|
Please smile while under the boot
The self-righteous arrogance with which the West feigns shock at
Muslim reactions to humiliation reveals how deeply the colonial
attitude runs in the Occident
By Mulham Assir
03/05/06 "Al-Ahram"
-- -- Not only have the whites been guilty of
being on the offensive, but by some skilful manoeuvres, they have
managed to control the responses of the blacks to the provocation.
Not only have they kicked the black, but they have also told him how
to react to the kick... He is now beginning to show signs that it is
his right and duty to respond to the kick in the way he sees fit."
-- Steve Biko, freedom fighter against Apartheid, killed while under
police arrest.
The Western world -- commonly referred to in its own media as the "civilised
world" (CW) -- has been shocked by the anti-Islamic cartoons
debacle. Well, not exactly shocked by the cartoons, but by the
Muslim world's reaction to them. The cartoons represent a simple
exercise in free speech by the artists who created them, do they
not? Not quite. Not so much a spontaneous expression of free speech
as a command performance: the cartoons had been commissioned with
what seems to be a deliberate intent to provoke.
Many opinion pieces -- "civilised" opinion pieces that is -- remind
us by way of contrast of the open-mindedness with which Christians
are willing to mock their own religious icons and do so freely. That
is the proper and -- pardon the repetition -- "civilised" way to
react. After all, can one be civilised and object to free speech? It
is true that these symbols are a bit shop-worn and the aura of
inviolability that used to surround them has thinned as new symbols
worthy of worship and taboo protection have emerged, like the
Holocaust dogma. Free speech clearly has its restrictions: there are
several people at this very moment in the CW's prisons for
questioning the literal dogma of the Holocaust.
Beyond the gratuitous, bigoted insult, the cartoons specifically
equate Islam with terrorism (the Prophet shown wearing a bomb with a
lit fuse as a turban) and also ascribe resistance to the occupation
of Islamic nations to "Islamic fundamentalism" (toting the old "99
virgins" Zionist misrepresentation of the purpose of the Palestinian
struggle). Nonetheless, these notions do not shock a Western
audience that has been systematically exposed to anti-Arab and
anti-Islamic bashing for decades; a campaign exacerbated after the
little American holocaust, "9/11".
Demonisation of Islam and the "clash of civilisations" supposedly
instigated by Islam are propaganda measures meant to choke off
inquiry into the causes of Muslim anger. President Bush's commission
on public diplomacy noted in 2003 that in nine Muslim and Arab
nations only 12 per cent of respondents surveyed believed that
"Americans respect Arab/Islamic values." It recommended spending a
few million dollars on ... propaganda.
Occasional mealy-mouthed statements by President Bush -- he of the
"crusade" gaffe -- that "turro'rists" misrepresent Islam are
undercut by his highest honchos. General William Boykin,
undersecretary at the Defense Department, infamously stated publicly
that when faced with a Muslim "I knew that my God was a real God and
his was an idol" and that America's enemy was a "spiritual enemy ...
called Satan". His boss, Donald Rumsfeld, refused to condemn
Boykin's statements, claiming, "We're a free people."
They would have all cued up at the mike to condemn as "virulently
anti-Semitic" a cartoon showing, say, Moses with a Dimona diadem,
holding aloft Tables that read "Thou shall expel/imprison/kill them
and Thou shalt grab every hilltop, every village."
The Western media continue to focus precisely on what the cartoons
sought to provoke: Muslim anger. Why the riots, the violence, the
damage to property? Martin Luther King Jr, who knew a thing or two
about the topic, said that riots are the voice of the voiceless.
There is no powerful Muslim lobby to flex its muscles, to
choreograph an organised protest, to corral advertisers, to threaten
any given newspaper with financial ruin, much less to use the levers
of government to demand the world's vigilance against the grave
danger of anti-Islamism (the phrase anti-Semitism cannot be used by
other Semites; it is occupied lexical territory).
There is, however, another kind of Muslim reaction in the CW: the
repeated walk to Canossa of "Muslim community leaders" who are
expected to publicly repudiate every incident of "Muslim violence"
on the planet. They are what might be called "Muslims on parole".
They express regret, disavow "terrorism" (the freelance variety, not
state terrorism, which is a civilised necessity leading to
democracy) and actually attempt to explain Islam to the viewer. It
is a debasing exercise that serves to enhance the Western audience's
perception that religion is the root problem; almost never does it
touch on the real causes of anger among the millions who happen to
be Muslim: oppression, humiliation, demonisation, occupation,
expropriation of land and resources, ethnic cleansing, colonialism.
The ignorant arrogance, bigotry and immorality of the Islam bashers
should not be downplayed but the propaganda that sustains it from
the top cannot dissimulate the fact that the Western world's clash
is not truly with Islam. The CW will clash with any people who: (1)
inhabit a land rich in vital natural resources, notably oil, or
coveted by land grabbers, or deemed a suitable strategic bridge for
world domination; (2) reject so-called civilisers even when they
bring the "democracy" gift; (3) have the temerity to contemplate
trading in euros instead of dollars. Such people cannot avoid
entering a collision course with the CW. They may be Catholic for
all the good it does them. Ask Chavez of Venezuela. He also refuses
to react properly when being kicked.
How Muslim of him!
* The writer is a Lebanese political commentator.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Click below to post a comment on this article
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
