Page 108 - Non-violence and peace-building

Practice What You Preach

way to demonstrate, but, in the very next sentence, it
sought to justify this behaviour. Thus, it commented:
[…] the Muslims took out an angry procession
on May 11, and a Muslim MLA, Mr. A.R. Khan,
in his muddle-headedness, garlanded an effigy of
Mr. Bal Thackeray with worn-out chappals. No
level-headed Muslim approves of the Congress
legislator’s indecent manner of protest. But one
need not strain one’s common sense to conclude
that the initial provocation had come from the
Shiv Sena chief.

The statements in the two above-quoted passages
clearly contradict each other. In the first statement, the
paper indicates that the Prophet and his Companions
did not get agitated in the wake of grave provocations
by their opponents. They ignored these provocations
and acted in a positive manner. On the other hand,
however, the second statement claims that, when faced
with a provocation, people will definitely react to it.
The Prophet’s sunnat or practice teaches us that if we
are attacked with stones, we must not reply, even with
mere words. But, according to this Muslim paper, if
Muslims react to words with chappals (slippers), they
would still supposedly be in the right, because, so this
paper claims, they are simply reacting to a provocation!
This twisted logic is not a unique feature of this paper
alone. Rather, today, all Muslim papers and all Muslim
leaders are victims of this contradiction. And it is this
contradiction that has made all the efforts of Muslims
to fail miserably. When it comes to writing and speaking
about Islam, our leaders present glowing tributes to it. But

107