The West as a civilization would do much better if it rid itself of what can be called its “Islam complex.” This complex sees otherwise civilized Western individuals resort to semi-primitive instincts when he or she talks about Islam.
Allow me to write as an angry Muslim, not as an academician. I ask to defend “freedom of anger” as a primary component of “freedom of expression.” A Muslim has every right to be angry. We have the right to defend “freedom of anger” as the West defends freedom of expression. I am totally conscious of what I am saying, its meaning, its logical essence and how others may use it against me. But today, I am an angry Muslim and I have every right to express my anger against the arrogance of the Western elite, its disrespect of Islam and its ridiculing of what Muslims consider sacred.
Westerners are, for the most part, mindful of offending the followers of any religion or belief even if they are a minority, yet many would not hesitate to violate the sanctity of a religion whose followers exceed one billion.
I have studied the major Western philosophies, their different methodologies and aspects of civilization and can safely conclude that the politicians, university lecturers and journalists that make up the Western elite are today exhibiting the epitome of primordial instinct when they talk about Islam and Muslims.
I say this with full knowledge and awareness of my claims and also as a result of lengthy discussions on television, newspapers and at the corridors of scientific institutes. The question here is: Why are Western intellectuals rational and reasonable when they talk about virtually any topic, yet suddenly submit to their primitivity when they talk about Islam’s message and Prophet?
I was recently invited as a guest speaker at Al-Hurrah, an Arabic-speaking American channel. I was joined by another guest speaker who was the US assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor. The focus of the discussion was “freedom of expression” in the West against the sanctity of religions in the East.
The debate was carried out to ensure I was not given a chance to reply to the flurry of ignorant comments by the assistant state secretary. The point I had try to convey quite simply is that whilst there is freedom of expression in America, Muslims are in fact not free to express their anger. The program presenter feebly replied that my presence on that very platform was an exercise in freedom of speech on American television.
Of course, we were speaking in the Arabic language to the Arab and not the American or Western audience. Had I been in the US at the time, no American TV channel would host me but as a mere symbol to portray a diverse panel for the audience, stopping short of allowing guests like myself to be heard or accorded respect with regard my opinion.
Indeed, I have had the opportunity to appear on many Western TV channels. I also wrote for a prominent Western newspaper and studied at the most distinguished of Western universities. With this background, I ask once again: Why is the Western intellectual rational and reasonable on all matters except when it comes to Islam, its history and its message?
I will not begin with the assistant state secretary but with the secretary herself. If we look carefully at Hilary Clinton’s statement that the countries of the Arab Spring have shifted from dictatorship of the individual to that of the mob, we find that it embodies hateful racism. It is not a mob dictatorship when a Muslim expresses his anger over the humiliation of his religion and his prophet. It is not the dictatorship of the mob when people demonstrate in front of embassies or even throw stones at them. This is nothing more than overwhelming momentary anger. Maybe Clinton never experienced such anger because she has never been on the other side of humiliation.
There is empty talk which is repeated in the West whenever such an incident occurs. The crux of the matter is “freedom of expression.” I am not against freedom of expression in its fullest form and I can safely claim that our Qur’an and Sunnah are for freedom of expression. Whoever reads Surat Al-Kafiroun (infidels) will understand this. To me, “infidels” are not disbelievers in Islam but those who deny the ideas of others. The verse in this Surat which reads: “To you be your way, And to me mine” is a call for peaceful coexistence. Is this not the same which the American poet Robert Frost meant when he said: “good fences make good neighbors”?
The problem is that people who boast about freedom of expression are unaware of its field of use. Freedom of expression is not just an idea or a principle but more importantly, it refers to practice and applicability.
What freedom of expression do Muslims in the West have if those who portray the most dominant of stories are not Muslim and have no Islamic component among them? There is not a single mention of Islam in national stories. The views of Muslims appear on television and in newspapers only at times of crisis, then the Muslims disappear behind the curtain leaving the entire stage to non-Muslims. Where do we begin when the “structure of global debate” is designed to be unfair to the Islamic component in international dialogue?
The West often proposes issues containing racist elements such as the dialogue on Al-Hurra TV, which the assistant secretary of state has approved. One such title was “Islam and democracy are irreconcilable.” My reply, on air, was that this point of departure did not belong to the concept of intellectual dialogue but rather to a lack of manners. Islam is a religion and democracy is a system of governance. The accusation is no more relevant to a group of 10 followers than it is for a group of well over a billion people.
The only religion which is open for criticism and violation by anyone in the West, even the ignorant and futile, is Islam. Hilary Clinton and her assistants accuse us of being “mobs” just because were exasperated by the offensive film. She has been uncouth to describe Muslims as mobs.
I am not an advocator of former glory but the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not somebody of the past to us. His life is as relevant as ever to our daily discussions. The Prophet is part of our lives and souls and any humiliation to him is a humiliation to our way of life. Racism begins by mocking the lifestyle of the “other.”
Since 9/11, we often hear the West using successful Muslims in their community as an example of their tolerance and acceptance towards us. They fail to realize that they speak about us as “a commodity on display.”
In the 19th century, the khedive of Egypt went to Paris to attend an international exhibition about the East. The French accommodated the khedive in a makeshift palace built inside the exhibition. The visitors looked upon the khedive not as a visiting foreign diplomat but as an oriental exhibit.
During the 40th decade of the 19th century, Khedive Ibrahim Pasha was on a visit to Birmingham in Britain. One night, he excused his hosts to walk alone without guards in the city as a civilian. He stopped at a tent in which a big whale was being shown. One of the organizers of the show recognized him and immediately started to shout: “to all our spectators, we have a special show for you today. For the price of one ticket, you can see the whale and Ibrahim Pasha the great fighter.”
This our situation as Muslims in the West. We are just part of the exhibition of freedom of expression and democracy. We are allowed to appear on the pages of the newspapers once a month or on TV screens once a week without any voice because we are only part of the show. The West then takes credit for our presence on the show. People who deviate from mainstream narrative — women who wear the veil in Paris for instance — makes the show a failure. Every actor should remain in place lest the show fail and you see real “mobs.”
The West will rid itself of its Islam complex when it accepts Muslims as human beings and not just “others” in a show. We are an integral component to human civilization, not just an alibi used prove the goodness of the West.
Whoever studied the painting of the West, especially in the 19th century, will see a painting of a white lady being served by a black male or female servant. The aim behind the presence of black people in the picture is not for their own sake but to show the whiteness of the lady who was the center of the painting.
We are not mobs. We are not props for the West. We are a complete civilization with its grievances. Our religion is a substantial religion rooted in deep philosophy. Our religion is based on arithmetic in many ways. Whoever takes the time to delve deeper into this religion and go beyond the surface will find himself confronted by a great message that goes way beyond what is propagated through the media.
Many orientalists believe that they have come to know Islam just because they have some rudimentary knowledge of the Arabic language. Only those who know the true meanings of the language will ever be able to understand Islam.
I say to the West that you are our partners in this universe so get rid of your complexities against Islam. That would be better for us all.
n Courtesy of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper
