I wonder how much of a role
censorship (religious or otherwise) plays in a view of peace and long lasting
harmony in the
middle east. Islamic opinions, especially true and
frank ones, expressed
sincerely in their ultimate form,
the prayer, are going to be
unpopular with those who have caused suffering to the supplicant. This is a natural feature of the
private prayer, and regardless of what one may say about the political orientation of an imam, the act of prayer in a mosque is as
intensely personal as it is
public from what I can gather. (1)
As regards to the anger felt by the Islamic world, silencing it through those who simply express public opinion will only deepen and strengthen the roots of resentment, making them harder (if you'll excuse the pun) to root out. The traditional tactic of impairment of a heirarchical clergy structure doesn't really work with Islam, as there is no formal clergy, and even when someone is appointed, all actions done in accordance with their wishes are voluntary, hence no one is compelled, and thus there isn't the authoritarian or political leverage one finds in other societies. This makes it all the more difficult to 'remove' Islamic anger, or stifle the channels of it's expression.
Of course the real question isn't the extent or nature of the anger, but rather it's source. Do they have a specific list of complaints based in reality? If so, do they not have a right to be angry? Or are we just upset because they are angry at us?
(1) Source: - Oxford University Gazette, 22 January 1998: Lectures :- Sat. 21 Mar.–Sun. 22 Mar.: `Inside the mosque—outside the mosque, the anthropology of Muslim prayer across the Indian Ocean.' (With the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology)