Q&A: Islam and the film that sparked global unrest

Updated

A low-budget film about Islam, dubbed highly offensive by some and ridiculous by others, has sparked a wave of protests around the world since last Tuesday.

Last weekend, anger spread to the West, with violence erupting in Sydney and London.

Six police were injured in the Sydney clashes and several protesters arrested, sending Australia's Muslim leaders into damage control and prompting them to call for calm.

It followed a series of protests in countries across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, including in Libya, where a US ambassador was among four killed in a deadly grenade attack.

In the latest event, France is bracing for backlash after a magazine published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, showing him naked and referencing the film.

Titled Innocence of Muslims, the film mocks the Prophet and Islam.

It has prompted calls for the beheading of "all those who insult the Prophet", but many non-Muslims have been left wondering what the fuss is about.

In the wake of the unrest, ABC News Online asked people what they wanted to know about Islam, the film and the global uproar.

Here we put your questions (and some of our own) to the experts.

Meet the panel

Rachel Woodlock is a lecturer, researcher and doctoral candidate at Monash University's Centre for Islam & the Modern World. She is studying the social attitudes of Muslims in Australia, looking at how differences in the socio-religious interpretation of Islam impact on Muslim social attitudes. She also works at the Monash's Global Terrorism Research Centre. Dr Shakira Hussein is undertaking a postdoctoral fellowship in Muslim women, gendered violence and racialised political discourse at the University of Melbourne. She completed her PhD at the Australian National University and is a regular media contributor on issues including gender, multiculturalism and Islam. Scott Stephens is the online editor of Religion and Ethics for the ABC. In a former life he was a lecturer in theology and ethics, and even did a stint as a parish minister with the Uniting Church in Australia. He has written extensively on the intersections among philosophy, theology, ethics and politics.

Q. What have the recent protests by Muslims in Australia and around the world been about? - ABC staff

A. The protests have been entangled with different issues in different locations. In Australia, they appear to have generated outside the established network of Muslim community organisations, so on that level they can be seen as illustrating a level of disaffection with those Muslim networks, as much as and perhaps even more than with the wider society.

A year ago, the Occupy movement (which of course was concerned with very different issues) was beginning to emerge as a grassroots anti-capitalist protest movement dispersed throughout the world.

Muslim community organisations and leaders have taken a strong stance against the protest in Sydney because of the ugly scenes involved and because of the immense damage done to social cohesion, but also because of the frustration of trying to control an anarchic element. Shakira Hussein

Analyses of Occupy are still trying to pin down what it's been about and are finding the answers elusive in ways that resemble the elusiveness surrounding the cause of Saturday's protest in Sydney - the lack of a clear, visible leadership and agenda, the fact that the message was viral rather than issued from on-high, the apparent contradictory viewpoints of those involved.

The Occupy movement (at least in its initial stages) was intentionally anarchic, rejecting organisational politics even in its anti-establishment forms.

Some of the international protests against the film appear to have been generated by particular organisations, but others have been anarchic in effect if not in intention.

Muslim community organisations and leaders have taken a strong stance against the protest in Sydney because of the ugly scenes involved and because of the immense damage done to social cohesion, but also because of the frustration of trying to control an anarchic element.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. How could a film have sparked such widespread outrage? - ABC staff

A. My hypothesis is that when Muslims are exposed to derogatory depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, many experience a taboo-response that is emotional, not logical. This is because the Prophet is held in extremely high regard by Muslims, even by those who are not very religious.

When Muslims are exposed to derogatory depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, many experience a taboo-response that is emotional, not logical. This is because the Prophet is held in extremely high regard by Muslims, even by those who are not very religious. Rachel Woodlock

Every culture has its taboos, and mocking of the Prophet invokes the same type of almost involuntary reaction that many people experience when exposed to a stream of profanity, images of violence done to children, or flag-burning.

Nevertheless, after the initial taboo is provoked, a different type of logical anger takes over, in this case based on deep currents of frustration.

- Rachel Woodlock

A. Besides the content of the film itself, there is anger surrounding the questions about its origins and the source of its finance.

Anti-Muslim movements such as the English Defence League and the Q society in Australia have been circulating a large quantity of offensive material for some time.

The tragic shootings in Norway last year was the first time that many non-Muslims became aware of this form of hate-mongering, but sadly Muslims have been all too aware of it for many years now.

The film, therefore, is being seen as part of a wider agenda.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. Are all Muslims angry over the film, or just a minority? - ABC staff

A. Without having conducted a poll on Muslim opinions, I would suggest that they have had a variety of responses to the film-clip (if they have seen it) ranging from intense anger, through to disappointment, and perhaps even bemusement at the film's poor acting and production values such that it makes a bad porno look like high art by comparison.

Muslims have had a variety of responses to the film-clip ranging from intense anger, through to disappointment, and perhaps even bemusement at the film's poor acting and production values such that it makes a bad porno look like high art by comparison. Rachel Woodlock

It also seems that very few protesting Muslims have actually watched the film, so any anger or frustration may stem from a general sense that many in the non-Muslim world are disrespectful of the Prophet Mohammed and Islam based on stereotypes and propaganda disseminated by right-wing Islamophobes in the United States, Europe and elsewhere in the Western world.

- Rachel Woodlock

A. I think that the Muslimrage hashtag on Twitter helps to put this in proportion. This has been a light-hearted response to a Newsweek cover emblazoned with the words "Muslim Rage".

That cover and the story that it illustrates have caused at least as much offence as the film. Muslims and their supporters appropriated Newsweek's #Muslimrage, generating thousands of satirical tweets and a wave of broadly sympathetic media coverage.

Newsweek is a far more prominent and influential publication than an obscure film that may not even exist, apart from a short sample on YouTube, so its cover has generated a proportionately higher level of concern.

However, that concern has been expressed not via clashes with police but via entertaining grassroots satire.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. How do the violent responses to the film sit with Islamic teachings? - ABC staff

A. Speaking as a Muslim, not very well. The Koran advises: "The servants of the All-Merciful are they who walk gently on the earth and who, when the ignorant speak to them, say 'peace'" (25:63).

However, it is true that Muslims over the ages have tended to view derogatory depictions of the Prophet Mohammed in a very dim light.

They are seen as a type of slander requiring punishment from official bodies. Nevertheless, this does not give individual Muslims the right to take the law into their own hands.

Rule of law creating stable societies is an important Islamic idea, and people who create civil discord and chaos, engaging in violence, is unacceptable.

"Do good as God has been good to you, and do not spread mischief on the earth; verily God loves not those who spread mischief" (28:77).

- Rachel Woodlock

Q: Why do Muslims want to interfere in our way of life? Why allow practice of Sharia law here? Why are we allowing them here at all? - Keith Stuart Bales via Twitter

A. Australian Muslims apply various aspects of Sharia (divinely-sourced rules for living) in their private lives, some more than others.

Sharia is similar to Jewish halakha or Catholic canon law. How a Muslim prays is part of Sharia, what foods Muslims must avoid is part of Sharia, attending Friday prayers at the mosque is part of Sharia.

While there is broad consensus on some aspects of Sharia - pork is prohibited, there are five daily obligatory prayers, usury is sinful on many others - Sharia is characterised more by diversity of opinion than uniformity.

If we exclude some people from entering or staying in Australia simply because they are Muslims, we run the risk of profoundly damaging the nature of our secular, liberal democracy. Rachel Woodlock

Except for a small, and at times vocal, minority, Australian Muslims are not interested in replicating versions of Sharia that exist overseas as state law (e.g. in Saudi Arabia or Iran). This is because a sizeable percentage of Australian Muslims are not religious and do not observe Sharia, and for those who are, Sharia should be interpreted to suit living in Australia.

Modern Islamic scholars argue Muslims must respect Australian laws that do not involve direct denial of their faith. This is based on the Sharia requirement to honour contracts, which Muslims enter into either explicitly through immigration or tacitly through birth.

However it should be said there is no reason why Australian Muslims should not peaceably and legally use all legitimate channels for contributing to the public discourse, as may any Australian in our democracy.

If we exclude some people from entering or staying in Australia simply because they are Muslims, we run the risk of profoundly damaging the nature of our secular, liberal democracy.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q. I would love a comparison with other Crazy religious extremists (eg. Westboro Baptist Church folk) - Stephanie Goulding via Twitter

A. There are some parallels. Religious fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or other, has certain distinguishing features as described by Marty and Appleby in The Fundamentalist Project.

Fundamentalists:

believe theirs is the single, correct interpretation of religion

are selective in how they read scripture, history, and other sources of information

respond as if in a state of constant crisis

believe they are engaged in a conflict with enemies (such as secular governments)

interpret history and current political events as a cosmic war of good and evil

are disdainful and even rebellious against both traditional mainstream religious institutions and governments

Religious fundamentalists feel they are an embattled minority, and passionately and vocally advocate interpretations that often differ markedly from their fellow co-religionists, whom they view as traitors.

Given certain social, political and psychological factors, a minority of fundamentalists become radicalised and engage in violence to pursue their goals.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q: Why muslim can hate and kill everyone they want and we cannot? - sovereine via Twitter

A. About 1.5 billion people, 20 per cent of the world's population, are Muslims and the vast majority do not hate and kill - they lead ordinary lives like everybody else.

In Australia, with a Muslim population of 476,290 according to the 2011 Census, of whom 219,380 live in NSW, only a few hundred protested in Sydney last weekend and a very small minority of them acted violently.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q: Why do .001 per cent of Muslims get so much media attention? What can we learn from the actions of hot-headed men who just want to scream? - John Pilchard via Twitter

A. The squeaky wheel gets the grease it seems. Rational choice theorists argue there is a market for the message of religious fundamentalism. It is attractive to those who feel a sense of blocked progress. That is, they are not able to pursue life-goals because of seemingly insurmountable barriers.

One possible way to lessen the appeal of fundamentalism is undercut their selling points... That is, promote programs that support social inclusion, address discrimination and racism. Rachel Woodlock

Some Muslims in Australia suffering a variety of stressors, eg. high rates of unemployment, discrimination in the job-market, experiences of racism, being marginalised through dog-whistle politics, fall prey to charismatic preachers who offer them maladapted solutions.

Overseas in Muslim-majority countries where there is social and political instability, and disillusionment with globalisation, fundamentalism offers an alternative to discredited dictators seen as propped up by Western powers.

One possible way to lessen the appeal of fundamentalism is undercut their selling points, to use economic language. That is, promote programs that support social inclusion, address discrimination and racism, to provide religious freedom in a secular democracy in which no one group is given special favours.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q. Why do so many Muslims marry their cousins? A New York Times article I once read, stated that in Saudi Arabia such marriages make up 45 per cent of all marriages while in Pakistan the figure is at least 70 per cent. - hausunke via story comment

A. For the same reason that it has been a favoured practice within Europe and elsewhere - in order to protect inheritance and stop family property from being dissipated.

It isn't as claustrophobic as it sounds, given the size of many extended families within the societies concerned. There are plenty of cousins to choose from.

However, the rate of cousin-marriage is declining as family size decreases and as living in large extended households becomes less common.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. Why don't they have a sense of humour? Can you imagine the Life of Brian done for Islam? - RogueWedge via Reddit

A. I don't think the Innocence of Muslims was intended as a comedy. However, the comparison with Life of Brian has been raised in connection with other debates around Muslims and free speech as well.

Of course, some Christians did take offence at Life of Brian (so did some Muslims, given that he is a Prophet in Islam, too), while others found it enormously funny. And they were able to do so because although the backdrop to the movie is the events around the life of Christ and there are many comments about religion in general, the movie goes to some lengths to make it clear that Brian isn't Jesus, right from the opening scene when the Magi arrive at Brian's cradle, realise that they've got the wrong address, and then set off for the right stable.

Christian fans of the movie are able to see it as a commentary on real versus false religious belief, rather than as an indictment of their faith.

And there has been a tradition of Muslim comedy and satire throughout history to the present day. It's a pity that Australian stand-up comedians Fear of a Brown Planet (featured on an episode of the ABC's Australian Story) had left the country to tour the UK just as events in Sydney erupted.

One of the most popular personalities on Pakistani TV in recent years has been Ali Saleem, aka "Begum Nawazish Ali", who hosted a TV chat show whose guests included politicians, lawyers, and bearded clerics (with conversations laced with the Begum's description of her honeymoon in Paris - lots of nudge-nudge references to the Eiffel Tower). And there are many other such bawdy comedies throughout the Muslim world that make fun of religious, military and political leaders.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. Several news reports mention the movie Innocence of Muslims portraying the Prophet as "a murderer, a homosexual, a child molester and a womaniser" but I haven't ever heard anything looking at these claims. Can you address them? - aussiekinga via Reddit

A. These are not new accusations, and from a Muslim perspective they are simply untrue and not characteristic of how we remember and love our Prophet. Nevertheless, as an academic I should like to clarify some points.

There is broad agreement on the contours of the Prophet's life, such as his various marriages, including to the young A'isha. Polygamy was an accepted part of pre-Islamic life, although Islam modified and curtailed the practice dramatically.

The Prophet's first marriage was a twenty-five year monogamous marriage to the older and much beloved noblewoman Khadijah. After her death, the Prophet was married to a number of women for political, legislative, and charitable reasons. Some were to cement ties of allegiance, some were to provide protection and social support for widows of companions who had died, one in particular accompanied legislation from the Koran. If the Prophet had been merely a womaniser, he could have chosen to marry a harem of young, nubile virgins. However, with the exception of A'isha, all were mature divorcees or widows.

Nevertheless, Islam is generally positive in regard to sexuality in the private realm. Islamic theology holds that God rewards sexual relations between legitimate partners, and often uses sexual metaphors to describe the felicity of the afterlife and the soul's reunion with God, on the basis that the closest analogy to such reunion is the intimacy of intercourse between a husband and wife.

A'isha simply does not display any of the markers of having been a victim of child abuse - she was a feisty character who spoke of her great love for the Prophet, she challenged him at times, enjoyed his company, and it was in A'isha's arms that the Prophet died. Rachel Woodlock

There is no evidence the Prophet was homosexual. As for the accusation of his being a child molester, this is centred on the issue of A'isha's age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet and their later consummation. A'isha was the daughter of one of the Prophet's closest friends Abu Bakr. She had earlier been promised in marriage to a polytheist, however that engagement was dissolved probably because of the religious differences.

As for her age, culturally the Arabs of the day (like other Semitic cultures) did not have a period of adolescence between childhood and adulthood. Once a girl or boy entered puberty they became an adult, and so an early marriage for A'isha would not have been seen as unusual. Certainly by her own accounts, she had a young marriage with a gap of some years between the contracting and the actual consummation of the marriage, presumably for the purpose of waiting until she entered puberty and became an adult.

There has been some contemporary criticism of the historical sources, suggesting it was more likely she was in her mid-teens at least, nevertheless, the best evidence we have to reject the idea that the Prophet Mohammed was a child-molester comes from A'isha herself.

Because she was so close to the Prophet and in a position to observe his behaviour and teachings closely, A'isha became one of the most important narrators of hadith and the Muslims sought her expertise on a wide variety of religious matters. She was also a major historical player after the Prophet's passing, leading an unsuccessful battle (the Battle of the Camel) in the civil wars that plagued the community after his death.

In all the material we have from A'isha, more than any other woman, and indeed more than many men, she simply does not display any of the markers of having been a victim of child abuse. She was a feisty character who spoke of her great love for the Prophet, she challenged him at times, enjoyed his company, and it was in A'isha's arms that the Prophet died.

As for the Prophet being a murderer: he was a statesman and military leader who was forced to engage in war against an aggressive enemy. Yet, when the Muslims finally succeeded in taking Mecca, defeating the opponents who had insulted the Prophet, persecuted the Muslims, martyred many, and attempted to take the Prophet's own life, all were given amnesty and forgiveness upon surrender.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q. Does the average man in the street Muslim have and read a copy of the Koran? If so which version? Do you all speak and read the Quraish dialect? Or do you rely upon translations given from someone else? - mikle jay wox via story comment

A. Muslim households often show the respect for the Koran by placing it by itself on a high shelf so that it's above all the other objects in the room.

Muslims also often own folding book-holders so that they can read it sitting on the floor without it touching the ground. Even illiterate Muslims (and the Prophet Mohammed himself was illiterate) show this kind of physical respect for this particular book - and many others, by the way.

Most Muslims are not calling for the execution of those who draw or display a picture of the Prophet. Shakira Hussein

It's a tradition in many Muslim societies to kiss any book that accidentally falls on the floor before replacing it on the shelf.

And learning to recite from the Koran is an important element of being an observant Muslim.

However, classical Arabic is not the same as modern standard Arabic and most Muslims don't have Arabic as their first language.

Many Muslims, then, recite from the Koran without necessarily fully understanding the meaning of the text.

However, they don't simply rely on translations, since they believe that the Koran is beyond translation. Instead they may use a concordance, which they read alongside the Arabic text.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. Why is displaying a picture of Mohammed considered a head removing offence? Especially if depictions of him appear in illustrations dating back to the 16th century? - andrewinmelbourne via Reddit

A. Firstly, most Muslims are not calling for the execution of those who draw or display a picture of the Prophet.

Historically, the prohibition has been not only with regard to illustrations of the Prophet, but of any human form.

The illustrations of the Prophet were not placed on public display - even their owners considered them dangerous.

They were commissioned by members of the elite, who felt that the common people lacked the understanding to value them, so they were kept out of sight.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. I would like to know what the world would be like if all other religions behaved as the Muslims do. You don't hear of violent uprisings by Christians, Buddhists, Hindu etc because someone has insulted their religion. Why do they need to behave this way, why do they feel that they somehow have a right to violence when something they don't agree with is said or done. Plenty of bibles have been burnt in the past, and plenty of films 'insulting' God/Jesus/Buddha etc have been made with no repercussions such as the Muslims display. - tellitlikeitis via story comment

A. There have been similar controversies in other religious communities. The play Bahzti, which depicted a rape taking place at a Sikh temple, triggered violent confrontation at the theatre which it was performed in the UK.

In India, the respected (Muslim) artist MF Husain came under fire from some Hindu organisations over his depiction of naked Hindu goddesses.

The threats and intimidation eventually forced him to leave the country.

- Shakira Hussein

Q. I'd like to know about the five pillars of Islam and how the concept of jihad fits within the five pillars, if it does fit within it. If it doesn't fit within it, who is using it? - edster42 via story comment

A. The pillars are five core practices that define what it is to be a Muslim. They are:

to bear witness that there is no god but God, and that Mohammed is the messenger of God. to pray five daily obligatory prayers to give charity to fast during the month of Ramadan to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime

Jihad means "struggle" in the path of God. It can mean struggling to live morally, observing the five pillars; struggling against the temptation to sin; or fighting against a physical enemy as part of a justifiable war.

In modern times the word (jihad) is often used casually to justify almost any war or political movement, often contradicting the ethics of warfare laid down by classical scholars. Rachel Woodlock

During the lifetime of the Prophet Mohammed, Muslims fought in self-defence against Meccan polytheists who had spent years persecuting them, had forced them to flee Mecca, and were organising a campaign to put an end to Mohammed, his followers and those who gave them refuge in Medina: "Those who had faith, emigrated and fought in the path of God, they have hope in God's mercy, and God is oft-forgiving, most merciful" (2:218).

In subsequent centuries, Muslim scholars developed complex rulings on jihad, but in modern times the word is often used casually to justify almost any war or political movement, often contradicting the ethics of warfare laid down by classical scholars, such as the prohibitions on killing non-combatants, using fire, and destroying the environs of the battlefield.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q. I wish Christians were as passionate, sadly most aren't. Does Islam accept Jesus as the coming messiah? - mrburgo2u via story comment

A. Yes, Islamic theology holds that Prophet Jesus is the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement. The Koran does not give details, obliquely calling Jesus a "sign of the hour" (43:61). Traditions provide more prophecies, allusions and details about his second coming.

- Rachel Woodlock

Q. What measures are in place to protect Muslims in Australia from influence by extremist groups? - grayvedigga via Reddit

A. Writing as a non-Muslim, I think it's important to observe that neither local religious communities – whether churches, mosques, synagogues or temples – nor religious leaders exert the same influence or authority on the lives of individual believers that they once did.

But this has less to do with the waning of religion's moral authority in secularising West, than it does with the privatisation and individualisation of belief. Increasingly, believers tend to tailor their own version of 'faith', drawing on readily accessible material and on the experience of other believers in other parts of the world.

The problem, as we have seen across religions, is that such tailor-made faiths soon become orphans from the tradition to which they claim to belong, and so deaf to the patient, humane, and highly self-critical debates that make up the tradition. In other words, belief that has cut itself loose from tradition and authority can quickly become little more than a means to legitimate one's own bigotry, chauvinism, violence and ignorance.

Belief that has cut itself loose from tradition and authority can quickly become little more than a means to legitimate one's own bigotry, chauvinism, violence and ignorance. Scott Stephens

Perhaps it is the separation of some Muslims from their own communities, and their heightened, though often distorted, sense of solidarity with other Muslims (an expression of their sense of belonging to a global Umma), that is an important and often neglected factor in the protests and outbreaks of violence we've seen recently. It is worth pointing out, however, that calls for such Muslims to "grow up" or "get over it" or otherwise conform to certain Western values is not only likely to be ineffective – it may well be counter-productive.

The answer to such violence isn't less seriousness about Islam and its tradition, but more. This is why well-educated, theologically literate Muslim leaders, scholars and teachers (as opposed to what Khaled Abou El Fadl refers to as "illiterate puritanical supremacists"), who can embody and remind their communities of the teachings of the Koran and hadith, are so important.

Such leaders dedicating themselves to the instruction and moral formation of their communities will, ultimately, be the best antidote against illiterate extremism.

- Scott Stephens

Q. Is Islam as a political force compatible with multiculturalism in Australia? - _archer_ via Reddit

A. It's important to clarify what we mean by "multiculturalism" in the first place. If "multiculturalism" refers to a benign space in which we refuse to allow the defining beliefs and practices of certain groups of people to encroach on the lived experience of others – in other words, a space in which a particular social order, "liberalism," is dominant and other cultural expressions are permitted as long as they too are liberal – then all robust cultural or religious forms might be considered "incompatible".

To put this a little more simply, all too often, our understanding of multiculturalism resembles that of a food-court in a shopping centre: we welcome different cultural groups, as long as they aren't too spicy or too exotic or too strong – as long as they have already been rendered somewhat bland or inoffensive to our sensibilities. All such "strong" elements (like religion, custom, group identity) must remain private, out of sight, and never impinge on politics or public order.

Our understanding of multiculturalism resembles that of a food-court in a shopping centre: we welcome different cultural groups, as long as they aren't too spicy or too exotic or too strong – as long as they have already been rendered somewhat bland or inoffensive to our sensibilities. Scott Stephens

On this understanding, the guiding principle is that of tolerance. This understanding of multiculturalism tends to be rather more individualistic and rights-oriented. It is also a model of multiculturalism within which offence can flourish, because the various groups are inevitably reduced to caricatures, or superficial versions of themselves. As many social scientists and political theorists have observed, such a "tolerant" order can be found oppressive and claustrophobic.

But this, of course, is not the only way of thinking about multiculturalism. A different way would replace mere "tolerance" with more active solidarity, dialogue and mutual self-criticism. It would allow the dominant culture to define itself through its active, ongoing relationship with the other cultures that comprise it – allowing these others to, as Rowan Williams puts it, "make us strangers to ourselves" by questioning our assumptions and often latent bigotries. It would shift the emphasis from individual rights to group identity, which invariably includes religious belief and practice. It would also explore ways, not of "tolerantly" avoiding others, but of cooperatively discerning and then pursuing our goods in common.

This in no way excuses the thuggish and no-doubt opportunistic exploitation of feigned "offense" that we’ve witnessed recently. But the real question is not whether Islam is compatible with a perhaps impoverished understanding of multiculturalism – which ends up being little more than liberal "monoculturalism" fuelled by resentment – but whether Muslims can become an essential part of how we define ourselves?

- Scott Stephens

Topics: islam, unrest-conflict-and-war, world-politics, multiculturalism, sydney-2000, australia, nsw, england, egypt, united-kingdom, yemen

First posted