Rather, there must be another explanation for the forces that might be at play in the minds of people who would resort to such desperate measures to assert their opinions. This is especially true since this sort of behavior has historical precedence among any people who have been, or have perceived that they were, under heavy pressures socially, economically, militarily, and spiritually. Witness revolution, a global phenomenon (and one, that I might add, that has been less bloody in the Middle East than elsewhere).
What is happening now is that the proverbial camel's back is breaking, the last straw is being drawn. The context of historical humiliation, both foreign and domestically perpetrated, is perhaps the prime explanation for these events. It is desperation that drives people to do desperate things, and because in the United States and Europe (no matter how difficult our lives may be) we have never known the desperation that is commonplace in many parts of the world, particularly in many predominantly Muslim countries whose dictators and kings are propped up by support, military and otherwise, from our countries.
In their view, we are championing and parading our freedoms about with one voice, and we are extinguishing their hopes for a better future with another. To them, it must be like we are eating a huge meal in front of a starving person, and then throwing away the leftovers to the dogs right in front of them.
With a deep history of subjugation, it is no surprise that Middle Eastern peoples view the "West" with much suspicion. They have seen mild-mannered and soft-spoken men speak eloquently about colonization in the name of "development", and then proceed to move their armies in to do as they please. Yes, it all ended half a century ago, but I think we underestimate how deep that wound runs, and how little a chance it has had to heal.
In the United States, we have never been subjected to foreign occupation. We do not know what it is like. I was living in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War. I watched the city of Al-Khobar go from a quiet, orderly, clean, coastal city going about its daily business to a chaotic and tense city overrun by American soldiers. They came with no knowledge of how to behave in the country and little sensitivity to its customs. They started fights with people in shops and restaurants and became the de facto police. They were on every street corner with their fatigues, humvees, and weapons at the ready. Yet this was not occupation; they were there to protect us. The soldiers weren't afraid of a ground attack, only of Hussein's scud missiles. So, what I was feeling must be magnified a hundred-fold in order to be able to understand true occupation and how Middle-Easterners perceive the current occupation of their lands. No amount of assurances can allay the suspense and apprehension that must pervade the public's feelings about what might happen next.
The Palestinian issue is another sore that festers in the heart of the Middle East, and while we transiently gaze in its direction when it comes on TV, they see its effects and think about it every day. And they see things on their TV stations that we never see (though the European satellite stations offer more full coverage of the situation). They are constantly bombarded with heart-rending images and statistics; I've seen them myself and by the end of every brief visit to the region, I myself become a little bitter at the apparent hopelessness of the situation. You would have to be heartless not to be affected.
These pains are all compounded by the constant state of relative oppression under which the majority of Middle Easterners live. Dictators, presidents-for-life, monarchs, and politicians all participate in large scale distortion of information to deflect people's animosity away from rampant domestic corruption and injustice and towards what is portrayed as the constant barrage of humiliation that the West-- and Israel-- export. Compounded with the inability to express anger towards their rulers and practically a free pass to do so against anyone else, people will rage against whomever they can.
The scene is set, so when newspaper editors snub their noses at 1.3 billion people in the name of "freedom of speech," it is difficult to justify the wisdom of such a move given current tensions. I've seen the cartoons and they are offensive, yes, and reminiscent of other kinds of ignorant hateful propaganda that we've seen against other marginalized and demonized groups, but because of that they are not novel. They certainly do not warrant any kind of heated response, hence the shock and deprecating amazement with which Europe views the response.
Still, the majority of this response was peaceful. Boycotts, demonstrations, a lot of letter writing, editorializing, prayer and moping. But 1.29999999 billion people praying and moping does not make a lot of noise. A few hundred angry people rioting and burning, either in desperation to have their voices heard under stifling conditions or egged on by malicious forces eager to hijack the religion for their own political gains, makes a lot of noise indeed, and our media feast on it (Plus the heat doesn't help either! After an afternoon in the Cairo sun, I'm ready to snap at the poor guy who gets my falafel order wrong!)
To think that this sort of thing is typical of Muslims or is sanctioned by Islam is simply false. The violence, especially that exemplified in indiscriminate killing, so recently associated with Islam, is a modern innovation. It is a phenomenon borrowed from modern militant nihilistic resistance movements and kamikaze tactics. Why else would someone who professes to believe so strongly in a faith that so values the sanctity of every life including his own be so driven as to violate so grave a sanctity with heinous crimes?
This is nihilism--the ultimate expression of despair--in disguise. In such crimes, we see utter despair combined with a lack of education and the political will to distort a religion with a deep history of tolerance and indeed gifts to humanity with material gain and lust in the hereafter-- which are ridiculous and unacceptable and Muslims must and do condemn this ideology. No, this is neither from the religion, nor is it sanctioned by it in any reading, modern or pre-modern. The Muslim prophet himself warned his followers about extremism. It is certainly a blemish on this religion upon which history will not look kindly.
To me, a debate on whether or not Islam is "compatible" with democracy is puzzling. “Government” in Islam is based on the consent of the governed. Most Muslims and non-Muslims in the Middle East are not governed by consent so naturally they are bitter. An important tenet of the religion, in chapter 2 of the Quran, reads, "There is no compulsion in religion."
God deals with transgressors. Everywhere in the Quran, the instruction to the Prophet is that he was but a messenger, and his duty stopped there. The question in my mind is, is Western democracy ready to deal with Islam?
« return.