"Innocence of Muslims" is Not Just an Insult to Free Speech, it is an Act of War

The recent production of the movie "Innocence of Muslims" in which the Prophet of Islam -Muhammad- is portrayed savagely and insultingly is not the first incident of it's kind; unfortunately nor will it be the last. But the ensuing rage of the Muslim community worldwide that followed the propagation of this film once more flags and highlights the importance of understanding the situation. Instead of bluntly branding the anger as "extremist" Muslim behavior against free speech, one should ponder how and why more than a billion people in the world are enraged.

It seems justified to try and understand the situation as an offended Muslim would see it. The following points are just some that come to mind, in the broader context -not just about this particular incident, but generally how a Muslim would feel when his/her Prophet is insulted whether it be through cartoons (as in Denmark a few years ago) or a film or in any other manner:

1. Islam is NOT against scholarly free speech. In fact, quite the opposite. It is common practice for Muslim scholars and Mullahs in Islamic institutions (such as the holy city of Qom in Iran) to have a civilized and scholarly discourse regarding questions, objections, and condemnations that might have arisen about their Prophet anywhere in the world. So long as the conversation is free of deliberate provocation and insults, Muslims are very open to arguments. The concept of gaining knowledge through discourse and scholarly disagreement is not only welcomed in Islam, but even actively promoted in Islamic tradition. This is easily verifiable -all you need to do is search the internet for countless academic discourses that are underway between Muslim scholars and those who refute them, without any ensuing violence or outrage.

2. The love of Prophet Muhammad in Islam is insurmountable. Everyday, as part of the prayers that each Muslim individual must preform, the sentence "Peace (and Blessings of Allah) be upon you Oh Prophet" is repeated at least five times. The prophet is so respected that it is very rare for anyone in Islamic countries to refer to him as plain "Muhammad" without following his name with the phrase "peace be upon him and his (beloved) family". Depicting the prophet -even if it is with the holiest of figures- is not permitted. Let alone insulting him.

3. 'Deliberately insulting' the prophet is very different than questioning him through free speech. Even if the insult is done unknowingly, ignorantly, or inadvertently, there would be no such outrage. Those who have insulted the Prophet could easily issue a statement saying that they are sorry and have repented -the outrage would simply die down. However instead of apologizing for their actions, those who have provocatively insulted the Prophet are full-heartedly reaffirming their stance. [interestingly  Muslims are even more open to the apologies of foreigners than the apology of a Muslim or someone who is born into Islam (as in the case of Salman Rushdie). This might be because they think a Muslim should know better than to insult the prophet in the first place; and that someone from a different background and another belief system can be dealt with much more leniently].

4. To a devout Muslim, 'deliberately insulting' Muhammad is much worse than killing him. This is not an exercise of free speech, it is an act of war. When US officials state that "there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable" they simply don't understand the severity of the situation. In her religion, culture, and society the US official which makes such a statement has simply never felt (or seen anyone feel) the level of compassion and devotion that Muslims feel towards their prophet; therefore the reaction is incomprehensible for her.

To more than a billion people in the world, there is no argument over "free speech" here; it is bluntly an act of war.

Iran DOES NOT love Israel

There has been a lot of buzz online during the past several days regarding a Facebook page called "Israel-Loves-Iran". Currently, after about 2-weeks since its creation, the community has about 50,000 followers (which could be considered a lukewarm following at best compared to other viral internet sensations). The page claims that it is dedicated to bringing the "people" of the two countries closer together and spreading love and peace.

Soon after the above-mentioned page was created, a page entitled “Iran-Loves-Israel” was reciprocally initiated with a current following of approximately 12,000 people. By going through the list of its members, one can see many of those who have joined the page, are not even Iranians. Nonetheless, even if we assume that all the members of the page are Iranian citizens, this is not a significant number and does not even account for 1 percent of Iranian Facebook users.

Reading through the various articles written by western analysts, one can see anxious attempts at justifying this mediocre number and making it appear as if it is significant. They argue that since not many Iranians have access to Facebook, and that they are afraid that intelligence agencies within Iran might cause them trouble if they join such a group, hence the numbers are this low. The weakness of this logic is no more obvious when looking at the (approximate) 240,000 of Iranians who have joined the Facebook page dedicated to the Iranian opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi who is currently under house arrest and whose actions have been widely seen as sparks for the riots of Tehran after the 2009 elections.

So why is this rather insignificant movement over-exaggerated and talked about repeatedly on the mass media? Why don’t Iranians love Israel anyways?

The answer to the question is quite simple: the majority of Iranians do not love Israeli-Apartheid; the majority of Iranians do not love an illegal occupation of Palestine; and quite certainly, the majority of Iranians do not love their citizens (including scientists) being assassinated by the Mossad. Of course the above statements are quite clear – not only true for Iranians, but true for the overwhelming majority of all the citizens of various countries in the Middle East.

One might argue that the initiator of the Israel-Loves-Iran page has explicitly indicated that the messages of love and peace sent back and forth are for the Iranian and Israeli “people”, and that they have nothing to do with the governments of the two countries. However, since Israel claims to be a democracy, the atrocities carried out by the Israeli government throughout its the decades, are in fact atrocities carried out by the lawful representatives of the Israeli people. To say that the oppression and crimes carried out by the Israeli government do not represent the will of the majority of its people only means one thing: that Israel is not a democracy and is in fact some sort of (military) dictatorship.

Why are conventional western news outlets -largely supported by Israeli lobbyists- trying day and night to promote the page, and desperately trying to drag Iranians into reciprocating this type of “Israel-Loves-Iran” message?

In fact, by dragging Iranians into reciprocating this kind of message, and over exaggerating the minimal love of a minute amount of Iranians for Israel, a lot can be gained by the occupying Zionist regime.

First and foremost, the public opinion of the global audience can be manipulated as to think that Iranian citizens –unlike the Iranian government- feel no displeasure towards Israel. This can in turn be used as a wedge to distance the Iranian people from their government in the minds of the world. Thus, further animosity towards the Iranian government by western powers would be more justifiable for the global audience.

Secondly, by spreading such messages, Israel is desperately trying to find empathy in the region. After their beloved dictator of Egypt, Mubarak, was toppled, the Israelis see their ever-dwindling status in the Middle East decline by the day. Citizens all across the region simply resent the occupying regime. By filling the media with messages of love from their arch nemesis, Iran, they are attempting to build a positive image for themselves: after all, if even the Iranians can love us, why can’t the others?

Last but not least, believe it or not, being friends with Israel is considered a shame in the Middle East. Ever since sixty-something years ago when Palestine was outright invaded and the country of Israel was fabricated out of thin air on its ruins, it has been the same. Israel knows very well that Iran’s outspoken resentment towards Israeli Apartheid has brought Iran great honor among the populations of the Middle East. By trying to portray Iranians as Israel-loving people, this can be an attempt to discredit and defame the citizens of Iran and strip them from their admired Apartheid-fighting status.

Bertrand Russell

In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying.
- Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

Hermann Goering

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief, from Gilbert, G.M. (1947). Nurenberg Diary, New York: Signet

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Nothing is more disgusting than the crowing about liberty by slaves, as most men are, and the flippant mistaking for freedom of some paper preamble like a Declaration of Independence, or the statute right to vote, by those who have never dared to think or to act.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Poet, essayist and transcendentalist (1803-1882)