Home >> Middle East >> Islam

     Email   Print 

Vandalism in the name of Islam

Manuela Paraipan - 3/14/2006

Many things have been said and written about the cartoon controversy. By now most of us know how it started with the 12 cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed which first appeared in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, last year, in September. The extremist Imam Ahmed Abu Laban brought a dossier of cartoons to Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia and sent word in all the other Arab and Muslim countries about what he had considered as an insult of the West towards Islam.

To make sure that his actions will indeed harm the reputation of Denmark and that of the Western culture, as a whole, he has included in the dossier three caricatures that have never been published in Denmark or elsewhere in the world for that matter, nor have they been drawn by a Danish caricaturist, one calling the Prophet a child molester, one showing him with a pig's face and another showing a kneeling Muslim at prayer – presumptively, Prophet Mohammed – being raped by a dog. Adding such cartoons has put fuel to the feelings of hate of some of the Muslim clergy infamous representatives all over the near and far East. That led to violent protests in Europe, and in the Muslim and Arab countries. As in most cases, the Muslim world ignored the apologies, and reacted disproportional, by burning flags, buildings, and by carrying placards with outrageous messages like, 'hell with democracy', and 'behead those who insult Islam.'

I have always considered the caricatures as a form of satire; often it mocks our hypocrisy, ignorance or naiveté, in various matters. It is not meant to offend our principles or our values as humans, it is rather a manner of pointing out our wrong doings, so that next time, we think twice before acting. One may not approve the message of the caricatures, but that could have been easily condemned and dismissed without violence and without threats. The fact that the threats were proffered in the name of Islam, made it all more serious and much more dangerous.

I have been asking myself at the moment of the riots why did not Abu Laban and those who share his beliefs issue statements stating the reasons why they feel so offended and ask for a more open and profound national, and international dialogue between East and West, between Christianias and Muslims, instead of resorting to menaces, and terrible vandalism. While I can understand, accept and respect the cultural and religious diversity, I cannot help but asking, can the Muslims do the very same thing?

Moreover, isn't it ironic that the same Muslims, who were rebelling against the West's freedom of speech and expression, are champions of anti-Jews and anti-western cartoons for years? Yet, I have not seen the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, or others acting the way they did. There are limits, even to the so much glorified cultural diversification, which we now see that it did not bring us anything good. We should take a firm stand in this war of survival against a culture bent on destroying freedom and democracy. Anything less is a guarantee of failure of the modern and democratic society the way we know it.

Of course, not every Muslim is a fanatic or terrorist. Probably some did not agree with the mob vandalism that took place in Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Indonesia, and in some of the EU countries. The major problem is that these moderates are often silent. As I see it, it is one of the three: they couldn't care less about the fact that some of their owns are frequently looking for excuses to attack the West (verbally or otherwise); they fear their co-religionists as much as the rest of us do, or deep down they share the very same feelings, just that their actions would be better organized and they would try to show the Occident a Muslim way of politically correctness. The moderates should seriously question the terrorism committed in the name of Islamic values. The consequences of silence are as bad as those of violence, no doubt about it.

I remember reading not so long time ago the words of priest Martin Niemoller, from the Holocaust era: "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." The world, is not all in black and white, but that should no foolish us thinking that it is no danger when a religion of nearly a quarter of the world's population is promoting hatred, and violence and when its believers behead people in the name of their Prophet, shouting Allahu Akbar, or God is great.

The radical Islam has learned to use Occident's language and socio-political and economical system to its advantage, using words like "freedom", "democracy", "liberation", "peace", "co-existence" to paint their terrorist, murderous and tyrannical practices against their own people and the rest of the world. While the Muslims among us are using our cards to put us to the ground, some of the Westerns intellectuals are astonishingly trying to translate "terrorism", "murders" and "tyranny" with "freedom fighting", "militant actions" and "democracy". It is a mistake that will eventually cost us dearly. Militant Islam cannot and does not want to co-exist with democracy and liberty the way we define it.

But, is there such a thing as a moderate Islam? Dr. Waheed, spokesman for Hizb Ut Tahrir in UK, said that the West came up with this nonsense, of dividing the Islamic religion into moderate Islam and radical or militant Islam. In effect, he says there is only one Islam. In this case, what others and I call moderate Islamists are Muslims in a latent phase waiting for a thumb up to act. As a matter of consequence, Islam is a religion of conquering, subjugating and eventually murdering the infidels, non-Muslims and even Muslims who dare speak against its primitivism. Not a very reassuring thought, isn't it?

The teachings of the Old Testament look as very suitable here - peace for peace, war for war, and no moderation in between. It is true that violence breads violence, but accepting violence from one side, means the annihilation of the other. We neither need, nor want to be under the ruling of an Islamic Caliphate.