The first was from the Guardian in the UK. Here is the final paragraph:
[Pakistan] now has two specific problems: what to do with Asia Bibi and Mumtaz Qadri [the assasin who killed Salmaan Taseer], short of hanging one and freeing the other. But it has surely larger ones. Every time television commentators, judges and politicians appease religious fanaticism, the social space occupied by them grows. It is already out of all proportion to the electoral prospects of the religious parties who back and give them shelter. The slow, agonised fissuring of the state of Pakistan is to be measured not only in bombs and the blood of innocents. Nor only by earthquakes and floods. It can be measured, too, by a moral collapse, a cowed ambivalence of the silent majority. Those who are too frightened to confront sectarian bigotry today will find themselves being consumed by it tomorrow. Benazir Bhutto, Salmaan Taseer, who is next?
First of all, notice what is missing in the paragraph (in fact, in the entire article)? The word Islam! The phrase Islamic extremists appears one time; otherwise, the authors of the editorial seem to prefer foggy (not to mention misleading) phrases like religious fanaticism and rightwing religious leaders instead. The net effect is to present an inaccurate picture of the situation in Pakistan. It would be as if someone wrote an editorial denouncing Hitler's brutal militarism in Europe yet avoided using the term "Nazi".
Then there was the troubling comment about the "cowed ambivalence of the silent majority". Really? What evidence does the Guardian have that the majority of Pakistanis disapprove of what is being done to Asia Bibi and others who incur the wrath of the radical Muslims? This hypothetical "silent majority" (if it exists) is facing a determined, resourceful opponent in radical Islam.
Also, as several commentors on the Guardian web site pointed out, the Guardian has not exactly been on the front lines in the fight against radical Islam. Given the degree to which the secular media shouts "Islamophobia!" at the slightest criticism of Islam, we should not wonder that Muslims who might disapprove of what is being done in the name of Islam should be reluctant to stick their necks out.
Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg asks an important (if disturbing) question: what if the "extremist" Muslims are really the mainstream? What if Salmaan Taseer and other opponents of the blasphemy laws and the rest of the Islamist apparatus are actually the outsiders trying to seize control of Islam - and failing?
Since the attacks of 9/11 the Western secular media has been understandably opposed to turning the battle against radical Islam into a general assault against all Muslims. But since the start of the Iraq War (and the secular media's near-universal opposition to it), there has been a disastrous over-reaction. The secular media has adopted a see-no-evil approach to Islam while professing to find Islamophobes lurking under every bed in the West. Western secular media organizations like the Guardian has been at the forefront of that effort. To be honest, I find it hard to take them seriously anymore.
It is important to remember that Christians are not the only ones suffering in Pakistan. Muslims who for one reason or another attract the attention of the fanatics are also being persecuted.
Goldberg ends on this note:
While most of the enlightened chatterers remain mute or incoherent as they struggle for a way to blame Israel for all of this, the question becomes all the more pressing: How do we deal with a movement or a nation that refuses to abide by the expiring cliché, “Islam means peace”?
Indeed. We need to face the situation as it really is, and not how our self-appointed betters wish it to be. The Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. have failed spectacularly in dealing honestly with us about the growing threat of the brand of Islam that torments Asia Bibi and others. We should not listen to them anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment