Islam and Cultural Terrorism

The distribution via the Internet of the pseudo-film “Innocence of Muslims” in the United States, parodying the prophet Muhammad, has generated, as we have seen, a wave of protests in the Arabic and Muslim world, which ended this past Tuesday, September 11, with the lamentable assassination of the U.S. ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens.

This film unleashed the fury of various Islamic groups in more than 30 countries, an unusual and surprising event in recent history. Protests of repudiation have been particularly powerful in Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, India, Lebanon and Tunisia. In each country the situation is different; it seems the protests, though substantial, have not been major in all countries. Generalizations should not be made; each country has been subject to different circumstances, from the organized soccer supporters, as in Egypt, where street brawls have figured prominently, to the precise planning of paramilitary groups which ultimately cut short the U.S. ambassador’s life.

This has resulted in a profound alarm in the West in the face of such widespread resentment. The most violent protests have occurred in countries with a recent history of dictatorial regimes, of popular rebellions where there have been direct or indirect interventions by the United States. However, the alarmist treatment in the Western press is worrisome where it takes on an Islamophobic rhetoric. Western media reaction has encouraged the reactivation of neo-Nazi groups against Turkish immigrants in Germany, racism in the Protestant fundamentalist right in the U.S. and even the sensitivity of French ultraliberalism. The governments in these countries have intervened to moderate the latent reactions in the West, such as calling on Reverend Terry Jones of Florida to lessen his provocative attitude.

Expressions like “Islamic fury,” “wrath of Muhammad” and “Muslim world” run the risk of changing into prejudicial, racist and discriminatory expressions. Are we really facing a religious conflict where a handful of fanatics cry out for blood vengeance for having their religious sentiments attacked? The current phenomenon is complex; it has many edges and can provoke a hasty analysis. For many, radical Islam, which came into view in the ‘80s with the Ayatollah Khomeini in the Shah’s Iran, is already established now in the 21st century and deeply rooted in the political scenarios of many Muslim countries.

Then the recent Arab Spring toppled authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, making vacuums of power that have been filled by radical Muslim political groups, such as factions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Salafism that has notoriously grown, expanding in the Middle East. Dr. Esther Shabot Cohen, an international policy specialist of that region, points to an interesting paradox: The United States, which has supported Arab countries such as Libya in getting rid of anachronistic dictatorships, now only months afterward, itself suffers from the grave insults, repudiation and violence of Muslim peoples. Independently of the stigmatization of Americans in the region, it must attend to a power struggle and rearrangements facing new political circumstances in which radical groups have gained ground.

However, as Hernán Taboada, a specialist in Islamic issues, has said, the future belongs to the moderate Muslim movements — not to the terrorists — and I see the fracture of these radical currents in the very near future. It is because of this that we tell ourselves more than a few Muslims feel incredibly offended as much by the appalling film “Innocence of Muslims” as by the hijacked representative group, which the Islamists or Salafists have taken over to speak in their name.

Economic and social modernization is not producing a universal civilization or a Westernizing of non-Western societies. So-called globalization is failing in its intent; on the contrary, it has also provoked the reaffirmation of local identities and the reappearance of ancient cultures. Samuel Huntington, in his book “The Clash of Civilizations” (1996), shows that after the Cold War conflicts have ceased being predominantly ideological and economic in order to give way to tensions of civilizations. These tensions go through the rejection of everything Western and bring about a return to indigenous cultural origins: customs, regionalisms, folklore and religions that underpin identities. This is the breeding ground for the reappearance of religious fundamentalism. However, religious radicalism is not exclusive to Muslims.

Fundamentalism has reappeared in Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism and Buddhism. It has to do not only with the literal interpretation of sacred texts, like the Torah, the Bible or the Quran, nor only coarse conservative traditionalism. Religious fundamentalism is the expression or the reflection of deep ultra-conservative cultural political movements that aspire to impose a social, political and civilizing plan, combining moralism, traditionalism and intransigence. Neo-fundamentalist movements are not completely religious; they use religion as a justification and foundation for political plans. That is why Muslim frustration in the face of the supposed Western provocations which, squandering liberties, make fun of Islamic iconophobia need to be viewed calmly. In the two months before the presidential election in the United States, Islamic aversions at the international level could have a bearing on the spirit of the electorate. This seems to have been the bet of the far Christian right and of the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. They wish to destabilize Barack Obama’s campaign through a conflict with radical Muslims.

One must keep betting on true tolerance, which is the opening to plurality; it is respect for and sensitivity to differences; the current challenge is not to allow religion to be dragged as the banner of extreme conservative plans. The right to legitimate pluralism should be made culturally fundamental, rejecting physical, cultural and intellectual violence as a means of imposition. I am sure that the majority of Muslims, without naive rhetoric, have it in their hearts.