Without a doubt the criminal acts of the Taliban in killing UN staff in Mazar Sharif and the beheading of two of them is condemned. The perpetrators of this horrendous crime must be identified and brought to justice as soon as possible. Furthermore, steps must be taken to prevent the repetition of similar acts in the future for good. But what compels me to write this piece is not just the condemnation of this act but a criticism for disregarding or not paying sufficient attention to the principal culprit of this sad event. Clearly, the burning of the Quran is the main instigator and excuse for creating this tragedy.
Beliefs and convictions are not simple matters such as paper that can be put on fire with a match or by the application of force. On the contrary, force and disrespect produce just the opposite results and in fact encourage the extremists in their evil pursuits. The Christian pastor who embarked on this act must be asked: Has the burning of the Quran resulted in a reversal in the beliefs of a large group of Muslims who believe in the divinity of their holy book? Did this act show the path of tolerance and moderation to the world, to your co-thinkers and particularly to Muslims? Has the world become a better place because of your action? This pastor should be asked whether he would still burn the Quran if he had a child, brother, sister or any beloved person in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon or any other Muslim country. Why did he not do this in Afghanistan? Or why not in New York, on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, the place where two mosques face each other and where Pakistani Muslims go about? The unfortunate reality is that the action of this pastor, who knew the consequence of his act would be to create more hatred and incite people to violence, has only benefitted the divisive opportunists.
Violence and inciting people to be violent are condemned actions. IT does not matter whether the perpetrators are Muslims, Christians, Jews or followers of any religion. What condemns and rejects pro-violence extremists is lack of tolerance of others, dogmatism and consequently the killing of innocent and defenseless people. And these are the very things that the pro-violence pastor has shown to the people of the world.
This Christian pastor should be asked, How many verses of the Quran has he read? With how many Muslims has he talked with? Which Muslim thinker has he asked his questions about Islam and what responses has he received? What plans does he have for the peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims in America? How can he, in his sermons as a pastor, invite, encourage and convince people to love, friendship and peace?
One cannot claim to be a follower of Jesus, the messenger of patience and toleration, and yet act just the opposite. In the very book that this Christian Taliban burned, Jesus Christ and his mother Mary are revered and the miracle story of creation is narrate in detail. Out of respect and admiration for Mary and her child, the Quran has a verse named to them. Christian values are divine and much respected among us Muslims.
The burning of a holy book and killing are not rational acts. Critiquing and rejecting a religion is not the same as burning the holy book of that religion and consequently hurting the feeling of the followers of that faith as this only provides the basis to violent opportunists. Criticizing a religion or critiquing it is something that is accomplished by reading and evaluating the texts of that religion.
One may try to argue that this pastor has not done anything illegal according to US laws and has merely used his right to freedom of speech. But the reality is that his action cannot be considered exercising freedom of speech because any action that promotes and advocates violence by promoting hate is hate speech, and this is condemned and punishable by law. The law clearly stipulates that hate speech can be any insulting language to racial, ethnic, religious or minority groups or individuals or to women.
According to this definition, the words and action of this war mongering pastor equate to hate speech. If this is not the case, then what is the use of this law? In the current conditions prevalent in the world and particularly in the Middle East, what better instance can be found relevant to this law? If US laws, or those of any country, cannot protect their citizens from violence, then what is their use? As far as I know, none of those who were killed in Afghanistan were US citizens. But my question is what if they were? Could the pastor then say that he does not regret his action and would still like to stage demonstrations against Muslims in front of a mosque? Would the American people allow him to do something like this?
The response of American and non-American officials have all been in condemnation of this action and remarks.
These range from those of David Petraeus the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan to US president Barak Obama, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, state and local officials in Florida, the Vatican, the secretary of defense of Canada, etc. Florida state officials even refrained from issuing a permit for this act.
US public opinion must lead this issue too and condemn this pastor’s action in any way they consider right so that similar tragedies are not repeated. He must be held accountable to the public and the law.
Freedom of speech is necessary for the growth and development of any individual or group but violent acts cannot be attributed to it. Any action that embeds violence must be confronted while tolerance and respect should be promoted. Legal action should be taken in this regard because a society is run by laws not ethics.
The reality of today’s world is that there are multitudes of beliefs, religions etc whose followers range from fundamentalists to post-modernists. These beliefs cannot be seen to be identical. What we must learn is how to accept each other while each of us beliefs and pursues different religions and views and live side by side in peace.
