Muslim outrage. How many times have we heard that phrase? "Muslim leaders are outraged at..." It seems to be a common refrain. And each time it is repeated, I find it a little more difficult to be sympathetic.
I first began thinking about this during the Danish newspaper controversy in 2005, when Muslims around the world became outraged at cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed in Denmark's Jyllen-Posten. As is by now well known, such images are considered offensive in Islamic societies. But here's the thing: Denmark is not an Islamic society. BBC estimates Denmark's Muslim population at 270,000 out of 5.4 million, or about 5%. Of this number, most are not Danish citizens, but asylum seekers, whose goal, at least ostensibly, is repatriation to their home countries when and if the political situations there so permit.
Obviously, majorities should not be allowed to institutionalize hatred of minority groups. But the Jyllen-Posten cartoons were hardly hateful. Instead, they were irreverently critical of some aspects of Islamic society, in exactly the same way that they might be of European or American society. Irreverent criticism is the cultural norm for modern Western societies, which Denmark inarguably is. So, really, the newspaper's only "crime" was to offer commentary on a contemporary issue using the methods common to the society in which it operates.
The same thing happens in Muslim countries. In fact, news outlets in these countries routinely present material that is vehemently critical, even openly hateful, of the West, and Israel in particular. This is their right, despite the fact that such material would undoubtedly be considered offensive by Western sensibilities. But if Muslim society does not feel itself to be under any obligation to respect Western sensibilities, it has little right to complain. Why should a European newspaper be forced to censor itself while newspapers in Muslim countries are not required to do the same?
Now come new reports of outrage at a documentary aired on British television's Channel 4. Muslim leaders claim the film, which features hidden camera footage recorded at a number of mosques, was edited in a "misleading manner." From the linked story:
Undercover Mosque, broadcast in January, featured footage shot at a number of mosques, including one at which a preacher praised the Taleban for killing British soldiers. Channel 4 said that the programme revealed how a message of hatred and segregation was being spread by some Islamic preachers.
Praising the Taliban for murder is pretty difficult to justify in any context, regardless of what kind of editing was used. If it was said, it was said.
I didn't see the film in question, so I can't comment directly on its objectivity or lack thereof. But, even giving Muslim leaders the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the program did have an anti-Muslim slant, it's still difficult to justify some of the things that self-professed Muslims were caught saying.
Abu Usamah, a preacher at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, said he was shocked when he saw himself depicted. Mr Usamah was shown saying: "If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that is my freedom of speech, isn’t it?"
The answer, of course, is yes. But that doesn't make the words any less incendiary or hateful.
A senior imam filmed calling for the creation of a British Islamic state under Sharia also claimed that his comments were take out of context.
In what context would such words not be offensive, I wonder?
If it turns out that "Undercover Mosque" is truly prejudiced, then it is indefensible. But there seems to be a trend among Muslim leaders to respond to any critique of Muslim culture, no matter how qualified, with self-righteous outrage. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the outrage is wearing a little thin. On a personal level, it is particularly galling to be lectured to by representatives of a civilization that relegates women to the status of virtual slaves and regards those of other faiths as "infidels."
The West has much to be ashamed of in its relations with the Islamic world, not least of which the illegal and morally unforgivable invasion of Iraq to an administration drumbeat of racial and religious prejudice. And I in no way mean to defend anti-Muslim sentiments. The clear and unequivocal fact is that not all Muslims are terrorists – in fact the vast majority are not. But it is equally true that most terrorism directed at the West has been at the hands of self-professed Muslims. And that terrorism has its roots in an undercurrent of hatred that is present in Muslim society. Outrage at criticism of this fact is unjustified.
Similarly, there are aspects of Islamic civilization that are profoundly antithetical to the mores and values of the Western world, just as there are aspects of Western civilization that are antithetical to Islam. Neither has the right to criticize the other without expecting to receive the same in kind. There's nothing outrageous about that.