N-double standard
Arab News
Islam is hardly out of the news these days.
In fact, this has been the case for many years, and mostly for the wrong reasons. In the last couple of weeks, the world media were frantically busy, awaiting developments and reactions to the call by the pastor of a small church in Florida who wanted to burn copies of the Qur'an. The pastor achieved all he had coveted of publicity. His face became recognizable throughout the world's five continents. How could the media fail to give him that when he called for an "international day" to be marked by bonfires in which the Qur'an provided the main fuel? The fact that no one anywhere in the world, including the pastor's own parishioners, came forward in support of the idea was lost on the media.
Yet the pastor succeeded in linking his endeavor to the proposed building of an Islamic center on a piece of land which lies a few hundred yards away from the site of Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center stood before it was destroyed in an attack blamed on Muslims. Thus he was able to show himself as responding to provocation, rather than the instigator of provocation. Indeed, there was absolutely no linkage between his call and the choice of the location of the proposed Islamic center. However, the choice of location is wrong for the very reason of its being easily manipulated by such hate preachers as the Florida priest.
In a world that has come to associate Islam with terrorism, which is a totally false association, Muslims should be very careful, making sure to steer away from whatever could be exploited to stir emotions against their faith. There might have been all the right justification for the Islamic center to be built on that spot of land. Yet when someone comes up with an outrageous idea like burning the Qur'an and links it with the building of the center, the sound justification is lost and the controversy rages on.
I cannot but wonder at the comments that were made by some American politicians and army generals on the call to burn the Qur'an. Many of them only said that such an event would expose American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to greater danger. They saw the event only through this narrow angle. They failed to address the right issue of the need to spread love and peace, rather than hate and antagonism. The all-important value of respecting other people's freedom, beliefs and sanctities did not feature in their discourse.
We, Muslims, have become accustomed to such lopsided vision of Western politicians. The Florida priest could have ensured better success for his hate campaign had he thought of inviting Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, to inaugurate his bonfire. In all probability, she would have canceled some of her engagements to find time for such an unmissable event. Last week, she presented an award to the Danish cartoonist who stirred a great wave of protest in the Muslim world and elsewhere when he published unsavory cartoons painting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in bad light. Those who chose to give the award to the cartoonist professed to be supporting freedom of speech and expression. As a writer, and as a Muslim, I unequivocally support such freedom. Yet neither the cartoonist nor those honoring him appear to be consistent with the universal value that the exercise of one's rights must not represent a violation of the rights of others. It is the right of all people to have their beliefs and sanctities respected. It is not right to give offense to millions under the pretext of freedom of expression. Many writers and academics wrote criticizing Islam and no one stirred a finger at them. However, people like the Danish cartoonist, Salman Rushdie and the Florida priest are of a different type. They are preachers of hate, like some fringe groups of Muslims who advocate terrorist action. Such people should be clearly told, by all supporters of freedom throughout the world, that fueling the fire of hate is contrary to all sound values, religious and secular alike.
Where does the German chancellor stand on all this? What is baffling is that for an astute politician, there seems to be something unbalanced in her attitude on questions relating to Islam. She can certainly understand the anger of Muslims throughout the world at the publication of the Danish cartoons in several Western papers. Muslims all over the world did not find the argument of freedom of expression relevant to the desecration of their sanctities. Why should she refuel the controversy by honoring the culprit cartoonist? Surely she knows that her action plays into the hands of extremists. May be that is what she wants!
Fourteen centuries ago, Islam laid down a principle that remains binding on all Muslims for the rest of time: They must not abuse the sanctities of other people even though those people may be guilty of the worst offense of all, namely, attributing divinity to anyone other than God. The Qur'an gives us the following clear order: "Do not revile those whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite, and in ignorance. Thus have We made the actions of every community seem goodly to them. Then to their Lord shall they all return, and He will explain to them all that they have been doing." (6: 108)
