Speak and Be Heard vs. Speak and Be Killed

The recent violence and deaths over the Innocence of Muslims trailer is a festering wound in the broad, ever tenuous West - Islam relationship. A glaring, bloody reminder that fundamental cultural beliefs make easing any tension a difficult and dangerous proposition. No one should ever die because of a film, let alone something so ignorant, poorly composed, and misguided. Nonetheless, protests sanctioned by the Pakistani government left 19 people dead and dozens injured, and these come after riots in over 20 countries erupted after the trailer was aired by the Egyptian television station Al Nas TV on September 11th, 2012. Violence over this topic is nothing new (see: South Park, Kurt Westergaard, Charlie Hedbo), but a reaction on this scale is unprecedented.

Although depicting Muhammad is not explicitly banned in the Koran, it is a law that is enforced through a hadith, or a collection of sayings that are attributed to the Prophet Muhammed. The ban is not something that all traditions of Islam follow down to the letter. A belief that many Muslims abide by, though, is being critical of their Prophet. The issuing of fatwas showcases the seriousness with which some Muslims enforce the laws of their sacred texts. To some Muslims, it isn't that big of a deal to visually depict Muhammed, while others consider the action blasphemous; some sects of Islam call for a penalty of death to be paid by those who cast Muhammed in a negative light.

In the past, there have been mixed reactions to the Prophet's depiction: in 2001 South Park aired an episode staring Muhammed, and subsequently used the image in the show's introduction many times over, with basically no uproar. In 2005 the Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran 12 editorial cartoons that were critical of Islam; in 2010, an attempt was made on one of the cartoonists life - Kurt Westergaard's - which failed. The zealously defended taboo of speaking negatively about this figure illustrates a vast cultural difference, which at it's core, is alien to many Westerners.

The rift is illuminated by our First Amendment, which grants everyone (including the ignorant and misinformed) with an opinion legal protection to express that opinion. Any hamburg-brained dolt can spout nonsense about anything they want, just as intelligent, talented individuals can offer insightful advice. Everyone can say anything about anything. This idea is one of the foundational pillars of American culture. It guarantees an evolution of ideas, a progressive replacement of what does not work, with what does. But not everyone is interested in a progressive evolution. Some, as we've seen, are willing to give their lives while taking others to combat change.

We can speak for change, we can speak for stagnation, but some speak through a third lens, one that is perilous, that spreads like a perfectly designed virus. Ignorance. The most curable of diseases that plagues our info-saturated world, and yet one that we allow to infect at a disgusting rate.

No government should be supporting potentially dangerous activism, but let's consider for a moment: would the uprisings have been so violent if those involved understood the cultural importance of expressing whatever you want? Or if the film's director (or whoever dubbed the audio over with the most inflammatory statements) recognized how potentially upsetting their work would be?

Fueling hatred for a common enemy is an age-old state-building tactic, and there is definitely some of this in play. Movies are emblematic of the West, and when a symbol such as this is used to fan hatred of an already reviled subject, then the opportunity for a violent outburst is provided a platform. What's better than using a symbol of Western affluence - the Movie - to undermine the West? Effective politics? Yup. Morally contemptible, backwards, and reckless? Absolutely.

The cultural divide seems wider than the thousands of miles that separate the involved countries. But the fact that something like Innocence of Muslims was able to reach Muslim audiences speaks to an opportunity to begin a collaborative reconciliation. If something negative and inflammatory can be a showcase of marginalized Western perspectives, then something positive and constructive can be enshrined as a testament to our dedication to the idea of the individual voice.

The forum for education and debate is now set. It's tragic that it was opened with curtains of blood and violence, but the opportunity to frankly discuss what divides us is here. Conflict is an obvious answer to a difficult problem, but it will never provide an ultimate solution. Can personal expression be made compatible with the depiction taboo? Can West meet East palm to palm, and not fist to fist?

Yes. An antidote for ignorance exists. The point of the (dubbed) video and the sanctioned protests were to fuel animosity amongst the ignorant and those seeking an outlet for generalized frustration over things beyond their control. There is no better way to trump these malignant designs than to adopt this moment as an opportunity to grow, rather than burn.