By Jim Coggins

VISION TV agreed in late July to broadcast an apology for airing talks by a Pakistani Muslim – who had talked about fighting for Allah, and had made offensive remarks about Jews in past speeches and writings.

The controversy raised questions – not only about the balance between ‘freedom of religion’ and laws against ‘hate crimes,’ but also about the connection between religion and violence.

Israr Ahmed had appeared several times on the weekly program Dil Dil Pakistan , one of about 75 programs which buy time on Vision TV, the Canada-wide multi-religious channel. Remarks he made about the Muslim concept of jihad, in a July 14 broadcast, caught people’s attention.

Apologies

After Ahmed appeared on the program again the following Saturday, Vision issued a public apology – broadcast twice a day for a week, beginning July 27 – and announced that the Canadian producer of Dil Dil Pakistan  had agreed not to put Ahmed on his program again.

Dil Dil Pakistan  broadcast its own apology, July 28 and August 4. Both apologies stated that neither the program’s Canadian producer nor Vision had intended to suggest that hatred or violence towards people of other faiths or cultures is acceptable, under any circumstances.

Vision’s apology stated that the station’s goal “is to build bridges of understanding amongst Canadians of different faith and cultural backgrounds” – and that such programs “provide windows into other cultures and religions.”

The program’s apology stated that its goal is “to share the beauty and lessons of the Holy Qu’ran with Muslims and non-Muslim members of our audience.”

It further stated that the program is not intended “to promote any individual, organization, sect or particular school of thought in Islam,” but that “we will strive in future to ensure that individuals appearing on Dil Dil Pakistan  have demonstrated, through their writings and public statements, that they share our peaceful interpretation of the message of the Qu’ran.”

The meaning of jihad

Part of the controversy concerns the varied meanings of the term ‘jihad,’ which means ‘struggle.’

On the July 14 broadcast, Ahmed, while expounding the Qu’ran, said: “Jihad in the way of Allah, for the cause of Allah, can be pursued either with your financial resources – or your bodily strength when you go to fight the enemy in the battlefield. Jihad, the highest form, is fighting in the cause of Allah.”

Sameer Zuberi, a spokesman for the Canadian branch of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), told BCCN that ‘jihad’ is a broad concept which primarily means one’s personal struggle against self and base desires – though it can also include the struggle to make society, as well as individuals, more Islamic. However, Zuberi insisted that the term does not cover terrorist acts, and that it is an improper use of the term for terrorists to employ it to support their actions. Zuberi further stated that Islam enjoins respect for Christians and Jews as ‘people of the Book.’

Zuberi considers Ahmed as representing only a small minority of Muslims, and believes his popularity in Pakistan has to do with teachings other than those dealing with violence.

However, Gordon Nickel, an assistant professor of intercultural studies at Associated Canadian Theological Schools in Langley, told BCCN  his years of living in Pakistan have convinced him Ahmed is in the mainstream of Islamist Pakistan.

Islam, said Nickel, encompasses a variety of viewpoints – from modernists, who have been influenced by Western values; to revivalists, who are determined to spread Islam by force. Ahmed’s literal interpretation of verses in the Qu’ran calling for violence has been the traditional Muslim interpretation for 1,200 years, he said.

Nickel added that the way Muslims deal with their scriptures is usually “not very sophisticated.” They believe the “very letters” of the Qu’ran are kept perfected and protected on a tablet in heaven; and therefore, the only proper interpretation is a very literal one. This is reinforced by a commitment to the accepted interpretation fixed in Muslim tradition.

Continue article >>

Nickel said Christians also believe in the authority of their scriptures – but that they work more at trying to understand scripture in its original context.

Vision TV’s first reaction to the controversy, by Mark Prasuhn, vice-president of programming, seemed to echo this contextual approach. He suggested Ahmed was offering an interpretation of the Qu’ran in its historical context, and that he had not applied it to advocating violence in the present day.

However, Nickel said “most Muslim preachers” view the Qu’ran as “an eternal, not an historical, document.” In other words, they take the Qu’ran’s statements, including those advocating violence, as commands to be literally followed today.

Nickel added that when Christians who have been to Pakistan talk about this, people don’t want to believe them. He said that, especially since 9/11, North Americans have been repeatedly telling themselves that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion and violence is advocated by only a small handful of extremists; therefore, they are not prepared for it when they hear people such as Ahmed promoting violence.

A history of violence

Muslim apologists often overlook the historical fact that Islam has largely been spread by conquest, said Nickel. He cited the argument of Lamin Sanneh, a professor of history at Yale Divinity School, that the Crusades waged by medieval Christians can be seen as a response to Islamic jihad. Nickel noted that “many Christians are repentant for the Crusades”; but he said it is very hard to find a Muslim who has any remorse for the Islamic conquests.

Gerry Bowler, a history professor at the University of Manitoba, told BCCN  that Islam has always had “bloody borders,” and the current conflicts in places such as Chechnya and Sudan are just the most recent examples of the wars that have been fought on the borders of Islam throughout its history.

Nickel would not necessarily advocate the outright banning of Israr Ahmed from Vision TV, but considers his teaching as certainly “inappropriate for a broadcaster that wants to create good relationships between people of different faiths.”

A diverse history

Christians have a diverse history, in terms of the use of violence.

Bowler highlighted the fact that, for the first three centuries, Christians were “a persecuted minority” who submitted to the state – unless the state demanded they disobey God. In that case, rather than resort to violence, Christians continued to follow God – and simply accepted being thrown to the lions as a result. It was only later that Christians developed ‘just war’ theory, and the idea of a right to resist tyranny.

“Under the modern liberal state,” Bowler said, “Christians generally limit themselves to passive resistance, such as civil rights marches, when faced with injustice.”

However, he considers that questions about the use of violence do remain. Should we be like those Christians who want to impose the Mosaic law on our society? Should North Americans intervene to rescue the Karen people of Burma, who are in danger being exterminated largely because of their Christian faith?

“As Christians, we can live under liberal democracy or tyranny, but the state should never have our ultimate loyalty,” said Bowler.

A genuine dialogue

North Americans, and Christians especially, should “by all means go and meet with the Taliban,” said Nickel. But they should do so without any illusions about the nature of human sinfulness, or about all Muslims believing in peace.

Nickel believes that radical Muslims would be “more impressed by a firm Christianity” – than by a weak faith that accepts all beliefs as equally valid, and assumes that all people are committed to peace.

Rather than banning Ahmed and listening only to modernist Muslim voices, Nickel said the current controversy may provide an opportunity for “a real discourse, in which Muslims speak openly about Islam and dialogue with others. Where are people talking about this in an open and honest way?”

September 2007