The verbal assault on Islam

What is the obligation of a Western, democratic government to protect individual freedoms in light of a realistic terrorist threat? Are the producers of South Park right to forfeit their freedom of expression in the interests of protecting their employees? Are the governments of Europe right to ban burqas in the interest of fostering a more open society?

It is disingenuous to talk about individual cases of mockery of Islam and Islamic symbols purely in the context of the right to freedom of expression. Every nasty episode designed to deliberately insult and mock Islam and its symbols, even as Western powers occupy Muslim lands, must be seen in the global political context. The verbal assault on Islam can be seen as an extension of the military assault that is waged everyday in Afghanistan and Palestine, and the legal assault that deprives Muslims of the right to free expression. Words and cartoons can be hate crimes too.

The West has a long history of waging military crusades and systematic demonization of Islam, always in synchrony, so masterfully exposed in the late Edward Said’s classic “Orientalism.” Malice against Islam is a cultural feature of the West no amount of levity can camouflage it.

It is also disingenuous to talk about sleazy shows whose primary motive is to make money in the same vein as one would talk about serious discourses. Mockery for profiteering is not social criticism.

Demonization and mockery of Islam by media and preachers has created a sense of cultural seize in the minds of Muslims everywhere and has made them less open to responding thoughtfully to serious criticism undermining efforts and hopes for much need reform.

The West continues to brag about its culture of freedom of expression and uses it as an excuse to mock Islam. We Muslims know on the other hand that the West too has its sacred cows. In Europe you cannot deny the Holocaust. In the U.S. you dare not criticize Israel. Try questioning the competence of the U.S. military or mocking them and see what happens to your editorial or political career.

Even as the West brags about the values of freedom of expression it continues to ban religious expression. The Burqa is banned, the minarets are banned, books are banned and even political discourse is banned (in UK if it can be interpreted as valorizing terrorism). Again and again, the West reminds us that when Western cultural identity and symbols are threatened it will not hesitate to curb the religious expression of Muslims.

The obsession with the Burqa in France and other places is exemplary of the Islamic fetish that the West in general has developed. According to French intelligence sources less than 400 Muslim women wear this garment in France, which is seen as the kryptonite of the entire Western civilization. Yet it merited a national debate. Now it is banned in public spaces in Belgium. What next banned from TV?

As long as Western democracies limit Muslim expression, their defense of mockery of Islam as a right to freedom of speech will appear hypocritical. And it is. I chose not to make any distinction between Western countries in this essay primarily because the narrative on the western narrative on Islam is global.

Then there is the issue of power. Muslims in the West are by and large marginalized and disempowered, unable to defend their rights. Unlike other communities who can destroy their public critics through sheer power, Muslims often do not have the resources to use the “legitimate” tactics available to destroy their discursive enemies.

When and if Muslims develop the political and economic clout to destroy the careers of editors, film producers, and politicians, then Muslim leaders too will become big advocates of freedom of expression in public while they riot invisibly wreaking havoc on the careers of those who criticize Islam.

Freedom of expression in the United States is controlled by the private sector. In the Muslim World it is controlled by the State. But because the private sector is ubiquitous, it can be more devastating, more pernicious, less visible, but more effective.

Mocking Muhammad, or the Qur’an or Islam, does little to advance western civilization. It merely makes Muslims angry and underscores the presence of deep prejudice and Islamophobia in the US. The publishing of cartoons mocking Muhammad (pbuh) in Denmark did not advance Western culture in Europe. It has retarded further since then. Now there is a state sponsored censor on clothes in the Public Square and referendums on architecture!

As far as Western governments are concerned, they do have an obligation to act in the overall interest of all their citizens. They have curtailed many civil liberties, reduced the standards of habeas corpus significantly and profiled Muslims legally all in the name of combating terrorist threats. Muslims, even those who are engaged in the struggle against extremism, live like second-class citizens. They are victims of the war on terror and its attended measures.

If the threat of terrorism can be used to curtail civil liberties, why cannot it also justify putting limits on the right to mock Muhammad? Will we rather fight multiple wars, and even eliminate habeas corpus from our judicial philosophy (which is like war on ones own citizens), but not abstain from mocking Islam?