ISLAMOPHOBIA is not new to the West. Its roots go deep into European history and the western psyche. Hostility towards Islam, which can be traced all the way back to Crusades, has continued through the periods of renaissance, enlightenment and modernity in European thought and action. There is abundance of literature available in Europe and America to substantiate the deep influence that Islamophobia exerts on the thought processes of the western mind and the policies of western countries. The Islamic world needs to come to terms with this reality which we cannot wish away and to devise an appropriate response to this distasteful phenomenon.

Tomaz Mastnak in his essay entitled “Europe and the Muslims” in “The New Crusades”, after pointing out that the crusades were the war of Christendom against the Muslims, adds that following the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453, “Animosity towards the Muslims was adopted and regenerated by Western Christians when they began their transformation into Europeans. In response to the Ottoman conquests in geographical Europe, western Christians were able to draw on the existing hostility towards the Muslims to invoke a sense of unity and community... The Europeans’ hostility towards the Muslims — far from having been made obsolete — continued to play a prominent role in European politics and imagination. Indeed, what we may call the crusading spirit — the epitome of that fundamentalist anti-Muslim attitude — appears to be still alive in our own days.”

Examples of hostility towards the Muslims abound in European political thought and history. Erasmus of Rotterdam, an influential Renaissance scholar, regarded the Turks as barbarians, calling them monstrous beasts, enemies of Church, and a people contaminated with all kinds of crime and ignorance. Thomas More shared Erasmus’s views and considered the Turks as an “abominable sect” of Christ’s mortal enemies. The atrocities committed against the Muslims in Spain following the fall of Granada again reflected the deep-seated European animosity towards the Muslims. Voltaire, the very symbol of the Enlightenment, wrote that the Turks were the greatest curse on the earth and wanted to annihilate them.

Some scholars hold the view that the project for European unity was initially inspired by the desire to attain peace in Europe with the objective of driving the Turks out of the continent. The Duke of Sully (1560-1640) in his “Grand Design” presented a plan for European unity and peace for converting “the continual wars among its several princes into a perpetual war against the Infidels”, that is, a permanent crusade. At the Hague Conference of 1948, which was an important overture to the postwar unification of Europe, Churchill linked the idea of United Europe to Sully’s Grand Design. Considering this background, it is not difficult to understand the current European reluctance to admit Turkey into the European Union.

It is not a secret that Britain and France under Prime Minister John Major and President Francois Mitterrand respectively felt open contempt and animus toward the Bosnian Muslims who were subjected to genocide by the Serbs. A French diplomat told John Newhouse of the New Yorker at the time that the Europeans “want to prevent a wider war or the emergence of a rump Muslim state in southeastern Europe... Our interests are much closer to the Serbs than you think. We worry more about the Muslims than about the Serbs.” It has also been alleged that the American and Anglo-French decision to cover up the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims in the spring and summer of 1992 greatly encouraged Belgrade to expand and speed up its genocidal onslaught.

The anti-Islam bias is vividly reflected in the thesis of clash of civilizations presented by Samuel P. Huntington, who in his book entitled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order stresses that “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US Department of Defence. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredients that fuel the conflict between Islam and the West.

He goes on to claim that “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth-century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny.” This assertion coming from the representative of a civilization which in the span of a century spawned two World Wars, perhaps the two most destructive wars in human history, besides numerous other wars on a smaller scale and innumerable acts of violence and atrocities against other peoples struggling for liberation from the colonial yoke is amazing to say the least.

There is also a view among some American scholars, specially the neo-cons led by Irving Kristol, that following the defeat of communism, the West needs a new enemy to save it from the decadence that liberalism is generating. Opposition to Islam, in their view, is accordingly a means of rescuing the West from this decadence and providing it with a renewal of self-identity and purpose. This view may also explain the tendency among the US neo-cons to demonize Islam and hold it responsible for the menace of terrorism forgetting the manifestations of terrorism within western societies (e.g. Oklahoma) and the role that western acts of injustice and exploitation have played in giving rise to this phenomenon.

In view of the foregoing, the blasphemous and condemnable cartoons ridiculing the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005, which were later reprinted by several European newspapers and a US daily, should not come as a total surprise to the Muslims. The same anti-Islam mentality was shown by the earlier French decision to ban the wearing of scarf by Muslims girls going to French schools in violation of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights whereas Christians wearing crosses and Jews donning yarmulkes remain free from such restrictions. It is also not surprising that many of the western governments, which have tried to explain the publication of the offensive cartoons on grounds of freedom of expression, show double standards by having at the same time laws prohibiting anti-semitism and the questioning of the Holocaust.

The printing of the sacrilegious cartoons cannot be defended from legal, political or moral points of view. Legally speaking, the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities. The law may, therefore, subject it to certain restrictions for respect of the rights or reputation of others, and for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals.

Beyond the legal argument, the cartoons are reprehensible from the political and moral points of view. Laws and rules of social and political behaviour in all societies are ultimately based on some moral norms. One would assume that a civilized society would inculcate among its members sensitivity to each others views and feelings on issues of special significance, and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression would be informed by such sensitivity.

In this world of globalization, we are all interconnected one way or the other. Further, the societies in many countries, including the European countries, have become multi-cultural. These developments demand an even greater degree of sensitivity to each other’s feelings and views in the interest of social harmony, public order and international understanding than was the case previously.

The response of the Islamic world to such provocations as the printing of the offensive cartoons has to be a measured one keeping in view the principles of Islam and the teachings and life of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Muslims, of course, have the right to protest and demonstrate peacefully against the provocative cartoons to make known their views. However, the teachings of our religion do not allow in reaction to them the destruction of property or attacks on innocent individuals, including those belonging to foreign diplomatic missions.

The joint statement issued by the UN Secretary-General, the OIC Secretary-General and the high representative for common foreign and security policy of the EU on February 8, which expressed understanding of the anguish in the Muslim world caused by the cartoons, called for sensitivity in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any faith, urged the exercise of the right to free speech with responsibility, opposed resort to violence in protesting against the cartoons, and underlined the need for dialogue among and between communities of different faiths and authorities of different countries, was a step in the right direction.

In dealings with issues of inter-faith relations, both the West and the Islamic world must act responsibly in the interest of international peace and understanding while avoiding extremism and bigotry, if the thesis of clash of civilizations does not have to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Both sides need to recognize that they have their share of extremists who must not be allowed to dictate the international agenda or the rules of inter-state behaviour.

It is the duty of moderate and enlightened elements both in the West and the Islamic world to work for the promotion of inter-faith harmony through dialogue and prevention of such provocations as the printing of the sacrilegious cartoons. Fortunately, there is a realization even in the West as reflected by the statements issued by some of its leaders and governments that the printing of the offensive cartoons had violated the principle of the exercise of freedom of expression with responsibility.

In general, the Islamic world needs to evolve within the framework of the OIC a carefully balanced strategy avoiding the extremes of confrontation and capitulation in the face of Islamophobia in the West. In other words, while we have every right to protest against provocations, we should not play into the hands of our enemies by resorting to extremism or violence in our responses.

Instead, we must project Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance, moderation and enlightenment as indeed it is while standing firm on our principles and safeguarding our enlightened interests. But this would require the revamping of our societies to put them on the path to progress instead of stagnation, enlightenment instead of obscurantism and the exercise of our intellectual faculties in finding solutions to the challenges of the modern world instead of closing the doors of Ijtihad. This, however, will not be possible if we continue to accord low priority to education in this knowledge-based world and if our political institutions, instead of being representative in character and responsive to the wishes of our people at large, continue to serve the vested interests of the elite only.

The writer is a former ambassador.

THE constitution is the basic law of a country which defines essentially the rights of the people and also the limits of state authority. It is rarely amended through a procedure that is more elaborate than the making of ordinary laws to remove ambiguity or conflict in citizen-state relations.

Disregarding this principle and circumventing the normal procedure, Pakistan’s Constitution has been amended time and again by every government, civil as well as military, with a view to seizing power or to prolonging it by holding adversaries at bay. The constitution thus has become an instrument of political power. It is no longer the custodian of peoples rights and sovereignty.

The constitution of the United States has been amended only 16 times since 1789. In more than half a century, 78 amendments have been made to the Indian constitution but only 26 of them are of a substantial nature. The amendments made have not changed the basic character of the constitution either in the US or in India, though in the 1789 Philadelphia Convention the number of participating states was only 13, and in India, the states have been divided and boundaries redrawn doubling their number. In size, they range from tiny Goa to mighty Uttar Pradesh.

The amendments made to the Constitution of Pakistan since 1973 defy a count because General Ziaul Haq’s eighth and General Pervez Musharraf’s seventeenth amendments added or deleted a number of articles some of which were subsequently reinstated or rewritten. The count is not important but the net result has been that the Constitution under Ziaul Haq and now under Pervez Musharraf is not the same as it was enacted in 1973. In between the two it would have been all but abrogated in substance had the Senate not stalled Nawaz Sharif’s fifteenth amendment commonly known as the Shariat bill.

No one expects Pakistan’s constitution to last long in its present shape. Sooner or later, there will be changes again. The nature of the changes will depend on whether the government is changed through orderly elections or toppled by mob violence or another military coup. Either way it seems that will be sooner than later. With discontent spreading fast it appears difficult for the present political set-up to last long and while it does the economic gains made over the last few years stand in danger of being wiped out by political uncertainty.

The problems of the people may be many and the demands of the political parties and the provinces unrealistic but the chief sources of unrest are general lawlessness, exclusion of some party leaders from the electoral process, apprehensions about the rigging of the ballot and, lastly, dissatisfaction in the smaller provinces over their share in the national income and control over their own natural resources.

The incidents of vandalism that took place in Lahore and Peshawar a few days ago should make the authorities ponder as to who is responsible for maintaining law and order in the two cities. Before Gen Musharraf introduced his own system, it was undoubtedly the district magistrate. Is it the district nazim now? The answer to this question even from the president, or his NRB (National Reconstruction Bureau) is sure to be marked by ambivalence. The responsibility for maintaining law and order admits of no ambiguity or divisions.

The organizers of the protest day who assured the chief ministers that the rallies would be orderly cannot be held accountable for the deeds of the vandals. Chaudhry Parvez Elahi, despite his promise, would never be able to compensate the victims of the protest by recovering the loss from its organizers. It is sheer bravado on his part. It would have been possible under the old Frontier Crimes Regulation but not under the penal laws applicable to Lahore. In any case, the occasion calls for a review of the law and order machinery and responsibility.

It is of national shame that Pakistan has not been able to hold free and fair elections since 1970. And it is to India’s credit that every election held there has been, by and large, free and fair though organized and conducted by the civil servants. The undeniable fact, however, is that, whether supervised by judges or administrators, elections cannot be fair unless the chief executive of the country, and also of the province, wants them to be fair. Here, too, like law and order, responsibility admits of no ambiguity or division.

More than 90 per cent of the country’s taxes and fees in various forms are collected by the federal government. A part of this income is then distributed among the provinces by the National Finance Commission over which the finance minister (currently the prime minister) presides and directs the discussions. The finance ministers representing the provinces acquiesce in or, at best, mildly protest. The recent defiance by the provinces has only caused more loss to them.

Mr. Abdul Karim Lodhi representing Sindh, who chose to resign from the commission in this losing game, has proposed the reconstitution of the National Finance Commission on the pattern of India. There the chairman and four members of the commission are appointed by the president and their requisite qualifications are determined by the parliament. A commission constituted here along these lines would give the smaller provinces greater assurance of a fairer deal than the one from the commission which is dominated by the president, the prime minister, the central and provincial finance ministers and their technocrats.

An assurance to all parties and politicians of full and free participation in elections that are fair and a fairer deal to the provinces would lessen tensions and enable the government and the people, as of now, to return to their respective productive pursuits. More vital and constitutional questions relating to the fundamental rights of the people, autonomy of the provinces and the place of the sardars, clerics and soldiers in society and politics can then wait to be resolved in the next parliament which, given fair elections, should appear and act more like a constituent assembly.