Persuasion: the Alternative to Violence

By Zainab al-Suwaij 
Ms. Al-Suwaij is the executive director of the American Islamic Congress. This article originally appeared in Arabic on the Lamp of Liberty website.

When I heard about the caricatures of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, it made me angry.  But my reaction was persuasion and explanation, not force and violence, as it was with some others.  Which will be the Muslim way?

Just as cartoons try to make their point by exaggerating reality, so it is with the controversy over the Danish cartoons, which has become exaggerated into a global crisis. To step back from the swirl of rage and rioting, we need to be clear about what is at stake.

Some claim the controversy is about stopping hate speech. Really?  The Muslim world hears hate speech all the time and has mostly been indifferent. There are regular sermons by radical clerics calling for the murder of Jews and Christians, reinforced by nasty newspaper cartoons and hateful TV shows (sometimes paid for by governments).  There is also the hate speech directed against fellow Muslims, with Sunnis attacking Shiites, and vice versa. Who has mobilized protests against those libels?

Some justify the burning of Danish flags and the boycotting of Danish products by claiming that it is the fault of the Danish government. But freedom of the press means governments do not control what newspapers publish. As the Danish prime minister explained, “Independent media are not edited by the government.” In free societies, newspapers all the time publish articles that governments and political leaders do not like.

Some insist that the problem is with depicting the prophet Muhammad. But Muslim artists over the centuries have themselves sometimes drawn pictures of the prophet. Their artwork can be seen in museums around the globe, including in the Muslim world. They have been on display for many years.  Where were the riots because of those displays?

What does explain the violence?  The outrage now – months after the cartons were published – seems more like a political reaction. The cartoons provide an outlet for popular frustrations over problems within the Muslim world. That pain comes from living under dictators and facing economic stagnation. For individuals held down by political repression and economic depression, rioting is a psychological way to prove to yourself that you still have a voice.

The violent response does not excuse the caricatures. The drawings are not funny, and some even make me angry. But I want nothing to do with the violent demonstrations and attacks now being staged by people who claim to speak in the name of Islam.  The caricatures do not justify the violence.

The fact that we feel offended does not give us the right to use violence. Words should be answered with words.  We can use words to persuade people that they made a mistake. But such words should never include threats to use violence.

The tragedy is that the violent response by many outraged leaders and angry crowds has only reinforced negative stereotypes of Muslims, with bad consequences for all Muslims. Precisely that point was made by Ayatollah Sistani, who condemned the cartoons but noted that Muslim extremists have besmirched the name of Islam through their violent action.

It is worth noting that only a few centuries ago in Europe, Catholics were burning Protestants alive, as Protestants were burning Catholics, all in the name of religious truth. At the same time, in many Muslim lands, there was much greater religious tolerance.

Today, Europeans have mostly put their bloody battles behind them and learned to disagree without wrecking violence on each other. After centuries of religious warfare, they learned to resolve disagreements with persuasion, rather than punishment.  Meanwhile, in too much of the Muslim world, we are increasingly being taught to resolve disputes with violence. That is a sign of weakness, not of strength. It goes without saying that the victims of the violence are mostly fellow Muslims, but whether Muslim or not, no one should be physically attacked for expressing an opinion, no matter how others may feel offended.

The challenge for both Muslim leaders and ordinary Muslims is to say no to violence and yes to civil debate. We need more freedom of expression, not less. We need a positive identity based on compassion and mercy, the two most important qualities ascribed to God. We need to be strong enough to take criticism and accept intellectual diversity, even if it hurts sometimes.  The power of God and the inspiration and example of his Prophet do not need our violence to defend them.  Their power to move the hearts of man is greater than the violence of man.

As an American Muslim, I am proud that the designers of the United States Supreme Court included the prophet Muhammad as an inspiration for both justice and mercy. Inside the Supreme Court, battles are acted out only in words. Two sides argue, presenting their case with civil discourse and without violence.

Now is the time for the world’s Muslim community – a diverse group of over one billion people – to make a historic change. We must demand an end to rioting, death threats, kidnappings, and suicide bombings. We must embrace alternatives to violence.  Violence or persuasion: Which way will be the way we choose?