Killing in the name of: a problem of perspective?

The death toll of those killed in riots responding to “The Innocence of Muslims” is 79 people.

At least 687 people have been injured.

On the surface, they are deaths and injury by bullets, explosions, fire.

But the real deadly force is a combination of ignorance and hate.

The violent protesters are a very small minority of Muslims. 

Despite this, the rhetoric exhibited by those condemning the recent violence is still highly alarming.

What was turned into a somewhat comical instance during this madness was the Muslim Brotherhood’s Twitter gaffe.

The official English language account of the brotherhood retweeted a tweet from deputy head Khairat El-Shater expressing “relief that none of @USembassycairo staff was hurt” and hoping relations remain strong.

Meanwhile, on the Brotherhood’s official Arabic language account were tweets praising the protests, such as “Egyptians revolt for the Prophet’s victory in front of U.S. Embassy.”

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo called them out via Twitter, reminding the Brotherhood that they do in fact read both accounts, and some Internet trolls had a good laugh.

But a closer look at the discrepancy between the messages is rather unsettling.

Last week I took a field trip for class — apparently this happens in college — to Dearborn, Mich., popularly considered the Shia Muslim capital of the United States.

We visited some interesting sites, including a couple of mosques.

One of the mosques we visited was the Islamic Center of America, the largest Shia  mosque in North America.

While we were there, we were able to speak with Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, the mosque’s religious leader, before attending Friday afternoon prayer, during which he presented a sermon.

The topic Imam Qazwini pushed in our private meeting and discussed during his sermon was “The Innocence of Muslims” trailer and the response to it.

He opened by asserting that he did not in any way condone the violence, as people who are not in any way responsible are dying.

But why include that qualifier?

Why is it not a rejection of violence outright?

He proceeded to criticize the lack of a reaction from the American public, saying that “President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton came forward to reject the content of the film. But what about the other 310 million (sic) Americans?”

He compared the trailer to “The Passion of the Christ” and used the mass critical response from the Jewish community as a point of comparison.

He asserted there was an anti-Islamic sentiment in America, and it was evidenced by a lack of a response, such as the one seen after “The Passion of the Christ” was released.

The first problem is that hardly any Americans even knew of the existence of “The Innocence of Muslims” until people across the world started protesting it.

But what was a very brief wave of outrage in the U.S. quickly turned into confusion when people began dying for it.

At that point, the film seemed like a rather silly cause, certainly one that could not justify slaughtering innocent people.

The comparison to “The Passion of the Christ” is absurd.

Not only was there no violence in response to it, but the comparison is between a major motion picture and a crudely made YouTube video that exists among countless other prejudiced projects directed at every group imaginable.

Google and YouTube have banned access to the video in the Middle East, and even Russia recently banned the film on the grounds that it “promotes religious hatred.”

The question that needs to be asked is if an understanding of Islam as one that is incompatible with freedom of speech should be tended to or if the West should maintain expectations of Muslim societies as being responsible and tolerant.

Imam Qazwini emphasized putting Allah before “your children, spouse, parents, all people.”

And while I respect personal belief regardless of my degree of disagreement, I can’t help but feel that prioritizing society as a whole more than one’s interpretation of spirituality would be a more productive, less divisive advocacy and would constrain the ability of groups to frame anger in religious terms.

The lack of reaction should show how dismissive the American public is of such cheap displays of ignorance.

The ability to use this ridiculous video as a rallying mechanism resulting in massive death might tell of a larger problem of perspective.

­— gcherney@indiana.edu