Blasphemy and Muslim reaction to it: irrational or logical?

(Analysis of an article ‘why do we blame the west for our weakness’ published in NEWS WEEK Pakistan on Oct 12, 2012 9 (P 26 to 30) by Husain Haqqani, intellectual of international renown and former ambassador to USA)

http://www.newsweekpakistan.com/features/1895

This is the link to an article by Husain HAQQANI 

You may have an experience to go through literalization of metaphor; then you might have wondered at space it gathers. There is a famous adage that encapsulates Machiavellian philosophy of communication: ‘Role of a communication is not to express but to hide’. For our purpose we coin another one ‘Role of communication is to express without expressing anything so to hide one’s true allegiance’. The article of HUSAIN HAQQANI may not read like its literalization; but is an example and more like its consummate application: explicit assertions marked by insinuations and implications to cast them into doubt without apparently doing do so or quoting someone without endorsing or repudiating him so that reader can never know the  belonging of author.  This article really left me wondering at space it gathers.  

Best comment is no comment as silence speaks for itself and says everything; but communication through silence no matter how effective it is can not be an article; article needs words and if role of communication is to express without expressing anything so to hide one’s true allegiance, therefore, writer has to be with someone without being with him and being with someone without being with him. I found MR HUSAIN HAQQANI with me without being with me and being with blasphemers of West with out being with them.  

You can not fool all the people all the time but you can fool enough number of people every time through gloss, massage and slant. Alternative to convincing _ when convincing is impossible and even risky_ is always confusing; making everything so convoluted that everyone has his own theory and no one is sure of it. On title page at the top there was a line ‘Innocence of Muslims’ and in middle there were two ‘ lines ‘ Why do we blame the West for our weakness?’ By HUSAIN HAQQANI. A line at the top and lines in middle seemed  connected to me; saying as I heard that ‘Buying this article proves innocence of Muslim’ and unfortunately I found myself in agreement with it; but as I do not want this article to fool enough number of people so I go for humble if tentative attempt to analyze it.    

‘‘Thousands of Cellphone subscribers received an anonymous text in Pakistan recently announcing a miracle: an earthquake on Tuesday, Sept. 18, had destroyed the Washington, D.C. movie theater that was exhibiting Innocence of Muslims, the controversial film that has triggered violent protests in several Muslim countries’’.

‘Why do we blame the west for our weakness?’ The word ‘we’ means writer includes himself in ‘Us’ and if he is Muslim then he must abstain from calling the film controversial as this film causes no disagreement among Muslims. Muslims are unanimous in its condemnation and must be if they claim to be Muslims.

“An email version of the text message even included a picture of a mangled structure. Allah, the texter claimed, had shown His anger against the movie’s insult to Islam and Islam’s prophet and with Him on their side the faithful should not be afraid to vent their anger against the West, which belittles Islam and abuses the prophet.

There was, of course, no earthquake in Washington and no movie theater has been destroyed…. But for several days, the fabricated text message and email made the rounds…. It was part of a campaign to arouse Muslim passions by what author Salman Rushdie has termed ‘the outrage industry’’.

 Who runs this campaign? Answer is obvious: people like Salman Rushdie who write books and producers who make such films. This outrage industry is by Salman Rushdie as he has created it, and he and people like him run campaign to arouse Muslim passions and if this message and email are part of a campaign then they (or people working on same assignment) must have created them but not for arousing Muslim passions as they were already inflamed by their ‘great work’ but to douse them because angry Muslims taking to streets and shouting slogans against West was not a pleasant sight and if protests sustained and gathered more and more strength so they could constitute a danger to western interests; therefore; such texts and emails tailored to salve enraged mass opinion were disseminated because if work had been done by Allah and revenge had been taken with demolition of theater so ‘with Him on their side the faithful should not be’ taking any action.

‘‘Similar false mass messaging convinced millions after 9/11 that Jews had been warned to stay away from the Twin Towers, implying a conspiracy that many still believe without a shred of evidence. Last year, after U.S Special Forces killed Osama bin Laden, anonymous messages suggested that the raid in Abbottabad was a staged event and bin Laden had been killed months earlier.

            Such well-organized manipulation of sentiment belies the notion that orchestrated protests are spontaneous expressions of Muslim rage’’.

How orchestrated can be spontaneous; if thing is orchestrated as well as spontaneous so it is contradiction in terms; perhaps Mr. HAQQANI  wanted to say that protest were not spontaneous because they were orchestrated or he wanted to come with something like ‘such well organized manipulation of sentiment belies the notion that protests are spontaneous’. Dwelling on syntactic features of text to deal with logical errors in meaning may be digression; therefore to keep focus I concentrate on content not on vehicle to express my logical reservations of message.

Mr. HAQQANI is discussing Muslim rage triggered by movie, and if he means by mentioning incident of Abbottabad that reaction is always sparked by false massaging so I do not remember any reaction and if it were, so it must have been too insignificant to worth any notice, and I wonder what reaction this information that the ‘raid in Abbottabad was a staged event and bin Laden had been killed months earlier’ can even create.  

Many Muslim are fool as they believe with out a shred of evidence that Jews had been warned to stay away from the Twin tower so respected author of an article should have provided a shred of evidence that they were not warned and should have given his opinion regarding an attack on Iraq justified by fabricated story of weapon of mass destruction. Believing without a shred of evidence makes one fool but attacking other country by concocting evidence makes one what? I really need his help to understand. For sake of argument I agree that Jews were not warned but who was ultimate beneficiary of 9/11. Attack on twin tower served expansion designs by becoming an automatic justification for attack on two sovereign states with out alienating international community; millions were killed or maimed with out being responsible for attack on twin towers.

If crime is to be determined by its consequence then reader should determine the enormity of two crimes: believing on false information of Jews involvement and acting on false information of weapon of mass destruction; former has no consequence and latter results in an attack on two countries.

Mr. HAQQANi has drawn an analogy; but the analogy he has created can only be right if there is no film. He by saying that Jews had not be warned to stay away from the Twin Tower implies that there was no conspiracy by Jews and  Muslim reacted on false information but if there were no film and Muslim had reacted on false information of its existence then analogy of his would be right. 

 ‘‘Like followers of any other religion, Muslim do not like insults to their faith or to their Prophet’’

Islam is fundamentally different from other religion in one aspect: Love to prophet is fundamental to survival of Islam. Personality of prophet is the core of Islam and no religion and culture can survive if core is gone. Reaction unleashed by acts of blasphemy is the barometer to gauge the level of commitment to Prophet and articles underscoring tolerance for different opinion follow to encourage Muslim to reconcile with blasphemy. Muslims are fundamentally different from followers of any other religion; followers of any other religion may not like insults to their faith or to their prophet but they take to streets only for matter such as price hike not for blasphemy against any important figure of their religion.

‘‘But the protests that make the headlines are the function of politics, not religion. Hoping to avoid being accused of siding with blasphemers, the Pakistani government tried to align itself with the protesters’ cause by declaring a public holiday and calling it ‘love of the prophet Day.’ Although 95 percent of Pakistani’s 190 million people are Muslims, only an estimated 45000 actually took part in that Friday’s demonstration’’.

Mr. HAQANI must in writing this article hope to avoid being accused of siding with blasphemers; but this hope can be hope against hope unless he explains his concept of freedom of expression as it is used to justify every blasphemy. If Mr. HAQANI is not siding with blasphemers then he is siding with whom? Protesters. No way. Period. Then he must be siding with moderate Muslim those see Islam so flexible that everything becomes permissible. Salman Rushdi is still Muslim even he has written Satanic verses, and person despite having suggested that blasphemy must be tolerated as it was in past without giving any data and reasons of such forbearance tolerated is still Muslim: ‘‘Muslim emperors ruled over large non-Muslim populations while preachers and Sufi mystics worked to proselytize and win converts to Islam. But there is no record in those days of mob violence against the holy prophet or Islam allegedly committed by Islam’s enemies in distant lands’’

If no record proves no happening then one must prove that records in those days were as carefully maintained as they are today and every incident was as covered as it is covered today by ubiquitous media. There are Hadiths (saying of Prophet) directing his companions to behead blasphemer and Mr. HAQQANI can have such Hadiths from Net as decoration of new home must be more important consideration than visiting any scholar. If Muslim emperors and people of that time were as he says not retaliating so they were guilty of violating the instruction of Hadith. ‘Allegedly committed in distant lands’ Mr. HAQQANI knows more than anyone else that in those days no media was straddling the globe so most likely news of blasphemy would have never reached Muslim lands; therefore suggesting that because Muslim of those days did not react to news of blasphemy which they had never heard makes reaction of Muslim of today to news of blasphemy which they hear wrong is very logical indeed.   

Declaring a public holiday can not align Government with protestors as writing entirely different stuff during ZIA’s time can not align MR HAQQANI with people fighting against Soviet. These are responses to the need of time and as need changes so responses.        

 MR HAQQANI suggests that If there ware no declaration of public holiday there would be no protest as he reasons that protests were the function of politics, not religion. There were protest preceding holiday and Government tried to align itself with the people taking part in large protests preceding holiday and if protests emerged as he suggests due to public holiday then Government tried to align itself with people those were no where before public holiday. Aligning with non existent people is so logical that mediocre like me can not understand.

There were protests that had built pressure on government otherwise government would never declare a public holiday. Declaration was the function of politics, not religion.

MR HAQQANI  is right in suggesting that 45000 is very insignificant minority but suggestion that rest think differently or not offended needs proof. To know what people think findings of opinion polls not number of people taking part in demonstration are used as demonstration is one way of expressing anger and writing articles or poems can be another. Poet may not be taking part in protest nor protesters would be writing poems but both can be offended and protest in their own way. Participation in demonstrations requires youth; physical fitness; and most importantly inclination and even then one has all these things they should occur when he has time to take part in them. To prove their love for prophet 95 percent of 190 million must protest as he suggests so I am afraid that no issue or cause in world would ever be proved to have public support because no demonstration in world can ever have 95 percent of total population in them.

Mr. HAQANI can only be right if he proves that people demonstrating were the only people offended by movie but this proof would amount to tacit admission that he himself was not offended as he himself was not protesting. It is really pathetic that Government yielded to such insignificant minority and declared public holiday.

Christian is Christian as long as he believes that religion of his is flawless and others are flawed. Same can be said for follower of any religion or philosophy and it is logical because how one can practice a thing he himself considers flawed. Good article is mature article as it is balanced; incorporating opinion and counter opinion but it is incomplete if it is minus conclusion.

‘‘The 14^th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus hurled the ultimate insult at Muslims when he declared that everything Islam’s prophet brought was evil……Historically Muslim returned the favor by pointing out the flaws in other religions and outlining their own perfect faith’’

Writer has to endorse one of two actions; mentioning both actions  makes his article mature but it is incomplete as MR HAQQANI does not tell readers that which of action he considers right because for Muslim this is his responsibility to point out flaws in other religion as they are flawed but if others are doing likewise so to him they are doing wrong as Islam is flawless.   

    ‘‘The past two decades have seen periodic outbreaks of protest over insults to prophet and Islam. In each case, the protesters were not reacting to something they had seen or read…….The Islamist first introduced the objectionable material to their audience and then instigated the outrage by characterizing it as part of a supposed worldwide conspiracy to denigrate Islam’’

The past two decades have seen periodic attempts to insult prophet and Islam. In each case the people responsible for it were defended and people reacting to their objectionable material were condemned. The protesters were not reacting to something they had seen or read but to something they had been introduced. MR HAQQANI must be explicit about reaction itself; reaction can be right or can be wrong but in either case discussion regarding the means of its reaching to audience is irrelevant; what relevant is and he must deal with it is that what he thinks of it. If this material is not for denigrating Islam then it may be for dignifying it. If blasphemy dignifies Prophet then Mr. HAQQANI must invite people to insult him and the more, must be, the better as logic says. If objectionable material is not the part of a supposed worldwide conspiracy then it is the part of what? I hope he will answer if he has any but for answering I learnt today there is no need to have answer as for writing article there is no need of knowledge and logic. Which thing can have more serious ramification than undermining the core of religion than attempt to compromise or ridicule Prophet.

‘‘An early prototype of these mass mobilization campaigns centered on Rangeela Rasool,  a salacious version of the prophet’s life. Published in British India in 1927, the controversial book was hardly a best seller. In fact it went mostly unnoticed until Muslim politicians encountered it two years later and complained’’.

MR HAQQANI has guided us to something so baffling that no one has so far except one rational school of thought in Pakistan found any solution to it: when to react and when not. If controversial material is best seller or film has made its way beyond You tube so Muslim must react otherwise reaction will make controversial material popular, making inconspicuous conspicuous by reacting to it instead of snubbing it.

As people have grown very logical so I anticipate that soon we may be informed that many of protestors were on payroll of producers or creators of blasphemous material, protesting to make them famous. 

Seepage goes unnoticed and that makes it more dangerous; it insidiously spreads its pernicious effects and when it is discovered so it is too late to do anything. Filtering of unnoticed material continues until it becomes noticeable and when it becomes noticeable so it may be too late to do anything. 

‘‘The British authorities arrested and tried the book’s publisher, Rajpal, only to acquit him’’.

Sentence suggests something and I must complete it by adding what it suggests ‘only to acquit him because RAjpal had not done anything.’ I am happy I have found an answer to my question I posed earlier regarding MR HAQQANI’s concept of freedom of expression.

‘‘Agitation by Muslim groups encouraged a young illiterate carpenter by the single name ILLmuddin to stab the publisher to death in Lahore’’.

 ‘Young illiterate carpenter’. I do not know any consensual definition that defines literate person but perhaps in modern terminology literate person is the one who is capable of proving through logic the absurdness of his own faith. According to this definition Dr Muhammad Iqbal, a national poet may not be literate man; but as he has been given degree of doctorate from literate west so we can safely call him somewhat educated and I can safely mention him. Mr. HAQQANI must know Punjabi as I think his mother was Punjabi because I know him since the day he was neighbor of DR Tahir Massod in MALIR Cannt Karachi, but even I am wrong about his mother so he can ask some one to translate the Punjabi couplet said by DR IQbal to appreciate this illiterate man for killing Rajpal. 

‘‘ Illmuddin was given the title of ghazi (warrior for the faith) by Islamist political groups and was defended in court, albeit on technical ground (and unsuccessfully), by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who would later become the founder of Pakistan.’’

What title MR HAQQANI would like to give? Or is he comfortable with ghazi? Definitely not; but he would most probably be with the title I choose for ILLMUDDIN for him: misguided extremist or enemy of the freedom of expression.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was unsuccessful not because of his incompetence as Mr. HaQQANI tries to give impression and by extension suggests that incompetent became founder of Pakistan but because this ‘illiterate carpenter’ refused to follow his advice that suggested him to deny his any role in killing because there was no evidence to prove him killer and replied: ‘I have only one achievement in my life and that is killing of blasphemer’ MR HAQQANI may respond ‘he was  illiterate in most real sense of meaning and had even a very low IQ’ and I agree with him. MR HAQQANI may respond ‘IF Mr. Jinnah can not convince one ‘illiterate man’ so what else you need to prove him incompetent’. I agree with him again. How can I withstand such great assault of logic; I capitulate, I admit, and my whole world is caving in on me because of humiliation of defeat in this intellectual combat and I must borrow Heading from one article of MR HAQQANI he wrote way back to 1991 about sadam hussain to define myself ‘Hero of Humiliation’.

Having read some lines of the first paragraph of article on page 26, I was challenged by riddle and managed to parry it up to the beginning of page 27, but now it had become unbearable and further proceeding was impossible; reasons were logical and after undergoing humiliation of defeat were psychological as well. I stopped reading and decided to grapple with it assuming that rest of article would be similar to the part I have gone through, therefore not reading further may not be a great deprivation, but I do regret the loss of opportunity to educate myself; but not solving the puzzle might have serious implications as it made me first restive then agitated and then mental mayhem and chaos became so overwhelming and overpowering that I felt numbed and my mind began to sink literary into atrophy.  I have, therefore, no alternative and so here is a riddle: why people hide their true allegiance.

I look for material and find a brief description of ‘Pragmatic intelligence’. Pragmatic intelligence, description says, sees ends justifying means not means justifying ends. If a piece of advice can serve the scheme of enemy, then it is profitable to be a friend. People are always amenable to didactic and avuncular tone plus words are from some one who carries Muslim name so there is much less chance for impulsive defense readers put up against message and much more chance to succumb to temptation that writer may be right as he is one of us.  I guess I have solved the riddle.

Waking up some one who is already wake is impossible task, therefore, I wish MR HAQQANI good luck in his this and further future attempts to ‘guide’ Muslims.