Radiance has been a standard example of dependable journalism for years. It has also played a foundational role in forming the Islamic position in Indian English media on volatile issues like blasphemy, Islamophobia and freedom of expression; observing and monitoring print and multimedia, popular literature, novels, press items and films. Radiance editorials appear very principled, non-racist and methodological on these volatile issues. While Radiance appeals to intelligence of readers to form a sociological and humane position on any attempt to caricature the persona of one of the most influential persons in history like the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him), it also seeks government action in severe cases of blasphemy, for example against the unsolicited advice of former RSS chief KS Sudarshan to Christians and Muslims to “reinterpret their scriptures and change their leadership” (11-17 November 2001).
A large number of its special issues and articles, drawing from the wisdom of eminent lawyers and other intellectuals are powerful enough to engage even a non-regular reader in this otherwise theoretical and philosophical discussion. They also succeed remarkably in establishing the inadequacy of the western press on these subjects while at the same time convincing the readers of the beauty of a neatly balanced position, and the fundamental need of essentially unbiased views on all religious personalities.
In the Editorials written for special reports or feature issues on the above themes, Radiance formalises a set of ‘broad and basic, commonly understandable principles’ for treating all delicate matters pertaining to blasphemy and Islamophobia, or issues inviting a second thought on the freedom of expression and press. All such editorials, special and feature issues can hardly be summarised here, but some observations about Radiance are possible with their help:
1) All recourse to uttering personal hate, use of obscene and demeaning language accompanying a denial of logical argumentation on points of difference and/or dishonouring any religious personality, breaks not just standard Islamic principles but also violates fundamental human morality, devalues the code of journalistic dignity and denigrates professional ethics – and this is clearly underlined by the published opinions in Radiance.
2) The Viewsweekly directs and dedicates the attention of human communication to report in simple, non-complicated ways matters of concern in order to avoid intentionally or unintentionally hurting the feelings of fellow humans, and retains a classical sobriety in style and subjects of expression.
3) Journalism with a value-base in moral duties rather than entertainment, prioritising honesty rather than gossip, ‘non-offence’ rather than humour and a superior commitment to the truth, abstaining from falsehood, vice, negatives and misinformation is valourised as journalism of courage, real patriotism and actual spirit of secularism. This is precisely the kind of journalism Radiance stands for.
4) In its value orientation Radiance not only abides by speaking the truth but promotes discourse enjoining the truth, leading to protection of dignity, personal space and privacy of others rather than eyeball-grabbing, sales-driven voyeurism into celebrity life (or any scholarly life for that matter).
5) Radiance, with its narration of records of history, points out that by simply being emotional, violent and/or abusive when responding to incidents of blasphemy and Islamophobia, Muslims can only A) weaken their valid dependence on reason and persuasion by line of argument; B) may distort, deny or harm their own truly noble idea of freedom of expression based on ‘non-abuse’ and ‘restriction of hatred’, which is an emergency need ever; and if that were any less sorry state already to be in, Radiance further warns that C) simple recourse to violence, emotive response and counter-abuse may non-surprisingly invite deeply unbelievable accusations of Muslims being ‘extremely dangerous’ and ‘naïve’, ‘ignorant’, ‘conspirators’, ‘unruly’ and ‘suppressed’ or what not!
6) Radiance finds similarities and contrasts between Islamic views and other press on the subject of ‘blasphemy’, ‘Islamophobia’ and the limits of freedom of expression, and with due care summarises and presents before its readers both the Islamic and counter view in the degree of similarities or mismatch between them.
7) Hardly has Radiance failed in producing a standard set of opinions on contentious matters, besides also drawing amply from the archives of history. On the issue of Rushdie’s caricaturing of the noble and historic personality of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him), for example, Radiance published powerful legal arguments of eminent lawyers like Mr. Syed Shahabuddin, Kolkata High Court advocate Muhammad Isa, writer Mr. N.J. Nanporia, veteran teacher of language and literature and former Vice Chancellor of Mithla University Professor Abdul Moghni, Dr. Shakilur Rahman, Lieutenant Col. SM Akhtar, foreign writers like Dr. Abidullah Ghazi of Chicago, Dr. Mughram Ali Al-Ghamdi, valuable opinions of a very influential Muslim group Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and so on.
8) Ultimately, Radiance is ever ready to ask the readers to go further and share with its editorial team any new insights that readers may have when they decide to differ with the magazine’s position.
A quote from a recent editorial may establish some of the above observations:
“Freedom of speech and expression is protected by constitutional provisions worldwide. But, despite the fact that no constitution deems it absolute, this right has been misused and abused time and again to blaspheme Islam, its Holy Book and holy personages, especially Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be with him). Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, Denmark’s daily Jyllands-Posten’s blasphemous cartoons, the recent anti-Islam movie Innocence of Muslims and France’s satirical Parisian weekly Charlie Hebdo’s sacrilegious cartoons, to name only a few, have all sought and been provided by respective state administrations, protection in the name of freedom of expression.” (Radiance, 7 October 2012)
In a flashback through Radiance’s older issues we find that its columnists and contributors very passionately decry any serious abuse of freedom of expression, in the name of upholding this fundamental human right. An article entitled “Rushdie’s ‘Verses’ – The Satanic Outrage” (30 October 1988 issue of the magazine) comments on Rushdie’s position on Islam. Dr. Syed Ausaf Saied Vasfi sees Rushdie as a caricaturist of the Last Prophet, and hints at Rushdie’s indulgence in this pastime as being his ‘difficulty’ (not an expression of freedom). About a report that Rushdie was “not formally religious” but “deeply interested in Islam”, Dr. Vasfi reminds, “So were Abu-Jahl, Abu Lahb and Abdullah bin Ubayee”, naming the leading disbelievers of the Prophet’s era.
Since there was clearly no decisive principle forming a defence for Rushdie, the columnist’s objection was duly against the western authorities for ‘pampering, promoting and projecting’ ‘the Rushdies’ to serve their purpose of maligning the Prophet – an abhorrent rite the radical Jews and Christians kept alive for centuries. To Dr. Vasfi this depicts a lack of ‘moral courage’ on the part of both Rushdie and those offering to pamper-and-use him.
The problem before Dr. Vasfi, however, or many Muslims too in general, as it seems, arises with the name or the ‘identity’ of a ‘blasphemous’ person. To Dr. Vasfi, “When Rodenson tries to interpret the prophet’s mission in the light of dialectics, Muslims face no difficulty in identifying the sources of brick-bats and engaging him in a dialogue.” But when a ‘Rushdie’ does so, difficulty arises with the Muslim name that he has: “how to tackle him, as a Muslim or as a Non-Muslim?” the veteran columnist asks.
As a matter of principle, however, it can be opined that an attack in derogatory words, descriptions and parallels on the practices of the noble Prophets, by a man or a woman, irrespective of whether he/she is Muslim or not, should be sufficient to render that person not only out of the fold of Islam but “against” the Islamic faith and the entire Muslim community, limited to that being a ‘wilful decision’. Since the decision and act of writing an entire novel systematically caricaturing religious entities involves ‘wilful decision’ by third grade writers like Rushdie, it would not be reasonable in any way to consider him a Muslim.
Additionally, the pitiable case of Rushdie was also a case of blatant disrespect and mockery of God, demeaning portrayal of the Angels and use of shallow language against the Companions, the Wives and even the house of residence of the Prophet (as the writer himself notes, Rushdie places the latter two in the brothel and calls God an ‘old man with a balderdash and dandruff’, God forbid). What part of this ‘deliberation’ then would leave Rushdie in the fold of Islam?
The matter also relates to other unpopular names like Taslima Nasreen who, among other similar things, reportedly feels a need to write about her sexual escapades in her books (is this reminding the reader of a string of loose moral characters besides her?)
Radiance thus explains a blasphemous person as not just lacking moral courage, but also being timid enough to remain behind a camouflage. In the face of all such blasphemous acts, whether to misrepresent Islam, or deliberately slander it by Fitna followed by The Innocence of Muslims, Radiance responded with a composed, standard call for ‘building confidence and trust’ as well as a call to unite and organise against such heinous mockery of human liberties and the value of speech. Radiance reprinted a letter by Medhat M. Awad of Saudi Arabia written to the Dutch Foreign Office after the Danish far right-wing extremist politician Geert Wilders plotted the moving-images Fitna. A line from the letter reads:
“Mr. Wilders quoted the Qur’ānic verse (08.60) out of context, obviously with the intention of equating Islam with aggression and brutality. The ordinary reader wouldn’t know that this verse was directed to the enemy, which is clearly explained in the following verse (08.61).”
Perhaps what Wilders did was just a show of the old European anger against truth and reason complementing the rise of Islam but the response endorsed by Radiance to it was composed, fitting and worthy of praise. The verse 8:60 of the noble Qur’ān is widely misquoted by many ill-wishers of Islam who quote it without the sequel of verse 8:61 (the readers may have seen preacher Dr. Zakir Naik artfully strike such cases of ‘short-sightedness’ to enlighten his audience!). The translation of both these verses was provided by Radiance and the original letter, hence it says:
08:60 “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.” (Yusuf Ali)
08:61 “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).” (Yusuf Ali)
Providing the actual text and context in translation makes the dual task of a logical rebuttal and conveying what the Qur’ān says much easier, both for the Muslim readers and Radiance. It shows the Muslim stand presenting a reaction that has indeed been ‘non-violent’ and contributes to a dialogue. Radiance once more emerges as an academic initiative and a marvel of sensible journalism. This reprinted letter also provided with numerous translators’ names and ‘their’ translation of the two verses and tens and dozens of links on “how ironically every time someone tries to tarnish the image of Islam and its Prophet, more and more free-thinking people, especially in the western world, dig deep into the Holy Qur’ān to seek the truth for themselves, and how more a growing number of them convert to Islam” (“A Critique of Fitna ‘Let’s Build Confidence and Trust” in issue dated 11 May 2008). Radiance also published the Dutch Foreign Officer’s Reply to the letter!
Radiance thus leaves the choice to the reader to accept its narration of events, deny its records of ‘facts’ and/or argue any drawing of its conclusions rather than just being rhetorical, ill-mouthed or both. Not stopping at that, Radiance is also always eager and ready to learn from its readers and what they read!
VOCAL AND DIPLOMATIC
While Radiance coverage has been quite academic or literary on issues of ‘blasphemy’, ‘Islamophobia’ in Europe and America and misuse of true freedom of expression there; it appears rather ‘diplomatic’ on these very issues in the national neighbourhood. Consider the following example.
Just as the entire national press in the first week of June 1994 in India was busy creating the Taslima Nasreen controversy and making an issue out of a non-issue that police station Dhaka filed a complaint against Nasreen before the chief metropolitan magistrate of Dhaka under Section 295 of Bangladesh Penal Code, Radiance called it an ‘internal and domestic issue of Bangladesh’ and criticised the Indian pseudo-liberal press for sheltering and defending Nasreen (see issue dated 19 June 1994). Surprisingly, the magazine has not been similarly ‘diplomatic’ when the matter was of the issue of injustice against Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and its suffering in that country… Was that not an internal and domestic issue of Bangladesh too? Would such a practice justify Radiance’s objection against the Indian liberal media when the latter jumped to the defence of Taslima, finding in her a liberal like them?
The above matter of course pertains to Radiance’s ‘foreign policy’ or strategic response, and may be left with its board of publishers. A more reader-centred concern would be in the form of a common query: one would doubt and ask whether debating freedom of expression and blasphemy versus hate, Islamophobia and so on (what appears rather an academic dialogue on literary or communication bias that philosophises reporting or leveraging upon freedom of thought) might be of interest at all to the larger number of common readers of Radiance? I think this question, with all the urgency of concern therewith, relates to whether Radiance stands to lose its readers owing to an engagement with such rather ‘tense’ issues.
My own friends, on various informal occasions, have put the above disturbing question to me. In response, so far my reply has only been that Radiance’s endeavours relate essentially to being an example of responsible journalism rather than primarily being concerned about its readership size, though the latter matters too. Radiance also marks the role of an ideologue in forming the Islamic position in Indian English journalism on such sensitive chapters as discussed in this article. While a number of other papers and magazines run by Muslims may become emotional, violent or abusive (or all at once) on these subjects, not Radiance.
Some lesser known Pakistani pen-pushers may well call in outrage for hanging or beheading an unlettered Ahmadi or a Christian without checking the messenger of bad news about them. This has thankfully never happened with Radiance, and will assuredly not happen in future either. While there have been cases where even crosschecking the knowledge level of declared Enemies of Islam and their sources of learning about Islam were not considered worthy of investigation before death penalties were reserved for them, Radiance points towards unawareness of the spirit of Islam and lack of patience in both protesters and supposed ‘blasphemers’ as root causes of such unwanted outrage. Radiance also acknowledges that it was never the credible writers who broke their pens awarding such death penalties. Hence the underlying concern: should’nt we at least wait until what was reported about the ‘blasphemer’ is checked and verified by genuine sources?