For the moment I remain puzzled and sceptical about the possibility that the divergences that are poisoning relations between the Western world and the Muslim world might be ironed out, beginning with two small observations that describe the atmosphere.
Egyptian double game? The first symptom of a lack of understanding concerns Egypt. The authorities in Cairo post their official positions and comments on the internet, via Twitter, in both their national language and English. But it has been noticed that the messages are not the same! After the assassination of the United States ambassador in Libya, the Egyptian authorities expressed in English their deep regret and welcomed the fact that the American diplomats and staff were now in security. The message added the wish of good permanent relations between Egypt and the Unites States, in spite of the difficulties of the moment. Yet the version in Arabic was totally different - the Egyptian authorities invited their fellow citizens to express their anger at the offences to Mohammed. The American authorities apparently then expressed their astonishment at the double nature of the message.
Let me point out that the Egyptian military forces are amply funded by the United States, on condition that the peace agreement with Israel is respected. In the absence of American aid, Egypt would not have military autonomy and would especially not be able to control Mount Sinai.
Tahar Ben Jelloun has slipped. The second source of my puzzlement concerns the reaction of Tahar Ben Jelloun. Previously, the positions of the famous Maghrebian writer were characterised by the defence of balance between the Arab civilisation and the European civilisation, and the defence of the development of reciprocal relations. But in the case of the satirical film against Mohammed, he has not limited himself to expressing his contempt for an insignificant work that only commits its author, but has written: “The image of the Muslim religion (in Innocence of Muslims) is horrible, unjust, false and completely scandalous, and the masses cannot be soothed with reasoning (…) Hitting out at a community in its beliefs is a provocation which can only finish badly”. And in particular, the writer does not rule out the existence of a Western manoeuvre aiming to attribute to Muslims the role of potential future enemies.
In the past, the enemy of the USA was communism. Today, it could become Islam. And Ben Jelloun speaks of the commonplace according to which Americans admit that Muslims are not all terrorists, but they consider that every terrorist is a Muslim. He has literally written: “The relationship between the West and Islam is in permanent tension. Politicians make reassuring speeches, but the mentality of the people is conditioned by the ideology of fear and hatred for all that is not Western”.
This conclusion, to my mind, has something delirious about it. It would have us admit that the pseudo-film-maker who filmed this miserable little film against Mohammed in America, which no one in Europe had seen, was the instrument of a high-level American design, shared by European authorities, to attribute to Islam the role of future world enemy of the West - and this, while the number of Muslims settling in the United States and Europe continues to increase with, of course, the option for them to practise their religion freely and to play a growing role in civil life!
A distorted debate. In my opinion, the reality is totally different from Tahar Ben Jelloun's wild imaginings. The Western authorities do not contest that the Innocence of Muslims (which virtually no one in the West had seen and which people generally didn't even know existed), as well as a few texts and satirical cartoons, are inopportune and inadvisable The idea that they be banned is even often accepted in Europe. But in Western civilisation, a government or a president does not have the power to censure anything. It is freedom of expression - an essential element of freedom in general - which is at stake! Political figures and intellectuals who value the need to ban and punish offences to a religion are perhaps right. They certainly have the right to affirm it. But it is not the real problem because it is up to the law courts to judge if a law has not been respected, and to sanction the infringements which might have been committed.
The positions of intellectuals from the Western world, which are becoming ever more numerous, are very often in favour of banning offences to religions, appealing to the “sense of responsibility” of those who express themselves and to respect for other people. Some analyses even try to justify the hypersensitivity of Muslims, given the mortification they still suffer and the lack of understanding and current and past humiliation. These moderate arguments can be useful for Western public opinion, but they are aside from the real situation in the West, where opinions are free and where, let me repeat, it is up to the law courts and not to political authorities to ensure the law is respected. Muslims don't understand this.
The real situation. Let me refer to a leading article that appeared in Le Monde on 20 September because it summarises effectively the principles of the Western attitude, and we know that France has taken, or is preparing, numerous measures favouring immigrants and the rights of Muslims of French nationality.
The article is explicit: religions must be respected but they “can be freely analysed, criticised, even turned into ridicule. It is an obvious fact since the time of Voltaire”. Whatever we might think of some publications, “the only conceivable limitation is that which the law courts could consider justified”. The newspaper explicitly points to the caricatures which appeared in Charlie Hebdo - a banality in my opinion. A satirical publication made up of satire, Charlie Hebdo is just as specialised in insults to the Catholic religion. This time its objective was the Muslim religion. Whoever does not agree should not read this publication and, if necessary, it's up to the law courts to intervene.
It is significant that the Muslim organisations situated in France, while protesting and becoming indignant, invited their faithful “not to react to the provocation” and “to express indignation serenely, with legal means”. Similar reactions have been noted in other Community countries where there are many Muslims - they want to be respected as citizens, with their religion.
Some reactions are similar even on the other side of the Mediterranean. Large parts of the people want to cooperate with Europe and are opposed to the fanaticism and violence. In Tunisia, figures from the cultural world have launched an appeal stressing that the assassinated American ambassador advocated the birth “of a moderate Islamist party suitable to govern”. Who wanted his death? According to this appeal, Tunisia “is now classed as a dangerous area for foreigners” while the world “admired its uprising a few months ago and its hopes for freedom and dignity”. The authorities in Tunis seem to react to the situation because the government has banned anti-Western demonstrations which were planned for this Friday and has defined the assassination of the American ambassador as an “act of terrorism”.
Taking the debate at the level of Tahar Ben Jelloun when he denounces a Western plan for war against the Muslim world, counter arguments abound, but they might all be inopportune. One could note that the cruellest conflicts that exist in the world today are taking place between Muslims, in Syria and its surroundings. Wouldn't it be more opportune to put an end to these conflicts rather than questioning Western civilisation? Provocative parties exist on both sides. Muslims can't deny the existence of terrorists on their side, but they rightly reject the idea of being considered as such. They should, then, admit that Westerners are not all makers of dreadful little films or satirical cartoons which often don't even make people laugh, and not oblige our countries to close schools and embassies.
The wise approach. I would go even further. From my point of view, the only wise approach would be to give up fighting and killing each other for religious divergences, leaving each to practise his religion without making it a reason for conflict. It would be preferable by far to concentrate efforts on other objectives, and I make my own the invitation of my colleague, Jurek Kuczkiewicz, to consider religious choices as a personal matter and rather to be concerned, all together, about “the economic and social challenges to which religious slogans brings no solution”. All the more so as doctrinaire fanaticism can in reality hide material interests, which bear no relationship to their religious ideals.
I don't have the impression that events and mentalities are developing. In the absence of a turnaround in the situation, which for the moment is certainly not being announced, the consequences are apparently profound - both for the Muslims who reside in the EU and for the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. Within the EU, the emancipation of immigrants and their role in civil society, and also in politics, is apparently controversial and might become more difficult. At the same time, political, economic and cultural relations between the EU and the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean could become less trusting.
What a waste after the hopes that the Arab Spring gave rise to! (FR/transl.fl)