& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Long handle of prejudice
THE outrage is absolute in its origin, manifestation and backlash. The cause and effect relationship has already proven dire. With perhaps more to come, the reservoir of sanity has to overpower the sleazy video of insanity.
The Vatican's condemnation of "provocations" against the
Muslims and the resulting "unacceptable violence" articulates the responsible majoritarian voice across the world. A minority caused the provocation and again it's a minority that avenged the provocation — with a cowardly act of terror. But an overwhelming majority suffers at both ends of the spectrum. The greater tragedy is not in learning the right lesson every time that religion is abused.
The provocative American film Innocence of Muslims portrayed the Prophet (SM) of Islam in the crudest unprintable terms and called Islam "a cancer." This being released through YouTube spread the venom across a wide swathe of unsuspecting world audience. Following eruption of reactive objections, Google has lately opted out of showing the video to Egypt and Libya, but rest of the world is rolling its eyes at the audacity of offering it for viewing touting right to freedom of expression.
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer has said: "Man is the only animal who causes pain to others with no other object than wanting to do so." The shock is in the fact that of all the animals man is credited with rationality, and yet he has given the world the word sadism.
The release of the film's video and the terror killing of the US envoy with his other colleagues in Benghazi hardly leaves one in a mood to philosophise. Yet, Schopenhauer's nineteenth century maxim sounds prophetic to this day.
A recital of instances where Prophet Muhammad (SM) of Islam and Islam as such has been deliberately denigrated reads like a chronicle of ungoverned spaces of prejudices nurtured by extreme right fringes since 9/11: • Danish newspaper reprints of one of several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad drawn by Kurt Westergaard which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world in 2005;
* An anti-Islam film posted online by a far-right Dutch deputy drew fire from Muslims and European officials, and a call for calm from Muslims in The Netherlands fearing a violent response (APF, The Hague, March 29,2008);
• A US artist whose satirical cartoon inspired an internet campaign inviting people to draw images of the Prophet Muhammad has disappeared into hiding on FBI advice, the Seattle Weekly said (BBC Online September 17,2010);
• The offices of the French satirical magazine
Charlie Hebdo in Paris have been destroyed in a petrol bomb attack. It comes a day after the publication named the Prophet Muhammad as its "editor-in-chief" for its next issue (AP/BBC Online; November 2,2011).
So you see provocations with a touch of resistance from some responsible quarters. A redeeming feature, yes, but still there is more heat than light. Again, frag- mentary good sense is far outweighed by an irresponsible campaign for freedom of expression from quarters out to push bars to be openly disrespectful of the sensibilities of 1.5 billion followers of the Faith called Islam. Where one's freedom begin, other's right ends.
For the love of God, what spiritual or material gains have ever been achieved from such despicable acts of ridiculing and insulting a religion and consequential terror killings? Nothing but revulsion, avoidable loss of lives and sufferance to bereaved families. Humanity is diminished not in numbers but spiritually.
No extremist group has yet claimed responsibility for the Benghazi massacre. Fingers have been pointed in the western media to militia group Ansar al-Sharia brigade, anti-Sufi group, pro-Gaddafi elements and al-Qaeda Maghrib. Islamic brotherhood has roundly condemned the attack. Whether it is a faceless group or one with a label would hopefully come to light, but let the manhunt be focused.
Following a dastardly act of terrorism the shock of it is translated into reeling barrages of condemnations. The expression of sentiments is natural but stretching it to a cliche sounds more of a ritual than a gritty commitment to combating terrorism.
Even the pitch of condemnation is weighed on a scale of soft, medium and strong as though that's all there is to be done in the sequel (Romney has criticised Obama's reaction of being "dishonourable"). This unidirectional focus obscures what is really at issue: the highly irresponsible act of provocation and intimidation to followers of a major religion. This is not condoning the act of carnage in Benghazi but to underline that symbolism is very important in terms of interfaith trust and bridge building that every government needs to be seized of today.
The paramount issue is banishing the scourge of both demeaning a religion on the plea of freedom of expression and dastardly killing of citizens of a country (some Libyan security staff also died) only because a few crooks churned out a devilish story craving for perverse world attention.
The writer is Associate Editor, The Dally Star.
E-mail: husain.imam@thedailystar.net