RASUL BAKSH RAIS
One of the major issues the West and Muslim societies find themselves locked in endlessly and senselessly is blasphemy, and they have been in a state of cold war since Salman Rushdie authored the infamous Satanic Verses more than two decades ago.
We started this conflict with Rushdie affair for two reasons. First, he had a subcontinent background and knew full well the repercussions of what he wrote on the Muslim populations around the world.
Therefore, it was not an innocent literary prose — a third rate by any literary standard — but one designed to provoke raw religious emotions, kick up controversy and bring fame and fortune to the author.
Controversies in creative arts and writing tend to raise the level of public interest in what is worth or not-so-worth acquiring and reading. But that was not the only factor.
Christian and Jewish fundamentalist groups in the U.S. and European countries along with powerful right wing academic and intellectual groups raised Rushdie’s profile, parading him in every notable literary and cultural and festival.
The reason was simple; he spoke their mind and more importantly, became a tool in their strategy to demonise Islam, Muslim beliefs and heritage. Some had more sinister designs to keep the Muslim societies on the boil and, in the process, create a cultural atmosphere for a clash.
Second, the West rather than understanding the Muslim rage and showing respect for any sensitivity to Islam and its cultural, social environment began celebrating what Rushdie had done.
From its point of view, he did nothing wrong and he was free to say what he wanted to say or write what he wanted to write.
On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Muslims both in the Western countries and in their native lands poured out in the streets in protests, and hundreds of them lost their lives while clashing with local police.
Such horrific violence resulting from Rushdie’s fiction more known for abuse than its literary merit didn’t impress the West and its intellectual class. Their formal defence of Rushdie was premised in freedom of expression that we understand is truly embedded in their political culture, politics and constitutions. But then freedom of expression should also take into account that it does not incite violence. I leave it to the readers to judge the reaction Rushdie evoked and the others following his track to cheap fame and riches by insulting Islam.
As usual, the Western media and the political class reduced the issue of violent protests against Rushdie and the dirty work of cartoonists as a local problem of each Muslim state. It was, in their view, the responsibility of Muslims states to maintain order and peace in their society in which, they argued, they had failed.
Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists fuelling conflict had absolute protection under their law and they couldn’t be accused of any wrong. The intent and dangerous consequences their actions could produce on Muslim societies and their relationship with the West have been conveniently ignored and that continues to be the case.
We must put the recent blasphemous film produced by a group of Christian extremists led by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in some cultural, political and intellectual perspective. Invoking cultural and constitutional norms, the West continues to defend freedom of expression in their lands and that would include castigation of and insults to prophets.
But there are some holy cows that the freedom of expression tradition cannot touch, and these are interestingly secular or historical subjects. You cannot deny the holocaust of Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany — indeed, it is a punishable crime.
One cannot exercise freedom of expression against races or spread racism that may lead to violent acts. Again, it is a punishable offence. And of course, not too many liberal intellectuals, politicians and academics would question occupation of Palestinian lands and eviction of the Palestinians from their homes, lands and destruction of their orchids by the Israelis.
There is an opposite cultural truth in the Muslim world. The Muslims would never tolerate insult of Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in any form by any one and anywhere.
It is this cultural truth that the people have been dying for while protesting since the Fatwa of Imam Khomeini against Rushdie. Unfortunately, the scale of protests and the general anger within the Muslim societies against Rushdie and Danish cartoonists haven’t deterred would-be blasphemers in the West. The belief that their strong voice would send a message to the Western countries to take some legal measures to prevent production and distribution of blasphemous material hasn’t made any impression except public denunciation of such material by political figures.
That is important by itself, but the real change that some Muslims argue for like criminalising blasphemy is not likely to happen — free speech is the bottomline of American and European culture.
My argument is that insulting other religions is a form of religious intolerance that must be condemned and every sane and civilised person would do it.
As explained, some of these acts organised, carefully planned and supported by organisations in the West engender a situation of conflict with Muslim societies.
What should then be the rational response of Muslims is something we need to examine among ourselves. The reaction we have seen in our part of the world against blasphemous acts abroad from Rushdie to Nakoula has hardly been rational, peaceful and even of any use to prevent blasphemy in the future.
Protests against such an episode is the right thing to do. But it also leaves many questions unanswered; why these become violent, why protestors bearing mostly flags of religious groups burn public and private property, why they attack foreign diplomatic missions and why they fight battles with the police.
Those who plan and organise such protests have a responsibility to keep the crowd peaceful and orderly. Have they ever done so and can they do it? We need to address our own failures in creating a tolerant society in our country and tolerance toward other religions and countries.
There is too much hate speech and material against other Islamic sects within Pakistan and also other religions. Isn’t sectarian violence in Pakistan for real and has been with us for decades now?
What is being written and said against Christians and Jews in this country is equally condemnable and we need to prevent that from happening. I suspect our insult of other religions and persecution of religious minorities and immunity to such groups in Pakistan who do that and in other Muslim countries are equally responsible for provoking the extremist Christians to insult our religion.
In my view, we have a greater and more difficult task to put our house in order before we can get some action on the issue of blasphemy in the West.
The writer is a professor of Political Science at LUMS
