Pakistan's "moderate" 500 scholars and the AP's change of heart

"Muslim scholars praise killer of Pakistani governor" was the headline of a January 4 AP article carried by MSNBC on the murder of Punjab governor Salman Taseer earlier this week.

My first reaction? Disbelief, doubt, and a twinge of anger.

Which sensible, authentic Muslim scholar would use Islamic texts to justify cold-blooded murder? How could they get away with that? On behalf of whom are they "praising" this murder, and who's holding them accountable? I decided that the scholars couldn't possibly be representing the Pakistani masses and the AP is possibly a) relying on inaccurate sources, b) being misleading about the facts, or c) being misleading with its headline. And I don't think my hypothesis was completely incorrect. I'll explain.

The article continued:

"More than 500 Muslim scholars are praising the man suspected of killing a Pakistani governor because the politician opposed blasphemy laws that mandate death for those convicted of insulting Islam."

The group of scholars, which is apparently "moderate,"  said in a statement Wednesday "that no one should pray for Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer or express regret for his murder. The statement also made a veiled threat against Taseer's supporters: 'The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy'."

Such statements are dangerous, wrong and troubling indeed. But I'm also having trouble with the way this article was written and the issue framed:

1. 500 scholars is a large number, but 500 out of how many in Pakistan? That number is a fraction that needs to be put into context, and it does not represent the millions of Pakistanis or the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, who I'm sure are absolutely disgusted with the murder.
2. Who exactly are these scholars? According to this article, all we know is that they were "clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat," which is supposed to be "affiliated with a moderate school of Islam and represents the mainstream Barelvi sect." So the 500 clerics are somehow connected (it could be through a completely arbitrary relationship for all we know) to some "moderate" school (who knows which one?) that represents the "mainstream" Barelvi sect. What does it mean to be "mainstream" and "moderate" anyway? (I have qualms with this discourse but that's for an upcoming blog post.) Not enough details about who these people are means I ain't completely buying it.
3. The sensational headline. Reading the headline and first sentence, you'd expect the rest of the article to talk about the scholars and why/how they praised the killer. But no, the rest of the article is about the guy who was killed, why he was killed and Pakistan's increasingly dangerous political extremism. Not a single second mention of the 500 scholars who supposedly "praised" such a gruesome act of terrorism.

And, by the way, it's not just MSNBC that carried the article. Yahoo News did too (but they had their own version) as did others.

So my point? I have a couple:

First, the article was completely biased toward portraying Pakistan as ravaged by "extremist" ideas and "fundamentalist" influences (again, I have problems with such discourse but I'll save it for another time). Definitely, extremism is a problem in the region. But there was no balanced view on this.

The fact is many Pakistani newspapers and officials vehemently spoke out against the atrocious attack, and top officials attended Taseer's funeral; however, this article made no mention of such details. CNN, on the other hand, did. This article below did a great job of portraying the nuanced perspectives Pakistanis have on the issue.

Second, even though I'm not Pakistani or Pakistani American, I can understand why a person of such heritage would be offended or frustrated with this reporting. Americans already see Pakistanis as the demonic "other" in our "war on terror," and shoddily written articles like this one do nothing to rectify preconceived notions some may have about the region and its people.

My conclusion? There was absolutely no justifiable reason to slap that headline on there (which was likely a move to attract readers) judging from the fact that 90 percent of the article had nothing to do with it. It was misleading and inaccurate, as was most of the article.

Now here's the really interesting part: After checking back the MSNBC article a few hours later, I noticed that while the headline and URL remained the same, the article itself was completely changed. Here's the updated version: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40923917/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

Mention of the scholars was pushed three grafs down, and the "500 moderate scholars" became the "so-called (emphasis added) moderate Muslim scholars."

The number "500″ was moved toward the middle (I guess the writers somehow miraculously realized that 500 doesn't represent a population of 170 million people) and the article quotes Pakistanis who were vocal in speaking out against the murder. It also asserted that most Pakistanis follow a Sufi branch of Islam, thought of by non-Muslims as more "moderate" (and less violent than mainstream Islam?). Even better is the insertion of the following historically accurate passage:

"Pakistan's founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, helped establish the country in 1947 as a moderate Islamic state welcoming all minority groups and religions. But that foundation has slowly been eroded over the years, especially in the 1980s during the military rule of Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who imposed a more conservative brand of Islam on the country.

The U.S. participated in this process by providing Zia's government with billions of dollars that it funneled to the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in neighboring Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia also provided billions and established scores of conservative Islamic schools that have played a major role in empowering the religious right in Pakistan."

Most people know about Saudi Arabia's influence in Pakistan but many don't know about that italicized bit.

Also heartening about the updated version is that it portrays a more mixed picture, which is the reality of the situation. Some have praised the murder and some have condemned it. In fact, 6,000 mourners showed up at the funeral...why wasn't that the headline? (I'll give you a hint...the answer is media sensationalism...but you already knew I was going to say that).

So now, I'm wondering the following:

Is this an example of the AP censoring itself? Or is it the AP being more accurate, sensitive and responsible about how it covers Pakistan and the Middle East?

Why was the article suddenly changed (and in a matter of hours)? I wonder what behind-the-scenes drama must have occurred for that to happen...I guess that's something I'll never find out.

Lastly, is this an isolated incident, or are other media outlets (like CNN) also deliberately paying attention to how they portray Pakistanis and the region, and will this be an ongoing trend? I hope so.

Thoughts?

Lolla Mohammed Nur

Lolla Mohammed Nur (lolla@tcdailyplanet.net) is a journalism and political science student at the University of Minnesota.