for allegedly blaspheming Islam and its Prophet Mohammed in his book “The Satanic Verses.”The foundation’s statement was quoted saying that, unless Rushdie were killed, “the movie offending the prophet will not be the last contemptuous attempt.”It added that “these days are the most appropriate time to carry it (Rushdie’s murder) out.”
To Dan Spitzer- Just for you
The CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS -
Article 24 of the declaration states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” Article 19 also says: “There shall be NO crime or punishment EXCEPT as provided for in the Sharia.”
The CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS has been criticized for failing to guarantee FREEDOM OF RELIGION as a “fundamental and non-negotiable human right”.
ARTICLE 25: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the ONLY source of reference for the explanation or clarification of ANY of the articles of this Declaration.”
In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: “The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration.”
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: “undermines the equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law.”
Those of us in the West who support freedom of expression have nothing but contempt for those who drew up such a “declaration.” Sharia Law represents the dictatorships which have suppressed all that is good in the articulation of critical thought and Islamofascism is a disease which has spread like wildfire throughout much of the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the stench of Arab Spring has only fanned its flames.
One argument- The Arab Spring was mostly about economic conditions and a feudal corruption-based world in which free entrepreneurship is virtually impossible. These young people want a better future and to attract foreign investment. It is the Islamists that are making it impossible by targeting the embassies and innocent people of their number one trading partners, which can be triggered by an angry Paster who threatens to burn a copy of Qur’an, a Danish cartoonist, or a Coptic man who makes a bad film. Any one non-Muslim person has the power to manipulate this religious obligation of Holy War.
Great reporting. Extremists need to learn how to use words and media to express themselves if they expect words and media to defend, protect, and support their constituencies. The less than distasteful reactions from such groups will stagnate talks between legitimate nations indefinitely.
Incisive commentary.
One should not forget the strong possibility that Al Qaeda is likely using the videos as a pretext for attacks…not all the fervor is an organic result of outrage over the video. I’m not sure we’ll know the full details for a while, but I would say that, whether opportunistically or because they planned for months ahead of time, the forces of armed extremism are likely primarily to blame for the actual and overt violence perpetrated here. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443995604578000481653367800.html
nonetheless, insofar as the article relates to the general state of uproar in the muslim world, and the appropriateness of the response, this is solid analysis.
I miss the summer columnists. These fall columnists blow.
Jason Willick has redeemed himself quite nicely with this column. He does understand Islamic intolerance. He should realize militant Islamists exist not only in Middle East Arab countries, but most countries with Muslim majorities. That is why Israel cannot put its fate in the hands of easily-angered Muslims, and must maintain defensible borders.
Great article!
But a couple of notes from your first paragrpah or two:
Jason writes, “…made by no-name bigots in Southern
California seeking to offend followers of Islam.”
1) How do you know he is a bigot?
2) How
do you know this man did not believe his film portrayed the truth about
Islam? After all, and given the childish
responses that followed, common sense suggests there really is something brutish
about Islam.
3) How
do you know he sought to offend Islam as opposed to desiring to teach people
about the truth?
If you’re clueless and naive enough to believe that they are rioting over a movie, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. It’s merely a convenient excuse for the ongoing rage of a group of people who are not fit to associate with modern civilization.
A couple of notes:
Other
sources suggest that the attack was carried out by a terrorist group
seeking to use the protest as cover. Perhaps the video did not spark
such drastic violence.
I
feel that the comments about Romney were out of place. The article
deals with acceptance of free speech in the Middle East, not your views
of U.S. political candidates.
Without question, the video should remain uncensored.
please tell the truth about this horrible murder. Mr. Stevens would want it told,it will ultimately save lives even if it is not politically correct to do so.
You mean the fact he was raped before he was murdered? Par for the course for Islamofascist pigs.
And of course most protesters are packing machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. Just a coincidence this took place on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
The eleventh anniversary, actually.
Damn Arabs! Rioting over a dumb movie! This can’t have anything to do with the U.S.’s violent war-mongering in the Middle East because those Muslims just hate freedom! Why can’t they be normal and civilized like us First-Worlders!
There’s nothing like sweepingly broad caricature when you’re bending over backwards to justify mob violence, is there?