These are uncertain times for the Muslim world, when a lot of things seem suddenly possible. It’s one of those moments in a community’s life when more than one future is possible. These are the times so memorably described by Charles Dickens: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” when the “spring of hope” battles with the “winter of despair”.
The coincidentally well-named Arab Spring is shaking the foundations of the Arab world in ways unthinkable before. For the first time since World War II important sections of Arab society are experiencing the heady rush of liberation from old and repressive military regimes led by deeply corrupt cabals of generals and their civilian hangers-on. Ordinary people are also grappling with the intricacies of popular rule and a way of life that could leave every aspect of their lives, including religion, open to discussion.
In most parts of the Muslim world religion has a place beyond question. Debate and discourse do take place but within strict boundaries that can’t be crossed. In some countries, the Book, as the Quran is called, is the law. Every aspect of life is subject to its rulings and there can be no appeal. Blasphemy is often a capital crime, even in an elective society such as Pakistan. So, as a whole, Muslim societies do not appear to encourage questions about faith. A separation of religious life from the civil is a non-starter.
The consequences of crossing the boundaries can be gauged from two events in the last 30 years. The first was The Satanic Verses by India-born writer Salman Rushdie in 1988, and the second was the lampoon of the Prophet Mohammad by Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergard, carried in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Both sparked a worldwide explosion of anger at the “blasphemy” committed by the respective authors and led to protests, violent demonstrations and killings in many countries.
The reaction to these two incidents provides a sort of backdrop to the case of the anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims, which has provoked the same sort of reaction across the Islamic world. The film was apparently first put up on the Internet site YouTube sometime last July.
It was made somewhere in southern California in the last year or so by a Coptic Christian immigrant from Egypt living near Los Angeles, who has used multiple aliases in the past. He called himself Sam Bacile. His real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
The movie is obviously made on an extremely low budget, given the poor quality of production. It purports to be a satire on the life of the Prophet, showing him in an extremely unflattering light. To a non-Muslim it would be offensive, but it’s more schoolboy smut than serious criticism. The reactions, starting in the first week of September, have spread across the world taking dozens of innocent lives in their wake. To an outsider it appears excessive.
To explain by way of example, Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ paints an extremely offensive portrait of the Jews of Jesus’ times. It’s a calculated attempt to show them as one-dimensional villains and led to loud protests in the United States and elsewhere. A lot of religious figures, both Christian and Jewish, condemned it for its unfeeling propagation of the myths about Jews. While protesters demonstrated in many countries, there were no deaths or injuries, nor any death threats to Gibson or any of the film crew.
One of the peculiar truths of western society is the proliferation of works that question the historical basis of faith. In the last 200 years, this may be the principal reason for the declining influence of religion in public life. It’s a recognition that the spirit of rational enquiry cannot be limited by religious diktat. So, while there’s no shortage of devout Christians in the US and other countries, the law does not protect faith. Most religious communities accept this limit, if grudgingly. Innocence doesn’t fit this category but under US law it does qualify for free speech protections. In the same way, while there’s no doubt Innocence is the work of Islamic hate mongers, there’s little the legal system can do.
Every Muslim is clear that the Prophet was a man. In his lifetime he was subject to both abuse and humiliation from his detractors. Innocence surely belongs to that class and perhaps should be treated the way the Prophet treated abuse, with patience and understanding rather than violence and murder.
There is another equally important consideration. If the Arab Spring is to flower into a true summer, the Muslim world will have to live with and accept the clash of ideas and opinions, especially those that give offence, as a normal part of the social fabric. By insisting on less they would be doing an injustice to their own potential as humans.