Desecration of Holy Quran

Asking UN to force its member countries not to allow actions that would hurt religious sentiment would be pointless.


Editorial March 27, 2011

In September of last year, Terry Jones, an attention-seeking fundamentalist Christian pastor from Florida, had the world on edge as he announced that he would be burning the Holy Quran outside his church. Coinciding as it did with the controversy over a proposal to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, Jones achieved the notoriety he so clearly desired and then backed out of his plan at the last minute. This week, under considerably less media attention, Jones finally followed through with his plan.

It is to the credit of the Muslim world that they did not succumb to Jones’ bait. There were scattered protests in Pakistan over his actions but they were not attended by more than a few hundred people. After the furore over the Danish cartoons, the fear was that such protests may turn violent. Had that happened, it would have been a public relations coup for Jones and his ilk. Their intention is to show that all Muslims are irrational and violent; by killing and looting we would have given them confirmation that this is indeed the case. Now that Pakistani outrage at his puerile and offensive action has been noted, it is best to put Jones out of sight and out of mind. He feeds on attention and starving him of that will show that his actions have failed.

The Pakistani government, too, has played this in an appropriately low-key manner. Our ambassador to the US registered a protest with the American government. The US State Department also condemned Terry Jones’ action. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech — book burning, even if the book in question is a holy book, falls under that. Asking the UN to force its member countries not to allow actions that would hurt religious sentiment would also be pointless as it would certainly be vetoed by the US. It is time to move on and show through our deeds that we are better than Terry Jones.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 28th, 2011.

COMMENTS (28)

Aft@b | 13 years ago | Reply @Romana Khan: While the majority of Americans support Israel’s right to exist it does not mean that they desire the destruction of the Palestinian nation. The public, though not intimately familiar with the complexities of the issue, desires the peaceful coexistence of both Israel and Palestine, and rightfully so. If you feel that public opinion is partial towards Israel and undeservedly negative towards Palestine it has much to do with the actions of the Palestinian militants. The image of an AK-47 wielding / bearded / middle-aged hi-jacker will never sit well with the American public. But the concept of a disciplined military backed by a democratically elected government is much easier to swallow. You might say that the western media intentionally portrays the Palestinians in a negative manner, but its not the case. Can you tell me of even one prominent media-friendly Palestinian leader who has spoken coherently and logically for the rights of the people of Palestine on the world stage? I know I can't think of one, and the reason for that is because their corrupt and selfish leadership is more interested in building their personal palaces than finding a solution to the conflict and improving the lives of their people. Either that or they're simply incapable of conducting effective international mass communications. Coming to the Kashmir issue, the majority of Americans aren't even aware of the conflict much less have an opinion about it. Though the dispute is a regional one it has had a global impact. But it is up to India and Pakistan to find the solution to the problem, the U.S cant impose its verdict on either of them.  As for not assisting Pakistan during its wars with India, you must realize that the goal of American foreign policy is the promotion of American interests globally. As America is strategically interested in both Pakistan and India providing military assistance to one side and not the other would be self-defeating.  The militarization and weaponization of the Taliban was a joint U.S. - Pak effort during the Soviet-Afghan war. But Pakistan continued to support the Taliban after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, granted that it had no other option than to do so.  The U.S. has portrayed implicit approval of the Pakistani nuclear program. Don't forget that Pakistan's first atomic reactors were provided by the U.S. and that Canada built Pakistan's first civil nuclear power plant.
Romana Khan | 13 years ago | Reply Aft@b Correct, no direct opppsition from the ruling lot atleast on the surface but from the populace who always found it difficult to digest its blatant favourtism and partiality towards Israel at the expense of palestinian bloodshed and giving a blind eye to Kashmir issue and never supporting Pakistan during the two wars fought with India. And why did the populace expected support from them, in partcicular from the U.S, because Pakistan has always done their bidding and still is...Taliban problem is their doing and creation. Also, Pakistan's nuclear program has never sat well with the West, being the only Islamic country to possess it so far...not to mention its strategic geographical location...gateway to the pipelines. I am surprised at your oblivion to these facts...
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ