Responding to blasphemy
Almost every decade has had its share of weirdos and cranks with their rollicking chronicles of demented derring-do.
As far as one can remember, almost every decade has had its share of weirdos and cranks with their rollicking chronicles of demented derring-do. Both minority and majority communities in those countries have learned to live with and come to terms with them. Remember those 12 professional cartoonists hired by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Copenhagen on September 30, 2005, who behaved as if they had been sent down from Mount Olympus to draw caricatures which ridiculed the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? And remember that pastor in Florida, under the moniker of Terry Jones, who suddenly got this irresistible urge to burn copies of the Holy Quran? There is, however, a marked difference between how the two countries reacted. The Danish government initially decided to look the other way and took the position that they couldn’t possibly interfere with the freedom of the press. This was followed by a lot of drivel about the publications of the cartoons being a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, especially tied to the issue of self-censorship.
In the United States there was a minor outrage, not just by Muslims who had immigrated to the New World, but also by Jewish and Christian leaders who condemned this contemptible act. An American general said it would have an adverse effect on American soldiers serving in Afghanistan and New York Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg took a more cautionary tone when he said “…No matter how much you disagree with them…the First Amendment protects everybody, and you can't say that we’re going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement. If you want to be able to say what you want to say when the time comes that you want to say it, you have to defend others.”
Things had gotten to the point where it looked as if US President Barack Obama would step in. Fortunately, pressure groups prevailed and stole the thunder of the pastor who had obviously groomed himself for eccentricity. Whatever feelings one might have about the Americans — and their stock has never been as low in Pakistan as it is today — the overwhelming majority of the people are decent, tolerant, upright folks who respect other people’s religion and detest witch-hunts carried out by uncompromising, overzealous fanatics seeking cheap publicity.
Unfortunately in Pakistan, the level of tolerance against the minorities is abysmally low and, although the constitution protects the rights of minorities, Christians live in constant dread of being accused of committing blasphemy. Strangely enough, most so-called profanity cases are reported in the illiterate lower classes where certain procedural routines recommended by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) report are not followed. People who uphold the law know that blasphemy, as generally understood by the term, hardly ever takes place in this country and accusations of committing sacrilege invariably occur in disputes between a Muslim and a Christian when the former uses a weapon bequeathed to him by Pakistan’s most retrogressive and obscurantist dictator Ziaul Haq.
The government of Mr Yousaf Raza Gilani has the power to implement the CII recommendation which would go a long way in correcting the unfortunate image the country has abroad. It will also protect victims in a crusade with lofty ambitions which have ended up besmirched by atrocity.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 24th, 2010.
In the United States there was a minor outrage, not just by Muslims who had immigrated to the New World, but also by Jewish and Christian leaders who condemned this contemptible act. An American general said it would have an adverse effect on American soldiers serving in Afghanistan and New York Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg took a more cautionary tone when he said “…No matter how much you disagree with them…the First Amendment protects everybody, and you can't say that we’re going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement. If you want to be able to say what you want to say when the time comes that you want to say it, you have to defend others.”
Things had gotten to the point where it looked as if US President Barack Obama would step in. Fortunately, pressure groups prevailed and stole the thunder of the pastor who had obviously groomed himself for eccentricity. Whatever feelings one might have about the Americans — and their stock has never been as low in Pakistan as it is today — the overwhelming majority of the people are decent, tolerant, upright folks who respect other people’s religion and detest witch-hunts carried out by uncompromising, overzealous fanatics seeking cheap publicity.
Unfortunately in Pakistan, the level of tolerance against the minorities is abysmally low and, although the constitution protects the rights of minorities, Christians live in constant dread of being accused of committing blasphemy. Strangely enough, most so-called profanity cases are reported in the illiterate lower classes where certain procedural routines recommended by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) report are not followed. People who uphold the law know that blasphemy, as generally understood by the term, hardly ever takes place in this country and accusations of committing sacrilege invariably occur in disputes between a Muslim and a Christian when the former uses a weapon bequeathed to him by Pakistan’s most retrogressive and obscurantist dictator Ziaul Haq.
The government of Mr Yousaf Raza Gilani has the power to implement the CII recommendation which would go a long way in correcting the unfortunate image the country has abroad. It will also protect victims in a crusade with lofty ambitions which have ended up besmirched by atrocity.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 24th, 2010.