An anti-Islam video made by a Christian extremist Morris Sadek and posted on the YouTube with the express intention to provoke Muslims, continues to spur a wave of anti-American protests in different parts of the world. Following the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi along with three other Americans, condemnable in strongest possible terms, several protesters have died at the hands of host countries security forces trying to protect American facilities.
Whilst the video insulted the Prophet of Islam and its 1.6 billion followers, Terry Jones, a Florida pastor who first shot to notoriety back in September 2010 for staging 'burn a Quran' drama and triggering widespread riots in the Muslim world, was busy promoting September 11 as the "International Judge Mohammad Day." Obviously, America has its share of religious extremists who choose to offend another religion either out of plain religio-political hatred or to get attention.
Faith is a deeply sensitive issue and easily ignitable by anyone with an ulterior motive. Even unintended negative portrayal of religious beliefs by insiders can, and does, incite people to violent reactions. This is true of not only the Muslims but also Christians living in secular Western societies. A while ago, ie in 1988, when Martin Scorsese released his blasphemous film, which depicted Christ in an unfavourable light, it elicited loud protests. The issue did not end there. A Christian fundamentalist group threw Molotov cocktails inside a Paris theatre during the film showing, engulfing it in fire. As a result, 13 people were injured - one of whom later succumbed to his injuries.
Obama administration of course has condemned the video. In her formal comments on the subject Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." Admittedly, there is little the administration can - ie, even if it wanted - do to punish the perpetrator or to order the video's withdrawal from YouTube, as both are protected by the US law under the First Amendment that deals with freedom of expression and religion. Yet there is certainly room for debate and some sort of preventive measures.
If freedom of expression is an important democratic right, religion is a basic human right, on which the US State Department rests its right to criticise China in its annual human rights reports, accusing the country of repression of religious freedom in Tibet and Muslim populated far western province of Xinjiang. This has gone on despite the fact that religious freedom is enshrined in the Chinese constitution and the trouble Beijing has had with Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims in Xinjiang originates from politics and history rather than religion.
True, the US cannot be expected to compromise its founding principles of which freedom of expression is a vital component. True also that it is not unusual in that society for people to mock Christianity - followed by majority - or its prophet. Yet the liberty to take a critical view of the faith in which one is born is very different from denigrating other people's faith. Causing deliberate insult to anther people's religious beliefs is bigotry, which should have no place in any democratic polity. Interestingly, back in 2004, America's war monger president George W Bush signed a bill into law that authorised the State Department to rate other countries on how they treated Jews. Considering the precedent, it is not so out of line with American way of doing things when those protesting the offensive video demand curbs on deliberate attempts to demonize Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Islam.
The sense of shock in the US over the killing of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues is understandable. There can be no civilised justification whatsoever for what happened at the American Consulate in Benghazi. But self-righteous anger over the wider reaction to the inflammatory video is ill-placed. A recurring theme in Western media reporting on the rage and violence in the Middle East is that we supported the Arab Spring and "this is what we get for it!" Which is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Indeed, the Western countries helped the Libyans to oust Colonel Qadhafi's authoritarian regime, but they were equally eager to get rid of the unpredictable dictator with a long track record of hurting their own interests. Some Gulf emirates, such as Qatar, also lent a helping hand to the Libyan opposition. They certainly have little love for democracy.
Tunis where the self-immolation of a street vendor sparked the first flame of popular Arab uprisings in December 2010 came as a surprise, giving little time to interested outsiders to intervene. Within 28 days the protesters had forced their dictator Ben Ali to flee to Saudi Arabia and announce his resignation. In the case of Egypt, Middle East's traditional power centre, Washington did everything that it could to stop the surge of revolution in the name of 'orderly transition'. The people, though, wouldn't settle for anything less than a demise of the old order. They kept coming back to the Tahrir Square and other protest points in the country until elections were held and power transferred to their chosen representatives. The same policy was adopted in Yemen to stem the tide of revolution, with the result that although President Ali Abdullah Saleh is gone, his vice president is still in command. The worst example of suppression is that of Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet. As Washington looked on, its Gulf allies rushed in troops to crush the protesters demanding reform. They are all itching now to oust the Syrian regime because of its credentials, not ruthless repression.
Clearly, the Arab people owe no favours to the US and its European allies. If anything, they have much to be angry about vis-a-vis US policy towards the region: the backing for the oppressive monarchies, and support for Israel's continued occupation of Arab lands and unremitting aggression against the Palestinian people. The trigger for the ongoing fierce protests surely is the offensive video, but a contributing element seems to be wider policy related issues.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.