Sister Leonella is gone!
Political dissonance in the Middle East reminds me of a sine graph with periodical ups and downs…Now that the jarring noise of anger in the Muslim world is going down, I take the opportunity to raise two questions and offer some answers. Although these questions are targeting the current crisis, they are quite relevant to the Muslims general situation in today’s world as well:
1)
Why do we refer to the Muslims behavior as savage and medieval?
Muslims are overreacting and their reactions are not proportional to the corisponding action. For example, we would be less surprised if the same muslim crowds were as vociferous over the murder of one of their citizens. Probably even “overreacting” is not a good term to explain the situation. Muslim world's reaction is more of “paranoia”; the target of the protests is not clear and goes all the way to anyone Muslims are angry of and anyone with any “imaginary” affiliation with the initial object of the anger. In fact, there is not border line between the imagination and the reality in this entire show.
As a consequence of being paranoid and acting paranoid, Muslims don’t express their grievances through today’s acceptable channels. We can argue that these channels are initiated by the western world and are not necessarily universal; without getting to this argument, I just remind that the majority of those protesters want to be part of the international community and most of their grievances are based on the modern [=western] standards.
(I intentionally didn’t use “aggressive” as an adjective for these protests since the western world is not free from the blame of aggression either. However the westerner’s aggressions in most part have been proportional to the crime, had clear targets and been expressed through accepted channels).
2)
Is Muslims’ anger toward the west defendable in anyway?
Some Middle Easterns regret the way Muslims express their anger toward the west, but they sympathize with their anger as a defendable response toward the west’s exploitation of the Middle East.
When we are talking about the root cause of Muslims aggression and anger, we should be careful not to confuse “explanation” with “justification”. I am not denying the fact that the Middle Eastern countries have been the subject of western super powers exploitation; however, I can not deny the imperialistic ambitions of Iran over all her weak neighbors in recent years, so as Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan’s misery. Nations are in interaction and it would defy the common sense if they were not protective of their own benefits. In this interaction, weak partners have always been exploited. As a matter of fact, if there is any exception to this general rule during the history, it is in our time that the States as a super power (due to her prosperity and isolation) has used some altruistic measures to interact with other nations. The key to the problem is not resenting over the past but gaining more and more power to prevent further loses. As long as we look for justice and compassion in international relationships, not only will we stay in our past and get obsessed by it, but also we will grow a tendency to forget our own unscrupulous behaviors toward other nations (Does any Iranian even know that Iran left Azerbaijan alone and took Armenia’s side in Garabagh conflict?!)
3)
I finish my post with some excerpts from Waleed Aly’s thoutful article on the subject: “Pope Benedict XVI quotes the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus asserting before a Persian Islamic scholar …Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims. The apparently offending remarks were almost a footnote to the discussion. The contrast is manifestly stark. But it seems some elements in the Muslim world are looking avidly for something to offend them… I would be interested to have heard how the Persian scholar responded to Manuel's argument. I'm fairly certain, though, he wouldn't have called on Muslim hordes to hunt down Manuel and kill him”.
1)
Why do we refer to the Muslims behavior as savage and medieval?
Muslims are overreacting and their reactions are not proportional to the corisponding action. For example, we would be less surprised if the same muslim crowds were as vociferous over the murder of one of their citizens. Probably even “overreacting” is not a good term to explain the situation. Muslim world's reaction is more of “paranoia”; the target of the protests is not clear and goes all the way to anyone Muslims are angry of and anyone with any “imaginary” affiliation with the initial object of the anger. In fact, there is not border line between the imagination and the reality in this entire show.
As a consequence of being paranoid and acting paranoid, Muslims don’t express their grievances through today’s acceptable channels. We can argue that these channels are initiated by the western world and are not necessarily universal; without getting to this argument, I just remind that the majority of those protesters want to be part of the international community and most of their grievances are based on the modern [=western] standards.
(I intentionally didn’t use “aggressive” as an adjective for these protests since the western world is not free from the blame of aggression either. However the westerner’s aggressions in most part have been proportional to the crime, had clear targets and been expressed through accepted channels).
2)
Is Muslims’ anger toward the west defendable in anyway?
Some Middle Easterns regret the way Muslims express their anger toward the west, but they sympathize with their anger as a defendable response toward the west’s exploitation of the Middle East.
When we are talking about the root cause of Muslims aggression and anger, we should be careful not to confuse “explanation” with “justification”. I am not denying the fact that the Middle Eastern countries have been the subject of western super powers exploitation; however, I can not deny the imperialistic ambitions of Iran over all her weak neighbors in recent years, so as Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan’s misery. Nations are in interaction and it would defy the common sense if they were not protective of their own benefits. In this interaction, weak partners have always been exploited. As a matter of fact, if there is any exception to this general rule during the history, it is in our time that the States as a super power (due to her prosperity and isolation) has used some altruistic measures to interact with other nations. The key to the problem is not resenting over the past but gaining more and more power to prevent further loses. As long as we look for justice and compassion in international relationships, not only will we stay in our past and get obsessed by it, but also we will grow a tendency to forget our own unscrupulous behaviors toward other nations (Does any Iranian even know that Iran left Azerbaijan alone and took Armenia’s side in Garabagh conflict?!)
3)
I finish my post with some excerpts from Waleed Aly’s thoutful article on the subject: “Pope Benedict XVI quotes the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus asserting before a Persian Islamic scholar …Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims. The apparently offending remarks were almost a footnote to the discussion. The contrast is manifestly stark. But it seems some elements in the Muslim world are looking avidly for something to offend them… I would be interested to have heard how the Persian scholar responded to Manuel's argument. I'm fairly certain, though, he wouldn't have called on Muslim hordes to hunt down Manuel and kill him”.
posted by Homonomos at 8:03 PM
<< Home