Engines of Islamic Violence

The Islamists’ turn against the U.S., through recent attacks on its embassies and consulates in countries where it provided full support for Islamists, puts the U.S. administration in a spiral “shock.” This is evident in the remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who considered the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi a discourteous response to all the U.S. has done to liberate the Libyans from Gadhafi’s dictatorship.

In fact, this shock is not the first slap to the U.S. administration after supporting the Islamists. The U.S. had previously supported former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan during the U.S. war against the Soviet Union. It is true that the results of the second shock came earlier than the first, but this may be for the benefit of the U.S. administration, which wore the mantle of the Arab Spring and started to shuffle leadership — as in a game of chess — only to discover early on that its hopes and ambitions would not come to fruition. The closest description of the situation, with apologies to the readers, is the cliché: “Starve your dog, it will follow you obediently; feed it well, it will eat you.” Undoubtedly, this is what actually happened for the second time — an omen for the dark future looming with slogans that are, on the surface, full of optimism for a more beautiful future for the people, but in reality, a game hatched for specific purposes, in which the Arab people will be the victims. This is evident from the fact that the U.S. administration did not contemplate intervening in the bloody situation in Syria, as it did in Libya, because it has no direct interests in Syria.

The raging reactions in the Arab and Islamic worlds caused by the film ridiculing our Prophet — peace and blessings be upon him — have been manifested in a wide range. Some were rational, peaceful and legitimate objections in the form of sit-ins, demonstrations and writings of condemnation. But other reactions went beyond peaceful expressions; they involved murders and assaults. Nevertheless, I am certain that such acts of violence are more offending to our gracious Prophet than that film, which I only heard about and did not watch, as my nerves could not bear to watch scenes offending my beloved Prophet. Still, I followed the sequence of events and reactions.

Our Prophet — peace and blessings be upon him — was accustomed to ridicule; he counteracted it with clemency and tolerance. Further, he did not complain to his companions or instruct them to harm those who had harmed him. His companions were the ones closer to him and willing to sacrifice themselves for his protection. We have great love for him in our hearts although we have not seen him personally, and this makes one wonder: How great was the love of his companions and family? Consequently, the expression of the Prophet’s love can only be sought by following in his moral example and way of life.

I shall revert to the American policy in the Middle East and its need for many changes to adapt to the Arab mind, which albeit its limitations, has begun to change due to the geopolitical scene in the region. This change does not mean that the Arab mind has progressed or that it has begun to think differently — that is hard to imagine during this stage of restructuring. Nonetheless, one should bear in mind that the rampant violence that spreads in the name of Islam has “well-known” engines behind it, and names that are still topping platforms and media outlets frolicking unchecked and unconstrained by any law criminalizing violence advocates. Ultimately, the victims of all of this violence are the Arab people and the religion of Islam, in whose name all these abuses are carried out.

May God transcend our religion over what they do!