Muslim Outrage

Pakistani riots about more than cartoons

Violent protests may have been influenced by poverty as much as religious fervor.

By David Montero | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - As elsewhere in the Muslim world, Pakistan has seen an upswing in violence following the publication in Danish and other newspapers of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. Local TV has been awash with images of young men rampaging through the streets, hurling stones, and carrying sticks. Some youths simply seemed swept up in organic chaos, smiling and waving before cameras. Others destroyed hundreds of cars and trashed banks and restaurants like Pizza Hut and KFC in Lahore. A bank guard opened fire, killing two young men, and a third bystander was killed during clashes between students and police. In Peshawar, an 8-year-old boy was killed after being accidentally shot by a protester firing into a crowd. One man was killed by downed power lines.
Over the past week, Islam and religious fervor have been fingered as the source of the spreading violence. But to some analysts, the erratic nature of the demonstrations points to different root causes.

The flash conflagrations, they argue, highlight a profound discontent in Paki-stan over economic and social inequality that has deepened over the past five years, sparking alienation and resentment.

While the attacks on Western restaurants, cars, and banks have been read as an attack on the West, those targets are potent symbols simply of privilege and status that is beyond the reach of much of Pakistan's population.

"In Western society, only the common man eats at KFC. But in Pakistan, these are eateries of the most privileged," says Rasul Bakhsh Rai, a professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Muhammed Sarfarz Naimi, a religious party leader, began Valentine's Day shouting down the Danish cartoons as blasphemous. By the afternoon, however, his faith compelled him to shout different protests, as throngs of young people in Lahore destroyed private businesses and government buildings, part of a swell of some 15,000 protestors who rampaged through the cultural capital in some of the worst violence the city has seen in recent years.

For Dr. Naimi, condemning the desecration of the prophet Muhammad and the desecration of life and livelihood are both parts of his calling.

"We demand that the government of Denmark apologize. Until they apologize, the protests will continue," he said by telephone, but added about the violent protesters, "On that day we stopped them. We shouted, 'Don't destroy others' livelihood, don't destroy others' wealth, others' shops.' This is prohibited by Islam."

Naimi is one of several religious leaders playing a dual role these past few days, condemning in equal measure the offensive depictions of the prophet and the wanton violence perpetrated in several Pakistani cities.

"Violence is antireligion. To be harmful in this respect is against religion," says Syed Munawar Hasan, secretary general of Jamaat Islami Pakistan in Lahore.

While some of the agitation was in fact directed toward the cartoons, religious leaders and secular analysts agree that the ensuing violence has little to do with religious offenses committed far away, and more to do with grievances at home.

"There was no religious component to the violence," says Kamila Hyat, joint director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, based in Lahore. "All the violence was influenced by small groups of boys who were not moved by the blasphemy issue."

Others express doubt that those participating in the destruction were even aware of the blasphemy issue. Instead, they say, many participants took the opportunity to express an otherwise stifled but roiling sense of frustration.

"The whole thing was initiated because of the cartoons," says Nauman Wazir, president of the Industrialists' Association of Peshawar. "Then it was hijacked by some elements - schoolboys, people sitting idle - who also wanted to be a part of it. They have forgotten what the cause is."

But youthful discontent alone cannot be blamed, religious leaders and other analysts are quick to point out. Both on and off the record, many say the involvement of state intelligence agencies in fomenting the violence cannot be discounted. The current administration, some argue, is trying to spread panic about religious extremists in a bid to hold on to power.

"Maybe [President Pervez] Musharraf is trying to create a situation where he says to [US President George] Bush, 'Look, I'm sitting on dynamite with these mullahs and I'm the only one who can contain them,' " says Zarafullah Khan, director of the Center for Civic Education in Islamabad.

There is no proof of such activity, but observers say a weak police response is suggestive of state approval. The police in Lahore have been widely criticized for their failure to quell the violence, with many saying police did little to intervene. Mian Ameer Mahmood, the district nazim of Lahore, roughly equivalent to a mayor, denied the accusations: "I am on the record that police were not present at the time when people were burning buildings."

Such a tepid response contrasts sharply with last month's controversial marathon in Lahore, observers say, where thousands of police were deployed to prevent disruptions. It also contrasts with reports of armed troops stationed on rooftops and roadsides of Karachi Thursday, where 50,000 demonstrators rallied peacefully against the cartoons.

Further protests are expected to mount in coming days, culminating in a nationwide protest on March 3 to coincide with the arrival of President Bush. Leaders of Jamaat Islami hope the demonstrations will be peaceful, although they cannot account for how some outside their party will act. "Ensure we cannot. We don't have the police and army with us," says Mr. Hasan. "Even then, our experience tells us that we've always been successful in organizing peacefully."

Why do you need to dilute what they are doing--and doing moreso than any other religion--by lumping them in with other religions, who are by any stretch of the imagination, comparatively more peaceful?

Why do you sidestep the issue of their actions, as supported by their religious documents?

If your kid smacks the neighbor kid in the head, will you give statistics on all the neighborhood children, or address what your kid has done?

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

Lash, where is the sidestepping? Really?

I have one very simple point. Within the larger group of Muslims, there are two groups; those who are violent and irrational, either directly or by supporting those who are, and those who are not.

I think you agree that those who are not exist -- you've said so, and with some pique that I would even think you don't think so.

Therefore you already agree with my main point -- that when I see lumping of all Muslims together as in the post that begins this thread, I say whoa there, they're not all like that.

Which you agree with.

Right?

You continue to come back to this, and I feel that this constant return to something so basic is a retreat from the issue.

We're far beyond thinking every Muslim is violent, or agrees with violence.

Now, why don't we discuss the nature of the religion, which is underpinned with incongruous planks of peace and condoned violence by it's author. This is not a swipe at Muslims who denounce violence. If they pay no attention, or reject the calls to violence in the Koran, and Suras, and Hadiths,...and the mistreatment of women...then, I don't consider them part of the problem.

I do consider part of the problem to be people, who close their eyes to the violent passages in their religious writings.

Since you are a student of the Koran, you have many examples of what I'm talking about. What do you think about them?

Or, to use your analogy:

If my kid smacks a neighbor kid on the head, I'd take responsibility and address the situation. If an observer said "Yeah, what can you expect, all Jews are violent, it's in their Torah or whatever it's called", I'd take exception.

It's not either/ or. It can be both.

sozobe
I would like to point out that all Germans did not agree with Adolph Hitler. However, enough did to allow for his reign of terror. That IMO is analogous to what is presently at play in the Moslem world.

Does the Torah condone violence, soz?

I have not closed my eyes, Lash. From this thread alone:



Acknowledging violent extremists.



More explicitly.





Are there any violent passages in Christian religious writings?

Do you "close your eyes" to them?

The Old Testament (shared by Jews and Christians -- and Muslims, I may add) has a whole lotta violence and condoning, Lash, yes.

Interesting article about the many commonalities between the three religions:

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2002/Feature2.asp

Lots of violence in the Bible. None of it condoned by Christ--who was the namesake of Christianity.

If it was, I wouldn't be a Christian. The refusal to say it is OK to do violence on another person is what made Christianity so appealing to me.

And, soz, weren't almost all of those passages you chose, added to comparisons to other religions? One of the reasons I was asking you these questions, was because you never seem able (or I should say "willing') to simply discuss the negative impact of Islam, without resorting to comparisons of other religions.

I don't just find this trait in you. I never have been able to understand it.

I have been mistaken in the past about how many Islamic leaders decry the violence. (Just thought I'd add that in.)

There is nothing in either the Torah or the Christian bible that even comes close to that condoned or sanctioned by the Koran. You will never see a Rabbi, Minister or Priest get up in front of his congregation and yell Kill, Kill as do some Imam in their Friday sermons

Or I may add a trip to paradise offered for the obscene act of murdering innocent men, women and children.

I think the comparison sort of cheapens the focus on information. I would like to discuss all three of the major religions separately, though.

For me, it's not a "which religion is better...of course, mine"... It's a serious inquiry of exactly waht is entailed in these religions... I'd like to do that.

Does Jewish adherents still live by Levitical law?

Lash, shall we track how this thread progressed?

You seem to be ignoring the first post here. Which I was, ya know, responding to.

That was about ALL MUSLIMS. Generalities, lumping, stuff like that.

Then there was some weird back and forthing that ends up with, hey, we agree. We are both saying the same thing. Not all Muslims are violent, extremist, etc.

Then there seems to be this new point. Something about well, it's in their religious writings. As in, that makes them unusual (no?), or worth extra scrutiny (no?). So the obvious comeback there is, no, it's not unusual. It's in virtually every religion. What matters is what's made of it -- not the fact of it existing.

Now, there is a whole new direction, which I'm fine with -- something about the negative impact of Islam. First, can you define it further?

I'll take a gander and say some general things. I think that there is a lot that is worrisome about modern Muslim extremists, and that au's article points out a lot of it. I think that a variety of factors have conspired to give extremists power, and that for a variety of reasons that power is growing, and that disturbs me a great deal. I hope that the moderates -- such as this woman in Malaysia -- continue to make headway, and I'll do whatever I can to support them.

(Let me know if you can't get to the article I hotlinked with "this", and I'll excerpt it.)

My basic complain against Islam is how heavily their religious writings point them in the direction of dying for "the cause" (as au alludes to above), and violence against people for really mild reasons (insulting Mohammad and other stuff.)

These items have been copied from Islamic religious documents, and brought here, but they are not considered fairly.

Can you imagine how it might change your life or your child's to know that the ultimate paradise is 77 virgins, and to get it, you have to die violently in a war against infidels?

70 virgins I think (been studying this bit)

This is getting into specifics I don't know as much about as I would like. (I never claimed to be a "student of the Koran", and in fact specifically said, "I'm not enough of an authority on either the Koran or the Bible to address your question intelligently." What I have studied is Islam as a whole, including reading, some 10 years ago, an anthology of writings from the Koran and other writings of Islam, which I'm looking at now in an attempt to refresh my memory.)

I bring up the Bible and Christianity and Judaism because we all know (or are) people who are perfectly reasonable even though the books they believe in have.

To Jews, who don't believe in Heaven, the Christian concept of Heaven -- 77 virgins or no -- as a place where you get your reward would seem similarly transformative. It's the same idea.

You don't only get to paradise for committing an act of violence, at all:



"Pious servants", that's all.

More:



I seem to remember that murderers are not actually accorded a place in Paradise according to most Muslims -- those who kill innocents, especially (as with those who perpetrated 9/11). I'll go look for that.