To discuss the anti-Muslim film “Innocence of Muslims” and to address misconceptions students may have about Islam, the Muslim Student Association and the Religious Studies Club held a panel.
“Innocence of Muslims” by Egyptian-born U.S. resident Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a video on YouTube depicting the Prophet Muhammad as irrational, primitive and sexually perverse.
The video, which has since been blocked in Egypt and Libya, was cited as responsible for the protests and revolts in the Middle East that resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff.
The panel was comprised of Muncie-native and 11-year practicing Muslim Cecilia Williams, President of the Islamic Center of Bloomington, Ind., Faiz Rahman, and Ball State religious studies associate professor Joe Marchal.
While Marchal used the panel to give historical context to the video and explain the reasons for backlash, Rahman and Williams used the opportunity to give students a perspective to which many may not be accustomed.
“This is not neutral,” Marchal said. “We’re not playing some theory game here, where we’re practicing freedom of speech versus freedom of religion. There are forces at work.”
Williams read sections from her Quran and clarified why the video was offensive to Muslims on a fundamental level.
Many Muslims refrain from depicting Muhammad in any way, believing it could cause idolatry and disrespect. And while the Quran also mentions other messengers such as Noah, Moses and Jesus, most Muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet of God.
“It’s like insulting your mother,” Williams said. “Even more so, because the messengers of God are here to help us be better people. In order to respect the message, you have to respect the messenger, too.”
While the entire panel agreed the video was neither ethical nor respectful, there were some disagreements regarding its status on the Internet.
“I really don’t mind if it’s on YouTube,” contended Rahman, who is also an Indiana University geography professor. “The ideas of something being unethical and being illegal are different things. Where do you draw the line? What offends me may not offend someone else.”
Williams had a different view, questioning if YouTube would still choose to leave the video online had it depicted an attack on another group, like African Americans. She believes the video would be taken down immediately and the group labeled a hate group.
“It shouldn’t have gotten to this point,” Williams said. “We know the difference between freedom of speech and malicious intent.”
It was quickly reminded, however, that the video was not solely responsible for the riots, and the consequences of the riots were not due to religion or religious teachings.
“We are responsible for our actions,” Marchal said. “Any holy book would say that; killing is bad.”
The panelists made sure to point out that one cannot accept certain actions as a representation of an entire group. And though the discussion focused on the Muslim viewpoint of this controversy, the ultimate lesson was one of acceptance and separation of the individual and the group.
“We all want to be more tolerant,” Marchal said. “But we still view the world as ‘us’ and ‘them.’”
