Hussein Ibish

The events surrounding the mayhem in the Middle East in response to an ostensibly crude anti-Islam video can only be described as a cavalcade of cynicism.
 
First there is the cynicism of the filmmakers and their sponsors, whose identity, political affiliations and ultimate purpose have not yet been adequately uncovered. The currently received account about Coptic felons in California is patently inadequate. This insidious film was very carefully calculated, and promoted by its front men, to provoke a hysterical response among Muslim extremists. The precise purpose—and the timing—of this project, its actual authors and their political intentions, remain to be discovered. American investigative reporters have an important task ahead of them. Whether they will be up to the job remains to be seen.
 
Second, there is the cynicism of the Salafist extremists who, predictably, seized upon the video clip for their own purposes and whipped up a frenzy of manufactured outrage to advance their political interests. They deliberately unleashed a campaign of violence in much of the Arab and Islamic world, directed generally against any manner of Western targets, all totally unrelated to the video. It's likely that the dastardly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi and the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other diplomats was planned in advance and is a distinct phenomenon, separate from the rioting.
 
But the Muslim extremists stoking the flames of anti-Western violent outrage are following a well-established pattern of seizing on anything that confirms their paranoid and chauvinistic narrative of an Islam under constant attack by the West, and the notion that the American government, above all, is behind this fictional assault. These campaigns are not, of course, aimed at their ostensible Western targets, but are entirely domestic. They are designed to increase the domestic social and political authority of extremist Islamist movements and undermine and attack local authorities.
 
It's been fascinating to watch the newly empowered Muslim Brotherhood parties in post-dictatorship Arab societies, and reactionary Muslim clerics in Arab states not hostile to the global and regional status quo, struggling to deal with the crisis. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood initially was part of the campaign of outrage, but quickly realized that the principal target would be the government of its own new president, Mohamed Morsi. They found themselves torn between their instinctive default toward a traditional adherence to the anti-Western paranoid and chauvinist narrative, and their new imperatives and responsibilities in government.
 
Indeed, they're still struggling to cope with this newfound anomaly between their attitudes and their interests. While some statements from these organizations continue to reflect the traditional narrative, which is sympathetic to the attitudes, if not conduct, of the rioters, others have tried to defuse tensions. Numerous fatwas, statements by leaders, including the influential Youssef Qaradawi, and government actions have sought to calm the situation. Call this learning on the job, but the curve appears considerable. The spectacle has been fascinating but unedifying.
 
Then there is the cynicism of the professional Islamophobes in the West who have sought to distance themselves from the message of the film although it is consistent with everything they otherwise preach.
 
Finally, the subtlest form of cynicism in this affair has been from those in the Islamic world who have condemned the violence but also suggested that it again shows why the West should “balance” freedom of speech with restrictions on the right to give offense to religious traditions of others.
 
The Organization of Islamic Conference, and many Muslim leaders and intellectuals, have long called for the creation of a zone of censorship around religious sentiments in which free speech is formally curtailed or restricted. This is, of course, strictly antithetical to genuine notions of free speech, freedom of inquiry, and freedom of religion and conscience. Worse, it implicitly endorses the mindset of the extremists.
 
By citing the violent response of extremists and injured sentiments of non-extremists, such calls seek to sacrifice a fundamental human right to protect religious and cultural sensibilities. This must be categorically rejected not only by Western governments but also by all people committed to universal freedoms and fundamental human rights. The Muslims of the world are simply going to have to get used to the fact that freedom means everybody has an equal opportunity to be offended and that they must endure this without a violent response or the suppression of free speech. Asking for strong condemnations of intolerant, outrageous expression is reasonable. Asking for censorship is not.
 
The real political intentions and authors of the video must be uncovered. The violence of the extremists must be suppressed and punished, and their agenda exposed. Islamophobes must be held responsible for their hatred. And demands for censorship to protect religious or political sensitivities must be rejected out of hand. The orgy of cynicism has to stop.