ANOTHER MUFFIN?

By Rabia Ahmed

Ayatollah Khomeini

The heat in any discussion is in inverse proportion to the knowledge.

It is almost 22 years since Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses.

The publication of this book in Britain in September 1988 led to a worldwide protest by Muslims who regarded it as blasphemous. Most of these people had never read the book themselves. They were carried along on the tide of public frenzy.

Nine days after The Satanic Verses was published, it was banned in India, and subsequently in Pakistan. Muslims wanted the book withdrawn in Britain, and burned copies at a demonstration in Bradford's main square. Similar scenes took place elsewhere in the world, and protests took various forms as they gathered pace in different countries, including attacks on people involved in translating or publishing the book.

In February 1989, the Iranian leader issued a fatwa (linking the word forever with a death sentence issued by an extremist), pronouncing Rushdie punishable by death for the crime of writing the book.

Rushdie and his eyebrows had to live in hiding and under special protection for several years, where he toyed with the idea of writing a book about the experience, and enjoying himself by hitting the best seller list and making guest appearances in movies.

Muslims worldwide failed to separate the grain from the chaff, and utilize the interest generated by the book to initiate rational debate about Islam. They lost the opportunity to discuss Islam, its values and rationales, on a world forum. What followed instead were mass hysterics and a beard bristling brouhaha that achieved nothing other than a negative image for Islam and Muslims.

Just a few years later, in 1993, Tasleema Nasrin a Bangladeshi writer published her book ‘Lajja’, (Shame), a story of the persecution of a Hindu family by Muslims.

Following publication of ‘Lajja’, a Muslim group pronounced a death sentence on Tasleema Nasrin (the fashion had been set earlier, you notice), and she was drummed out of her country, after a series of threats and attacks on her life.

Nasrin was granted asylum in Sweden and became the recipient of a long list of awards over the years in recognition of her writing.

Meantime in her home country, Nasrin was accused of calling for the revision of the Shariah.

This naturally raised the question of whether the Shariah is written in stone, since it is a system of law derived both from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). Was the Prophet Mohammad not a man that his example should be above discussion or the Shariah so weak that it can be damaged by mere books expressing an authors opinion? It is up to the defenders of the faith to meet what they perceive as irrational by rational debate?

This episode was followed by the usual conspiracists accusing Nasrin of being an appointee of imperial hordes sent to vilify Islam.

(I have to say, I often wonder how they are perceived as functioning, these incessant conspirators, and allies of conspirators against Islam…do they discuss their moves over cups of tea like so: “You go write such and such, and we’ll sneak in a crucifix with which to bash the mullahs, and while they’re rushing around after you, we can….oh, have another muffin, do!”)

Tasleema Nasrin was a medical doctor. Following these events, she gave up medicine and became a full time writer and activist.

So once again was lost an opportunity, this time to discuss and address the issue of religious and racial harassment and persecution, whether practiced by Muslims or non-Muslims, against any human being anywhere in the world. Such a debate would have increased world awareness about what Islam says against such acts, and given it the respect it deserves. Every person, of every race and religion, would have gained from it, certainly the Muslims who face harassment both in their own country by persons/regimes of different race or religion, and abroad, since Muslims live in such great numbers outside their home countries all over the world.

And so to the 12 Danish cartoons that appeared in 2006, one of them depicting the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) with a bomb with a lit fuse in his turban.

Hundreds of Muslims, Danish and others, demonstrated against the reprinting of a cartoon they consider offensive. Not only had the Prophet Muhammad been graphically depicted, but he had been depicted in a cartoon strip, with a bomb in his turban to boot. What the Prophet himself, a man with a sense of humour, would have thought about the issue is unknown. Most probably he would have been grieved, not by his own depiction thus, but by the circumstances the cartoons alluded to. But that is my own guess.

The fact remains, that terrorism is being perpetrated in the name of Islam, and by so called ‘Muslims’ all over the world. That, surely, is the matter to be addressed. Not some trivial cartoons made by some persons who would never come into the limelight had the Muslims themselves not placed them there.

It is a matter to be understood, that only believers of a particular faith abide by the restrictions or freedoms of that faith, not everyone else. Surely Muslims worldwide have enough issues enough to deal with in their communities without adding to a lot of trivia to the list?

And surely, Allah and His Prophets are not so puny as to be threatened by a cartoon strip?

In May 2010, we find the Lahore High Court issuing orders to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority to place a ban on Facebook in Pakistan, because of a competition announced on one of its pages, where contestants were asked to draw caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad.

Pakistanis have the dubious distinction of apparently being the purveyors of the first computer virus ever. Before the day was out, I received emails from various people with instructions on how to get around the ban (links to various other portals that let you through), thus making a joke of another action by the said High Court.

The list goes on ad infinitum hackneyed and heated denunciations of the ‘enemies of Islam’. What appeared pointless fuss to others completely was really an inability to grasp the main issue and act accordingly.

Islam is a rational religion, not one that encourages rabble rousing, and it deserves respect, not derision, to which it has been repeatedly exposed. That in itself is a crime when committed by those who call themselves Muslim.

It is interesting to note that when someone else is perceived as persecuting a Muslim, such as the American government and its treatment of Dr Aafiya, a huge uproar ensues. Yet when persecution by a Muslim actually takes place, and it takes place with bone chilling frequency, there is almost no reaction at all in the Muslim world, as though Muslims are themselves incapable of persecution.

Are we as Muslims any less racist or bigoted ourselves?

Remember the expulsion of 60,000 Indians by Idi Amin from Uganda way back in the ‘70s, and much later, the atrocities in Somalia.

Bangladesh’s struggle for independence from Pakistan is one of the most shameful episodes in Muslim history. Approximately 3 million people, most of them Bengali, died in this conflict in 1971. Bengali women were raped by Pakistani soldiers, Bengali homes looted and devastated. Many Bengali families took refuge in neighboring India.

Islam does not teach this.

Today, as far as the young generation in Pakistan is concerned, it is as if all this never occurred, because no Pakistani school textbook speaks of this horror. The matter is completely glossed over.

Seeing that the only positive aspect of a wrong is if people learn from it, and act to prevent it happening ever again, this suppression of history is more than wrong. It is unforgivable.

More recently in Lahore in Pakistan, several armed terrorists stormed two congregations of Ahmadis at Friday prayers, and opened fire. As a result, more than 93 Ahmadis were killed, and about 200 injured. The reaction of the Muslims in Pakistan to this despicable act of terrorism was minimal to the point of being nonexistent. Where are the book burners now and those who set fire to flags and effigies?

The list is long and exhausting, and it is not all about Muslims. A recent example is the Indian movie about Hitler that the Jewish Federation is objecting to.

After all the atrocities committed by Hitler the most important fact now is that a person like him lived, ruled, and did all the dreadful things he did. And if this happened once, what is to prevent it from happening again? Suppressing information about him will achieve nothing. It all needs to be brought to light, and people should be able to say what they will about him. We need to study what people think about the man, what made him what he was, the conditions, the ideas, and the people of the time.

We have to see a clear image on both sides of a coin to get a full picture. How can any correct version be gained until we have everything in front of us, from which right and wrong can be discovered? You can see it as minting a coin, where a coin die is one of two pieces used to strike a single side of the coin. The die of course contains an inverse image of the image to be struck on the coin, and this is pressed on to the metal that is to be minted, and a true image results.

In an article in the Pakistani newspaper The Dawn of May 2010, Mahir Ali writes bitterly, “….Why not outlaw the internet altogether? It may not save much electricity, but it will surely help to keep the nation shrouded in ignorance.”

Is this what Muslims want? While nations all over the world compete in sport, develop artificial intelligence, discover cures for dreadful diseases, bring about great social and humanitarian change, as well as initiate untold horrors, wars, and disasters, do we wish Muslims to remain in ignorance of it all? So they can neither participate in the good nor prevent the bad, nor defend themselves against the outrageous?

In today’s day and age, we aim to put in place democratic governments that represent the people. However it is expected of the government that it will be somewhat more educated, more intelligent than the (largely uneducated) masses it governs, so that it can guide them to prosperity, and steer them away from hurting themselves.

A government that indulges in knee jerk responses to ignorant public reactions and punches the air with its fists along with the populace simply exposes its own ignorance, and is nothing but a hooligan in a bullet proof car.

In the same way, placing a ban on any information or technology is like Pandora trying to stuff all the plagues and diseases back into her jar.

In the end we are left, like Pandora with a jar that is mercifully not quite empty yet:

Only Hope was left within her unbreakable house,
she remained under the lip of the jar, and did not
fly away.

This article was printed in the Politics and Development Magazine on the 7th of October 2010, where it was called 'Hysteria or Rational Debate'. To connect to this online article please follow: http://pol-dev.com/?p=80