Share this story!            

VIEW: This cartoon business—Munir Attaullah

Let us understand that the European and modern (Oh, all right, ‘secular’) thinking on the issue of ‘religious freedom’ is not based on “respect for religious beliefs and faith in God Almighty”. We may be hung up on our religion and all that, but for others the ‘respect’ is not for religion per se, but only for the civic right of everyone to make their own religious choices

Here we go again, ‘our’ delicate sensibilities ‘outraged’ once more for some reason or the other.

That prompts me to ask myself, why I too am not burning with this sense of outrage. Honestly, are you? How many of us have actually seen the offensive material? Is it ‘really’ universally and outrageously repulsive to any sane person, or is it just in bad taste? And is it not possible that this cartoon business is, like much else in our schizophrenic society (such as the wearing of lipstick and jeans, participating in mixed marathons, or contracting ‘love’ marriages etc) just another example of what a particular segment of our population thrives upon (by making a mountain out of a molehill and constantly trying to impose its own values on everyone else)?

For, unsurprisingly, those among us who have taken upon themselves the mantle of speaking and acting on our behalf in such cases have, as usual, done us no favour with their verbal emotional outbursts, and even more crassly irrational actions. Intemperate language and rampaging mobs neither impress or influence Western countries nor promote that famous soft image we seek.

I am not talking here only about those whose ignorance precludes their knowing any better, and whose narrow and simplistic minds are easy victims of ruthless religio-political manipulators. I can just about ignore the antics of this lot with a sad shake of the head. But when some well respected columnists (not to mention many a politician looking to earn easy brownie points) offer such unsavoury elements journalistic solace and political and moral support, it is time I too should claim to be sufficiently ‘outraged’ to offer my two rupees worth, on an issue that otherwise I would not consider worth a second thought.

(Did I say I was “outraged”? Not really. “A trifle disgusted and a little annoyed” would be a more honest description of my state of mind. But then, why should I not too, in modern fashion, go over the top? The local marketing whiz kid informs me that unless I feign to be screaming as loudly as the next person I will not be taken seriously).

To bolster whatever little I have to say — which, I hasten to add, is not intended as approval of a tasteless, mindless, and probably stupid original act — let me use as a counterpoint two columns I read last week on this subject that prompted me to write today’s piece.

The first example comes from a well-known commentator/analyst (The News, February 6). In her finest mood of righteous indignation and feigned anger — we are masters of that art, are we not? — she had this to say in a conscious attempt at some lyrical prose: “...There is no battle to be fought with those who indulged in the ugly act of deliberately insulting my prophet. I am numbed with outrage over this uncivilised act they have committed. I would simply say to them, yours are not civilised ways. Whatever you claim to the contrary they actually betray a people with a reactionary mindset.”

A little later she goes on to say, “...There are those who become possessed by anger when confronted with difficult and challenging situations. Anger halts our ability to probe and reflect.” I say “Amen” to that. How true. But how strange that that eminently sensible thought is at odds with her own sentences quoted in the earlier paragraph.

She continues, “...You have evolved into a culture which licenses permissiveness....” as contrasted with “... there are some touchstones of our civilisation that include respect of religion and faith in God Almighty.” The final salvo is about how the Western world has “...opted to not view terrorism as a fringe phenomena within Muslims and instead refer to terrorism as Islamic terrorism.”

It does not take a Jacques Derrida to deconstruct the above. The modern, secular, and essentially practical concept of ‘political and social freedom’ is here first given a moral hue by using loaded words like ‘license’ and ‘permissiveness’. This little verbal trick is necessary because only then can an unfavourable comparison be made of European values with our value system, based on ‘respect for religious beliefs and faith in God Almighty’.

But let us not confuse grapefruits for oranges. Let us understand that the European and modern (Oh, all right, ‘secular’) thinking on the issue of ‘religious freedom’ is not based on “respect for religious beliefs and faith in God Almighty”. We may be hung up on our religion and all that, but for others the ‘respect’ is not for religion per se, but only for the civic right of everyone to make their own religious choices and not suffer any consequences for so doing. Let me ask you: do you seriously ‘respect’ all religions, including all the hundreds of outlandish ones?

That is a far cry from what happens in Islamic countries. But until we similarly decide to discuss — and resolve — social and political matters only within the parameters of civil rights rather than religion, we will continue to suffer the horrors of various forms of ‘outrage’: against ‘dishonour’ in all its guises, against ‘blasphemy’, against ‘desecration’ against ‘sacrilege’ etc.

As for her final little throwaway sentence on terrorism, I am left speechless. Terrorism is a ‘fringe’ phenomenon among Muslims; is it? Wow! Ask the rest of the world. But then, I suppose, as usual we are the only ones marching in step. Its either that or we are, once again, innocent victims of a gigantic international conspiracy.

Let me next reproduce what our own respected columnist (and my friend) Ijaz ul Hassan had to say last week. “...Freedom demands that the individual and society observe restraint in deference to the material and cultural needs and sentiments of other people and nations.” Admirable, so far. Alas! This is the follow-up sentence: “This may be difficult to grasp for most people of industrial nations whose post-colonial consciousness is muddled by the freedom they exercised to rapaciously destroy and plunder the culture and wealth of non-industrial countries.”

Such sentiments (I refuse to dignify them as arguments) leave me utterly flabbergasted and flummoxed. What, pray, is the relevance, in the present context, of the professor’s diatribe against colonialism? Is it to suggest that we know more about ‘freedoms’ and their responsible use? Sure, colonialism was rapacious and ugly and we were victims. But then is it not true that until some 50 years ago, conquering and plundering others if you had the opportunity was the universal norm for whoever could get away with it? Did we Muslims not do the same when we had our chance?

It is not as if the Western world is unaware that most of the mob action and protests we have witnessed, far from being ‘spontaneous’, are the result of carefully orchestrated efforts over many months by committed Islamist groups that many governments have chosen to support for their own political ends. And, given our own track record and proclivities, we have nothing to teach anyone, and the non-Islamic world must be doubling over with laughter at our pretensions of occupying the moral high ground when it comes to pontificating on the issues of religious freedom, tolerance and sensitivity. How long would the equivalent of an Abu Hamza or an Omar Al Bakri survive in the Islamic world?

I do not know what definitive answer to give to a person or group that feels wronged and seeks redress when the complaint relates to a fuzzy area of social interaction that it is not clear is best dealt with through legislation or social pressure. It is the kind of problem that, in some shape or form, will always bedevil human societies. But I do know that passing fatwas of death a la Rushdie, or burning down of embassies, or other anti-social behaviour in general, is not the answer.

The writer is a businessman

Home | Editorial

Share this story!