By Jamal Khashoggi
 |
| Khartoum protest from The Guardian |
The author is a leading Saudi media figure and one-time
editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily al-Watan. He served as media aide to Prince
Turki bin Faisal Al Saud while he was ambassador to the United Kingdom and to
the United States. He has been named by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud to
head his upcoming AlArab TV news channel. Khashoggi wrote this think piece in Arabic for today’s edition
of pan-Arab al-Hayat.
I just finished viewing on YouTube
the longish trailer for the movie “Innocence of Muslims,”
which is overtly insulting to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and thus caused outrage
and waves of violent protests in the Muslim world.
May God forgive whoever tweeted me
the link to the trailer on YouTube in the hope I could intervene to have it
removed. I wish he didn’t.
In a way, he was inducing viewing of
the trailer, much as did the ignorant and dimwits who attacked U.S. embassies
in Cairo, Benghazi and elsewhere.
I was extremely angered – or rather disgusted
– by the film excerpts. I didn’t think insolence could push anyone on the face
of this earth to be so abusive to God’s Messenger and my beloved Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH).
Nevertheless, I won’t join or support
calls for any uncontrolled protest, let alone attack an American embassy.
On the contrary, because of my fervent
commitment to the beloved Messenger of Allah and his teachings, I urge that all
assailants of the foreign embassies and those behind them be severely punished.
We, Muslims, must have the courage to
condemn our people’s crime before condemning the crime of our enemies.
Surely, the film is neither the first
of its kind, nor the last. A researcher can write a doctoral thesis on the
history of abuses by Jewish and Christian individuals against Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH).
Islam grappled with Judaism and
Christianity – more precisely, with leaders of the two faiths – straightaway. But
followers of the two religions deemed budding Islam to be exceptionally
tolerant in victory, leading many of them to convert to the Muslim faith.
That’s how Islam spread across Bilad al-Sham, Iraq,
Egypt and the rest of North Africa.
The continued existence of Christian
communities in such a Muslim expanse attests to Islam’s tolerance. Had Islam spread
by coercive conversion, an exodus of non-Muslims would have ensued.
The opposite happened in Spain in the late 15th
Century, when the victorious Christians offered Muslims the choice of
baptism or exile.
The historical face-off that lasted
14 centuries, and was both military and cultural, took twists with attacks on
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in books, essays and poems, starting with the Critique of Islam
by monk John of
Damascus, who died in 749.
John of Damascus’ “critique” derided God’s
Messenger as a false prophet and impersonator who plagiarized from the New
Testament and the Torah. Much of the venom in his writings is repeated in the
film.
Strained relations between Islam and
Christianity lasted from the Siege of Damascus
in 634 until 9/11 in 2001, if not until this day.
Many in our ranks and in theirs refuse
to acknowledge changes in history and the human race. But tackling this complex
philosophical issue requires a book, not an article, to address.
The torrents of abuse against Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) – at times on official papal directives and at others by
overzealous fundamentalist monks – were non-stop.
Even enlightened people fell into the
Islamophobia trap, people like “reformer” Martin Luther, who led
the most renowned disputation movement in Christianity, and Dante, the Italian who
disparaged Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in his epic poem The Divine Comedy.
In the 9th Century, Christian
activists such as the Martyrs of Cordoba
and the “suicides
of Andalusia”, insisted on slandering God’s Messenger in public even at the
risk of being executed.
This went on unabated until modern
times – with The Satanic
Verses of Salman Rushdie, the Danish
cartoons controversy, the film “Submission” by Somali-born
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and to cap it all the new film “Innocence of Muslims.”
I reiterate: the vilifiers won’t stop.
Modern day works -- donning the
Western cloak of “freedom of expression” – have also defamed Christian and
Jewish sanctities, save for the Holocaust. The Holocaust is protected from any misgiving
by “laws” smartly introduced by Jews and approved by legislative bodies across the
Western world.
The issue of denigrating Islam is not
one of creativity and freedom of expression. Most works critical of Islam are politically
motivated.
While there is no more a pope at the
Vatican directing a monk to write a book satirizing the morality or personality
of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there is a conservative far-Right that detests
foreigners and emigrants and encourages such works.
The latest film is a point in case.
It is the brainchild of an alliance
that brought together an Israeli filmmaker, an American producer and extremist
Coptic scriptwriters.
Those who put the film together are
not innocent. They too have their political agenda. Their unholy alliance to
cram the film with unparalleled bad-mouthing of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) knew
exactly what they were doing. They deliberately made the film to evoke the
reaction they intended.
The other side to the saga concerns
the conservative far-Right Muslims, who also hate foreigners and followers of
the other religions and sects. They too abhor openness and forgiveness, even
within their own societies.
Theirs is a strange mix of cultural,
religious and ethnic bigots bent on violence and the use of force. Al-Qaeda
represents some of their lot; hence its flag on the perimeters of the U.S. embassy
in Cairo last Tuesday.
Politicians in the West often find it
difficult to cope with their extremist groups. They can pass laws to restrict
or ban them, such as in the case of the Nazi movement. But, in other instances,
these politicians find themselves in a situation where they have to cajole
national and legitimate far-Right movements, such as France’s National Front.
In his effort to capture the
far-Right National Front vote in the presidential runoffs, for example, former
President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to get tough on immigration and security. But
National Front leader Marine Le Pen’s followers refused to back him.
Our Arab politicians, chiefly in the
Arab Spring countries, are repeating Sarkozy’s error by cozying up to
extremists in the hope of winning their votes or avoiding their evil.
Either way, the extremists will end
up turning against them and biting the hand that feeds them. It’s what they did
to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi last Tuesday and to other Arab leaders who
thought they could “Dance with Wolves.”
