In defence of Salman Ahmed

When the offensive Danish cartoons were first published, very few took notice. In fact, not much happened until two Danish imams toured the Middle East to strum up awareness and support. What followed was an estimated 100 people who died in the protests, mostly poor Muslims. The protests didn’t really hurt those who they were intended against.

Because of Facebook and several other controversies, it is easy to see the beginnings of the wellspring of Muslim anger. It’s obvious the cartoons and Draw Muhammad (pbuh) Day were initiatives rooted in Islamophobia disguised as free speech.

That being said, Muslims are prone to acting irrationally, and quite often with false and dangerous piety. Earlier when a magazine misprinted a statement of Shahrukh Khan in India about the Prophet (pbuh), whom he has on many occasions publicly admired, mullahs in India were quick to declare him a disbeliever. It was heartening to see that others quickly denounced the rabid religious lot for not giving the man a chance to clarify, thus doing something un-Islamic in their hollow zealotry. As it turned out, the reporter made a mistake.

The Christians of Gojra in Pakistan know that all too well, except there was no clarification because no one would listen. Indian superstars accused of blasphemy at least get a fair trial, not the noose of mob justice for minorities in Pakistan.

And slowly, it seems it is rocker Salman Ahmed’s turn. The publicity hungry musician has been trying to turn himself into the Bono of Islam for a while now in the US. In one of his programmes he described Islam as a “sexy” religion, and also set some verses of the Quran to music.

I have seen trouble spots where people are trying to work up a storm against him, admittedly not very large now. But, whatever one thinks of his newly found oeuvre as the new torchbearer for Islam in the west, he must be defended.

Why, you ask? Well, for starters, people need their chance to convey their thoughts without running the risk of randomly being torched in innocence. The truth is, if 40 years ago someone said he thought his religion was cool, you would have the same murmurings of resentment, and possible violent excommunication.

Salman responded to someone who was talking about passages in the Holy Quran related to sexual behaviour, in what was an unfortunate choice of words by someone else. But it’s obvious he was echoing the more recent understanding of the word ‘sexy’, which for all intents and purposes is desexualised. If you play chess, and someone remarks that your latest move was sexy, what he or she is saying is that it is an elegant and possibly winning go.

But let’s just say Salman is guilty of a flippant use of verbs, well then talk it out. Surely the penalty for that is not death. After all the man serves a vital function, who would you rather have the American media ask for a comment, him or Mullah Omar? In the much ignored interfaith initiatives he presents a useful representation of the diversity of the Muslim world to international audiences.

Secondly, yes he did set some verses to the guitar. I frankly do not know if it is a severe violation of our faith, but if it is, it represents one man’s genuine interest, maybe misguided, in understanding his religion.

But I wonder just how different what he has done is from all those others who recite the Quran with advanced recording techniques that create a theatre of sound, or acapella accompaniments that use vocals to reproduce music?

During times of massive displacement and death from floods, a non-issue like this one, unfortunately, will still get people more animated than the human tragedy at our footsteps. Speaks volumes for us, especially when our only concern becomes silencing those who speak for us where we cannot.

Better Salman Ahmed represent us than the hordes of internet fiends with time on their hands creating cyber jihads out of nothing.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 3^rd, 2010.