George Bush, the president of the United States, continually links Islam with fascism and Pope Benedict recently infuriated Muslims when he quoted an historical text decrying Islam as an inhumane faith spread by the sword.
These comments came as memories of the Danish cartoons which insulted Muhammad, the Prophet and Islam, persist in the Muslim world.
Some Western figures argue that Muslims should not be so sensitive; it is this sort of position that is used to justify Wesern policy towards the Muslim world.
When we look at some statements made by Western figures regarding Islam, we must note the underlying cultural logic.
Cardinal George Pell of Australia said that many Muslims could not "respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence". [Reuters, September 19, 2006] Pell's statement was a follow-up to Benedict's speech at a German university earlier this month.
The pope invoked the observations of a 14th-century Byzantine ruler who claimed that Islam was "evil and inhumane" and "spread by the sword".
For many Western journalists, Benedict was highlighting a significant truth. For example Jeff Israely wrote in Time magazine that the speech "could turn out to be the most important step forward for interfaith dialogue". William Rees-Mogg wrote in The Time news paper in London that the pope "will have done Islam a service if he has started a debate within Islam and between Islam and its critics".
In other words, Benedict's recent speech has done the world a favour by provoking a conversation with those violent Muslims who are somehow dismissed as too irrational to sense their own irrationality and so unable to take part in reasoned, logical debate.
But, in my opinion, there is a further implication in the views cited by Israely and Rees-Mogg. It is that Muslims, because they are assumed incapable of debate, must be dealt with forcefully.
This condescending logic is not limited to academic discussions. It also characterises Bush's foreign policy. It suggests that Muslims are somehow the problem of world affairs and need to explain themselves.
For example, in a speech on November 6, 2003, Bush said: "In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead."
It is true that he also said that those failures are not of a culture and religion, but still the choice of words is telling: the Muslim world is stagnant while the world moves ahead.
Bush's words suggest an inability of the Muslim world to "catch up" with the rest of the world. This one-sided world view is what Bush and his neo-conservative group use as a pretext to invade and wage war on Muslim countries.
He argues "that some men have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power."
When the pope defames the Prophet or Islam it is referred to as debate, but when Muslims criticise elements of Western society it is called intolerance |
It has become fashionable to refer to these figures as Islamo-fascists, a term as meaningless as it is provocative. Yet the theme running through the words of the pope, Bush and others remains the same. They are claiming that there is something terribly wrong with the Muslim world, while the rest of the world is somehow innocent of unjust policies or acts of aggression.
Their views articulate a cultural logic suggesting that Islam is somehow more violent than the West and cannot be reasoned with. The real question however, is this: Has the Western world truly offered any platform for debate and dialogue?
It is ironic that Benedict cited the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus in accusing Islam of being violent. Palaeologus was himself a wartime emperor who traversed Europe to gather support for a war against the Ottomans.
The pope's citation is all the more ironic given that Turkey is scheduled to be the first Muslim country that he is due to visit in his official capacity.
It should not be forgotten that one of Benedict's first utterances on Islam was to suggest that Turkey was incapable of fitting into Europe because of its Islamic identity.
It was Bush who declined debate with Saddam - at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi and Western lives |
It is unfortunate is that when a well-known Western figure such as the pope defames the Prophet or Islam it is referred to as debate, but when Muslims criticise elements of Western society it is called intolerance.
Furthermore, based on the reference to Islam's supposedly violent history in the pope's quote, it is assumed that there is something implicit in Islam that allows any critical attitude to develop into a violent one.
Is it true that Muslims are too quick to choose violence over debate? Did not Saddam Hussein, on many occasions, challenge Bush to a debate over his alleged WMD programme before the 2003 invasion of Iraq? It was Bush who declined such a debate - at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi and Western lives.
Despite Bush's lack of credibility - having given false reasons to justify a war against Iraq, not least accusing Iraq of a secret WMD programme - here he is again with the same scenario against Iran. He is refusing to talk to his counterpart there, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this time possibly at the expense of tens of thousands of Iranian lives.
Before Iraq war, the White House accused Saddam of trying to "fool" the world by offering debate, and now it argues that Ahmadinejad is trying to "divert" attention from Iran's nuclear programme - or so-called "ambitions" - by offering a debate.
The underlying logic of these accusations is that leaders of Muslim world cannot debate because they are sinister and dishonest. This rationale serves to preclude any possibility of debate.