The violent reaction to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad highlights the myth that there is a Western conspiracy against Islam, and that the legitimate defense against it is violence. The powder keg that exploded yet again last week is the product of an artificial doctrine of paranoia and hatred, and perpetuating the delusion that it is a genuine “clash of civilizations” only serves to re-ignite the madness.
As cartoons published in a small Danish newspaper drive thousands to shout “Down with Denmark” — when the Danish government has no authority over the free press — and “Down with America” — when America had no involvement whatsoever — we are led to believe that a unified West systematically abuses the Muslims of the world. Questioning the validity of this claim is considered “ethnocentric” and politically incorrect, so it is blindly accepted. Western apologists’ excuses for the violence include the war in Iraq, opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and anything else that allows them to pat themselves on their tolerant backs.
But Western-Islamic relations are far more complex than simplistic conspiracy theories. There are certainly causes for animosity between Western and Muslim powers, but for better or worse, the West has for decades supported the prosperity, stability and strength of the Muslim world. If anything, interference in the Middle East has been guided by the naive hope in the prospect of freedom, not subjugation.
Most societies are able to get along despite past grievances and present cultural differences. There is no inherent reason why Western-Islamic relations should be any different. The American people want nothing more than to withdraw troops from a stable and peaceful Iraq. United efforts to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions are guided by a desire to prevent mass annihilation. Decades of attempts to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis have been motivated by the desire for peace with Islam. The 1991 Gulf War, military aid to Egypt and the purchase of oil from Gulf states have all been guided by multilateral strategic interests, not conspiratorial malice.
Unfortunately, for decades the strategic interests of many Muslim governments have been best served by fostering the simplistic illusion of a Western conspiracy. It is easier to organize protests against foreign powers than permit domestic political dissent. It is easier to blame the West for insulting the Prophet than address poverty. It is easier to call for the murder of Salman Rushdie and condemn Western hypocrisy than permit religious freedom. As long as a radical ideology can make the West the scapegoat of all the region’s problems, it is within the interests of narrow-minded leaders to indoctrinate, encourage and fund such an ideology. All the better if the Crusades, nineteenth-century imperialism, Palestine and every other offense against Islam throughout history can be lumped into the same paranoid basket. But as we saw once again last week, this ideology comes at too great a cost.
Mocking religion, racial stereotypes, ethnic traditions and anything else that people hold dear is the beloved pastime of every open society. Monty Python mocks religion and The Producers satirizes the Holocaust, but this leads no one to bomb embassies. Sometimes lines are crossed and people are insulted. But civilized societies offer many avenues to protest insu< firebombs are not one of them. We should also not forget that Muslim newspapers constantly publish virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Western propaganda, with no violent reaction from the "victims." The bigoted notion that Muslims can only communicate with violence, or are incapable of the self-deprecating humor so loved by the rest of humanity, does not help anyone. No religion is inherently good or evil, peaceful or violent. Rather, religions are tools in the hands of those who choose to do good or ill. Faith can inspire the principle that "All men are created equal," or it can inspire suicide bombings and delusions of world dominance. The question is, which voice is leading? Pat Robertson and his ilk impose ancient religious dogma on the 21st century and are verbally shot down on the networks. Unfortunately, the constructive forces in the Islamic world still seem to be on the losing side of this battle. Credit should be given where due. Al Jazeera's revolution in media discourse is essential to bringing some nuance to a world where reality is muddled and truth is whatever is shouted loudest. Jordan's King Abdullah should be praised for his courageous stance against violence. And the thousands of Muslims in Switzerland and other countries that protested peacefully against an insult to their religion deserve our attention and respect. The dominant visual image of the Muslim world today is a burning Western flag. Ultimately, the causes of this travesty are the product of incompetent governance and the elimination of all moderate dissent. The goal should not be a ban in the West on anything that might insult anyone, but a day when the free press of Iran can satirize the Holocaust, when the opposition party of Palestine can advocate fundamentalist Islamic law and when the world's next Richard Pryor is from Baghdad. This day is far off, but blaming the West for the crisis will not bring it any closer. Ben Buckman, a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences, is a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. He can be reached at [email protected].