What Is the Role of Islam in Recent Outbursts of Violence?

I am somewhat of a postmodern pluralist and multiculturalist. I seek to understand other faith traditions and cultures and to respect them for what they are before passing judgment or comparing them to my own.

That said, I'm struggling to get my head around recent reactions in Iraq and the greater Muslim world to the destruction of the Golden Mosque and to blasphemous Danish newspaper cartoons. Iraqi Shiites are rightfully angry about the bombing of the mosque; and Muslims throughout the world are justified in being offended by the now infamous cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. I cannot, however, condone the violent response to either.

The western mind better understands the reaction to the Golden Mosque bombing. Though no one was hurt in the initial attack, the destruction of a sacred pilgrimage site is an act of terror, intimidation, and disrespect. Christians today probably wouldn't respond so violently to the destruction of one of our shrines; but Christians of past eras likely would have. On the other hand, I think that Americans would be calling for blood if one of our sacred shrines (e.g. The Statue of Liberty or The Lincoln Memorial) were desecrated, even if no one were hurt. Of course, Americans would favor an organized and calculated (at least in theory) national response. Sectarian groups in Iraq don't really have that option.

The cartoons work differently. When that which is sacred to Christian Americans is intellectually or artistically disgraced, we do lash out in rage. No one is killed, but millions of people instinctively compose semi-literate, vitriolic comments on blogs and message boards and write less-than-informed letters to their local newspapers. That guy from the Catholic League inevitably pops up on FOX news, Pat Robertson says something entirely irresponsible, and the American Family Association plans some kind of protest. The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society carelessly says something that seemingly condones the sacrilige and to which the Institute on Religion and Democracy over-reacts. The American-Christian response to blasphemy isn't nearly as bloody as the Middle Eastern-Muslim response, but it is almost as ridiculous.

Still, the question remains: Why the violent and destructive response to sacrilige in the Muslim world? In the cartoon riots most of the people who have died have been protesters, not perpitrators. And the Shiites in Iraq are threatening their nation's alreay fragile infrastructure.

I think many people are asking, What does the violence we are seeing have to do with Islam? I think that certain aspects of Islamic scripture and tradition could be used to justify such violence and bloodshed. Of course, certain aspects of Christian scripture and tradition could be (and have been) used in the same way. Islam is not entirely innocent here, neither is it entirely at fault.

The post-Ottoman Empire political history of much of the Islamic world has been written by outside forces. (See, for example, the Sykes-Picot Agreement.) A history of arbitrary borders, puppet regimes, and populist revolts have left many Muslim nations without the democratic systems, civil liberties, and strong local security that make peaceful whining and protesting realistic. Violent demonstrations in the United States, by contrast, are often tempered by our freedoms of press and assembly and a trust in our electoral system. Moreover, Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia feel less secure and more vulnerable than the average American Christian, who is among a majority in the most powerful and influential nation in the world.

I am disturbed by the reactions of several Muslim persons and groups to recent events, but I do not blame Islam. Throughout history religion has fueled violence, but other cultural and political factors always are also at play.