Tweet

This may appear to be an oversimplification, but a month after the January 7 Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, there are six major questions we need to ask ourselves. Are terror killings acceptable? No, whatever be the cause. The second is the right to freedom of expression. A definite and loud yes. The right to criticise?

Another definite yes as it follows from the right to free speech. The freedom to offend? The answer to this iffy and complex question is: perhaps. The fifth is freedom to practise one's religion, adhere to one's faith or practise no religion. The answer is yes. The right to get hurt by criticism? Yes. But the right to kill for that? A resounding no.

The reaction of the French and the world at large was magnificent, characteristic of a strong society that was angry and defiant. A vibrant and sympathetic media helped. Contrast this with reactions to two other events that took place around the same time. There was an outcry inside Pakistan to the December 16, 2014 killings in Peshawar in which Taliban terrorists gunned down 132 schoolchildren. But the world stopped at the usual words of sympathy. The Pakistani state reacted tentatively, became ambivalent and eventually escapist, especially evident after the Paris killings. Luminaries like Hafiz Saeed, Pervez Musharraf, Hamid Gul and Zaid Zaman Hamid reverted to form accusing India of masterminding the Peshawar attack.

Two thousand Nigerians were killed by Boko Haram in that same week and the world was largely unmoved. The killings made it to very few front pages. Quite clearly the world won't care if the people themselves do not care or have no voice. In this case, the world was the media.

The issue also is how the rest of the world reacts to terrorism that seeks to avenge perceived insults and wrongs. There have been various writings on this with respect to Islamist terror and this includes writings by Pakistanis and Muslims from other countries who urge a relook at the way Islam has been hijacked.

In his brilliant essay 'Islam Needs Reform from Within', Pakistani writer Raza Rumi wrote, "The barbaric killing of journalists exercising their right of free speech is beyond condemnable. It strikes at the heart of press freedom." It also strikes beyond the basic premises of any religion and it makes it difficult for others to accept that Islam is about peace and submission. Reactions among some Muslim countries suggest that they have not accepted that Charlie Hebdo killings was terrorism.

Obsession with blasphemy has been eating up Muslim societies from within. This, Rumi says, can be altered through "introspection and self-correction, not exorcising the ghosts of the past and injustices of the present. Only Muslims can do it themselves". He is right. Reform, especially in matters of faith, has to come from within. It cannot be imposed from outside

According to Islamic art scholar Christiane Gruber, "The Koran does not prohibit figural imagery. Rather, it castigates the worship of idols." She writes that 14th century paintings of the Prophet are available at the Smithsonian Institute and Edinburgh University.

In his article 'Freedom to Offend' in Pakistan's The Friday Times, journalist Kunwar Khuldune Shahid wrote, "The majority of Muslims would consider the honest Muslim reformist a blasphemer for daring to interpret the scripture a certain way. There is no reform without criticism." He also asks the important question: "Will those who are willing to take offence and ready to kill in revenge accept the argument that Christians and Hindus would be justified in attacking Muslims because the Muslims disrespected their gods?"

To an outsider, it appears that there is ferment within Islam and this is of various kinds. It is Islam as seen by some of its extremist votaries versus the rest of the world that consists of Christians, Jews, Hindus and apostates. This is the 'Islam-is-indanger' school of thought. There is an internal debate between tolerant and intolerant Islam, which the intolerant are winning because they have the guns.

Then there is the schismatic and extremely violent debate between the Sunnis and Shias. The situation gets complicated because of geo-political interests in the Muslim world, both for those who live there and those who want to control it.

In an article in the Washington Post, journalist Asra Nomani wrote "…we need a new interpretation of Islamic law in order to change the culture. This would require rejecting the eight schools of religious thought that dominate the Sunni and Shiite Muslim world." This could take the power out of the hands of the status quoist clerics, politicians and experts and replace it with a progressive interpretation of faith.

None of this is easy. Entrenched interests will resist. It is a long and difficult path, but at least some Muslims from within are talking about it. This, however, is not the end of terrorism.

Vikram Sood
13 February 2015
(The writer is an Advisor to Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a former chief of R&AW)

Tweet