Video Response and claims by South Park cartoon defender (older)
This narrator tells us that in 2001, or so Muslims didn’t protest when the South Park cartoon featured Prophet Muhammad (their saying, that it’s the Prophet of Islam in their cartoon), what the public normally call a depiction, a cartoon drawing or satirical cartoon. Anyway, in 2010 (or whenever) the Muslims do protest, when they depict the Prophet of Islam in a bear suit.
What is it that makes the non - Muslim believe that because in 2001 nobody protested, that in 2010 nobody would protest? The people in 2010 are 10 years older than they were in 2001, the Muslims have changed in 2010, maybe the kids that used to watch in 2001 are grown up and their parents are also more islamically aware than they were in 2001, when the first cartoon south park cartoon depicted the Prophet of Islam as an Arab with fire, one of his powers, according to the cartoon maker.
It’s irrelevant whether Muslims protest sometimes and other times do not protest. Each person is responsible for his iman (faith) and for teaching Islam and love for the Prophet to his family.
I don’t need a non-Muslim’s permission to protest in 2010, even if didn’t do it in 2001.
Secondly, it’s not freedom of speech, but intolerance. The cartoon also said the n word. Whether or not ppl protest, it is still racist language.
While some blacks said, it was funny, when the n word was used, doesn’t mean that it isn’t racism, and that they shouldn’t be offended. While they do not get offended at the n word, calling it funny, they immediately get offended when you tell them they are an idiot for laughing about the n word cartoon. Therefore, to them, being called an idiot is more offensive than being called a nigger. Or do they not see how stupid it is; nigger is a racist remark used most by racists (always it is meant to make blacks feel ‘lesser’ than the whites, inferior). But to call someone an idiot doesn’t make him inferior to a white person. The n word is much more offensive than the word idiot.
This narrator talks about the enlightenment and the age of reason. “and they never looked back” he sings, but haven’t they? Didn’t GW Bush declare a “crusade” which Britain also joined? They killed millions of Iraqis just to get their hands on the Iraqi OIL. How enlightened they were, and how enlightened when some American soldiers raped a fifteen year old girl and then killed her as well as her dear family. That's one incident..
He calls the ‘enlightened’ world , his world, the first world. Most likely, like many British and Americans, he is full of hatred for the Arabs. Pure racism allows him to defend his “first world” ideas. He cries for the 100 people killed after his ‘enlightened’ brothers (Theo van Gogh, and the Danish cartoon editors, etc) caused mayhem with their freedom of speech, but does he cry for the Iraqis?
As I’ve said before, cartoons, and burning Qur’ans (Korans) are hate speech and hate actions, not freedom of speech. They are designed to anger Muslims so that there will never be peace between Muslims and the Western nations, so that the West can continue to rape and pillage, defending their actions with more aggression in the name of fighting extremist Muslims (a real catch 22, don’t you think?) while blaming a few bad apples for the really disgusting stuff, which they are not willing as governments to take responsibility for. But behind doors they even reward the criminals responsible for the really disgusting stuff. Read "Bushwacked" and "Empire of Illusion".
What rule says that Muslims don’t have a right to get angry? Just because the West holds nothing sacred doesn’t mean Muslims shouldn’t get angry. We can protest because we have the right to protest, and Allah will be pleased with the Muslims for doing so. It doesn’t matter what you, the non - Muslims think about our protests.
As many Muslims know, this is not about hostilities between the Muslims and the West only; it is actually about the battle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil. The same South Park cartoon and its creators that depict the Prophet of Islam also laughed at the word nigger. Purely and simply, they are on the side of Evil.
Islam vs. the narrator:
“…discriminatory laws of inheritance”. If this person cannot even read about the inheritance laws, English books about Islam, including verses and explanations about the inheritance laws (being referred to as “barbaric” and “backwards” in this video denigrating Islam), can be easily understood. There is no discrimination based on gender. In fact, men as the “maintainers” of women have to dole out the cash for women’s expenses, and never do women have to pay a dollar or a dinar, except if they are wealthy, they must pay the Islamic charity on wealth, called zakat, on their gold and silver. Women do not have to pay for any of their basic needs, which is why males get twice as much as females. But the law doesn’t stop there; if there is a mother, she gets 1/6 of what her husband leaves, then the sons and daughters would get their shares, and so on.
If a man leaves 100,000, then, the wife gets ?
The two daughters get ?
And the two sons get ?
There fore, in balance, the mother gets the most money even though she has no dependents to spend on, if the children are grown or the daughters are married.
Of course, the children will have money put in a trust, which the mother will spend from reasonably, or whoever is their guardian will spend on them from the inheritance in trust.
This is only a simple illustration of what Islam teaches, yet how merciful to women and children it already appears to be. In contrast, the non – Muslim believes this to be barbaric!
Hate Speech:
Why does it bother him so much if Muslims have their own inheritance laws, or that Muslims practise a different religion and way of life? They are not forcing you to be Muslim, are they?
If some Muslims want Sharia so what? Are they going to force Sharia down your throat? Seriously
The non – Muslims in this age, as in ages before are prone to wild exaggerations. CNN female reporter asked an extremist, or so called extremist Muslim Mr. Chaudry, if he wanted “to impose Sharia” in his country (Britain). How can one person, seriously, impose anything on an entire country? It is always by fear mongering, that these women and men, on CNN and others in a similar vein, try to create and maintain a level of hatred, so that non – Muslims will not learn the truth about Islam, because they are always being educated in fear and hatred of Muslims and loathing for the Islamic religion. Lies, half truths, and so on are their trademark. And constantly exaggerating and distorting what is said by Muslims, especially if they don’t like an opinion.
Yes, Muslims like Chaudry are publicly and loudly voicing an opinion, sometimes extremist ones, but that doesn’t mean there is any real danger of an imminent threat from such people. More dangerous are the backlashes we see, which are started by the hateful “free speech” and actions of a few non – Muslims, such as the creators of South Park. If one reflects, maybe it is time for such “free speech” and hate actions to take a back seat to religious freedom and tolerance and cultural exchange, so that a safe environment will prevail, for the sake of all our people.
“A good stoning will teach you not to get raped” reads a heading below a photo of a woman being brought for punishment. Obviously, the narrator or creator of the video wants us all to believe that this brutal treatment meted out to women (not men, of course) for being raped (or is it committing adultery?) is an Islamic practise, because the woman is a Muslim, and her attacker is a Muslim. Who cares what the Qur’an says about stoning; who gets stoned, and why, and when?
For example pregnant women, accused of adultery were stoned only after their child was delivered, as mercy to the innocent child. Women who accused men of rape would not be stoned, but their attacker should be killed. Similarly, men accused of sodomy should be killed, whether the victim is female or male, married or unmarried, an adult or a child.
Men would be stoned immediately, if caught committing the same crime. The only problem (for an irate husband, or wife, who’s spouse was adulterous, was to find four witnesses before the crime (adultery is a crime in Islam) could be proven. As one of the early Muslims said, where could I find four witnesses?
Then it was revealed that both husband and wife could swear four times, and the fifth time, the curse of Allah would be on them if they lied (that one of them, the accused had committed adultery, or not). If she swore he had committed adultery, and he swore he had not, then nothing would be done; except that they would immediately be divorced. In all honesty, this seems reasonable, don’t you think?
Moderate Muslim Response:
Is the moderate Muslim response really missing during or after acts of terrorism? Is the narrator talking about Theo Van Gogh’s death, or Muslims’ response to 911?
I’m not convinced that Muslims were responsible for 911. That being said whoever was responsible was indeed a terrorist. My reaction at the time was probably similar to many other people’s, Muslims and non – Muslims; disbelief, shock, sadness, and even anger.
Do I care that Theo Van Gogh was killed by a young Muslim, I do. I wish the young Muslim had thought more about his future and not done it. I don’t like what Van Gogh did, or defend his freedom to do so, what’s done is done. The anger he caused to well up and swell in that young Muslim is what killed him. In turn, the young Muslim is of course receiving a punishment, by the proper authorities. No kangaroo court.
These are difficult issues to discuss; overall very hurtful, sad and dismaying. I think the lesson from all this is that no one wins. Does South Park win? Does Theo Van Gogh win, or does the young Muslim serving his sentence for Van Gogh’s murder win? Does the West win, or is it the Muslims who win? None of the above; only the forces of Evil.
Holocaust threat:
The same narrator goes on to threaten Muslims, all the Muslims who want Sharia (because he speaks about a “theocracy” and “those who live in the age of religion”) with a giant, who if angered will deliver a ‘holocaust’ to the Muslims. Just as one Muslim woman in a crowd holds a plaque that reads, “be prepared for the real holocaust”, so too he wishes a holocaust on her (and the rest of the Muslims).
He imagines that the Muslims will do something so terrible or frightening (what would that be?) that the sleeping giant will wake up and give retribution (“self same judgement” or a “holocaust”). Short of a nuclear war, I can’t imagine what in the world he thinks that terrible, frightening event will be (not just some planes, he says). What can the Muslims do that would be able to challenge the non – Muslims? At this stage in world history, and the balance of power being what It is, only nuclear war seems to be a possibility, and very slight. There is no one like Khalid Ibn Walid who can lead Muslim armies to victory on “the battlefield”, and there is no such battlefield; the Americans use drones, unmanned drones, nowadays.
The narrator speaks angrily, almost as though drunk with passion, of the “self- same judgement” he imagines a large number of Muslims deserve because they yearn to deliver this punishment to the non – Muslims, (who have in the past done much to earn the anger of Muslims), no doubt will be the just punishment for the Muslims, he metaphorically slathers.
He imagines, with no proof, “that ‘the genocide of the infidel’ and ‘doing Allah’s work’ would be synonymous terms” if Muslims (an Islamic state, not Israel, or America, no, no) had the power which he speaks of. (I believe, it is quite the opposite, and it is the non-believing West that wants to eradicate Muslims. Isn’t it genocide that is happening in Iraq, and Afghanistan now? The only reason nuclear weapons are not used is because they would contaminate everything, and how could the West then take over those countries and their resources? )
Sounds like a lot of fear mongering, something, this British-accented narrator seems to like a lot. What is he really trying for? Just like other fear mongers, he wants the public to be afraid, and believe the lies, so that Evil prevails; people will shy away from Islam and in the end, Muslims will continue to try to defend Islam as best they can in a more hostile environment.
The narrator’s real complaint is that a few Muslims have tried to limit free speech by killing a few people. It’s true, that’s what has happened. But again, this does not prove that an Islamic state would commit genocide against a Western nation, even if it had the power. There is just no proof of that.
This man sounds just as full of hate as any other xenophobe.
I’m grateful that I can at least try to clear up some misconceptions, hopefully not scare anybody, or hurt someone’s sensibilities, but you know, we don’t have to agree with everybody on everything. But we can keep trying to understand each other. It isn’t that hard, if you are willing to try.
True Words cannot be shot down, especially in this age. Not you, the video’s narrator, not anybody can stop the “first world” dream of freedom which is alive in everybody.
J
For my parents who love me.
By DD 
No comments:
Post a Comment