It’s not about respect for religion
[Machine-translated from Dutch]
Sacred determines what profane is; it is not about respect for religion.
The film Innocence of Muslims has turned cities around the world upside down in the past week, and threatens to continue to do so. “We never insult other prophets”, says the tenor of several Muslims, “so why can’t we demand that Mohammed receive respect? We respect others; why do they insult us?” Others argued that the anger stems from a demand for “freedom”: the right of a community to be free from serious insults against its identity and values.
As with the Mohammed cartoons from a few years ago, the same cliché appears in the debates: there must be more respect for the other. Everyone also believes that he has that respect for the other. But despite all that self-proclaimed respect, the world has not become more peaceful. What is going on then?
For Muslims, it is the religious issue of ridiculing the prophet. But for whom is Mohammed a prophet? Only for those who believe in Islam. That point applies to all religious symbols. Something is always a symbol for a certain person; what is a symbol for one is not for the other. Take a heathen like me: for me, neither the cross nor the prophet Mohammed symbolizes anything. The former is one thing and the latter is a human. The Sikhs in India may consider the turban as their religious symbol, but that is neither the case for me nor for a Protestant.
Requirement to repent
Something is only a religious symbol within the confines of a particular religion. Outside, it no longer has the same symbolic value. What then does it mean to demand that non-Muslims respect Mohammed? Is it a requirement to recognize him as a religious symbol or as a prophet? In that case, it comes down to a requirement to convert to Islam. Without that step, Mohammed can never become a religious symbol or a prophet to me and any other non-Muslim. What then is the significance of the complaint that the film “pokes fun at the prophet” and that one should not do that?
Muslims argue that depicting the prophet Mohammed is profane, because the prophet has forbidden depictions of himself and Allah. The answer is simple: the prophet’s words are only valid for those who accept him as a prophet. This rule has no power for non-Muslims.
But the question is: are we doing something immoral by not “respecting” their sense of profane? To answer that, we need to expand our perspective. To this day, some Protestants openly criticize Catholics by calling the Pope “the Antichrist”, portraying the Catholic Church as “the devil’s church”, and condemning Catholics as “devil worshipers”. Europe had decades of wars over it. To this day those central theses of Protestantism remain profane to the Catholics, just as the existence of Catholicism itself remains profane to many Protestants. What should we do if it is said that one group should not do what the other considers profane?
As an Indian, I look with even more amazement at the demands of the protesting Muslims. For centuries it has been at the core of Islam to describe Indian traditions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) as idolatry and false demonic religion. According to Islam, Hindus worship Satan and his companions: their elephant god Ganesha, the adulterous Krishna or the phallic Shiva. That image is still current. Are such statements about the gods of India not offensive? Can one then demand that Muslims deny their basic doctrines on idolatry, God and Satan? If Islam did that, it would end its own existence as a religion. In other words, from a pagan perspective, the existence of a religion such as Islam (or Christianity) is itself “sacrilege.” The core of these religions transforms millions of people in Asia into idol worshipers and worshipers of the devil.
Muslims must be consistent: if they don’t want people to blaspheme their religion, they shouldn’t do it themselves to other religions and traditions.
Superior to all
In fact, if they are not willing to accept this conclusion, then the protesting Muslims’ claim comes down to this: the world must treat them as an exceptional religious community, equal to none and superior to all. Of course they believe that is the case. That is precisely why that belief is unacceptable to the rest of the world. The whole debate is not about “respect for other religions,” or “freedom of speech.” It is about a religious group, which considers itself superior to everyone else, demanding that all the world endorse the truth of this belief. Who is willing to do that? Not me in any case.