Cautionary Tale
Introduction:
Cartoons are hate speech, being used as anti Muslim, anti Islam propaganda.
Who invented the “law” that free speech should be beyond reproach?
The Qur’an teaches us that we are responsible even for our speech.
We can also be rewarded for our speech.
A prophetic hadith explains, that one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad asked, “will we be responsible even for what we say?” and the Prophet, SAWS, answered, “may your mother be bereaved of you (an admonishing kind of expression) Muadh, (I think it was Muadh), and explained further that it is mostly the speech, what the tongue earned, that lands a person in the hellfire.
Uttering speech to promote or defend Islam, or to stop a sinful act, and so on are all considered good, but sometimes speech is considered a lesser good than acting. For example, not stopping a thief but only warning him about the consequences of his actions.
Sometimes speech is the highest form of jihad, such as the writings of a scholar and his preaching to the people. Scholars are also the most responsible before Allah for their speech, being more educated about religion and (insha Allah) more pious, than others. They shoulder more responsibility than/to the rest, and before Allah.
Another hadith mentions that the jurist who is correct in his opinion will receive double reward, and the jurist whose opinion is incorrect still will receive a reward, for trying his upmost to make the religion clear and for his attempt at understanding.
Hate Speech:
I’ve expressed my opinion about cartoons, caricatures in the media which insult Islam and hurt Muslims’ sentiments, and anger Muslims (Muslims have shown a perfectly normal response to caricatures of the Holy Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings be upon him). I explain why even death threats are directed against the creators of South Park, and that it’s not the fault of religion if some people go to extremes.
The Van Gogh was killed for something he did in his ‘artwork’, or ‘freedom of expression’ which a Moroccan man, aged 26 living in Denmark, I believe, took upon himself to punish by slitting Van Gogh’s throat and beheading him, according to media, etc. This, the media said, was an innocent man, killed by a religious extremist.
What I want to express, has nothing to do with apologizing for the behavior of other Muslims.
I want to shed light on this problem; the free speech vs. Muslims debate.
I wrote something, which unfortunately I am unable to publish right now. So to quickly tell what that is; the main idea I had was that not everything that claims to be free speech is. Maybe some free speech is hate speech.
Also, the fact that non-Muslims, or Atheists, or people who hate Islam are using their ‘right to free speech’ to anger Muslims is appalling. I compare this to a game of Russian roulette. In Russian Roulette, most people are familiar, a gun has several places where a bullet would be but only one or two bullets is placed, whereas the rest of the places are left empty. So, when the chamber is spun, and the people involved in the game point the gun at their own head and pull the trigger, maybe there is a bullet, which will lodge in their brain if they are a loser, or maybe no bullet is there, then they are ‘lucky’. The non-Muslim knows that most Muslims will not do anything (violent) about the insults they are hurtling at Islam’s Prophet, which he, SAWs, in his human perfection never deserves. But there is a minority of Muslims who due to anger, and also proximity, and maybe other things, will become that ‘bullet’ in this game which the non-Muslim is encouraging. I think some really enjoy this game of Russian roulette, and for that reason I suspect, far from being sincere in their intentions (I’m just expressing my free speech, I’m just an innocent artist, etc.,)they are malicious bigots, and possibly mentally unstable, or irrational. They “rationalize” everything and think they can get away with murder; but they are willful players in this. Without anyone to play the game wouldn’t succeed. In my analogy before, I actually had the ‘free speech’ as the bullet, not the Muslim extremist. What do you think? Which analogy is better?
The reality is, that the person whose free speech is so important to him, that it supposedly takes precedence over any other considerations, is the instigator in this dangerous game. Not only that, but he is willing to let society suffer the consequences. As the narrator of the You Tube video promoting and supporting the South Park creators, says himself, “100 people have died”. It’s a chain reaction. Every action has an equal or even greater reaction, or maybe it’s like a speeding train with malfunctioning brakes, you don’t know ‘what’, if anything will happen. The narrator also complains that South Park made a previous insulting cartoon in 2001, to which there was NO REACTION. So why do Muslims react in 2010, or the next time that South Park creators decide to make another insulting cartoon; boo-hoo-hoo, asks the narrator of the You Tube video in support of S P.
100 people have died due to the Muslim ‘backlash’. How many have died in Iraq? Oh, well that is not related to this debate, and I will just put that away. But, doesn’t with “great freedom [come] great responsibility”, as one famous American said? Shouldn’t peace, as far as can be possible in an imperfect world, and safety of the general public take precedence over a ‘caricature’?
I think these people are instigators of violence, they know, just like in Russian Roulette, that chances are that something ‘bad’ will happen.
My response to comments:
I don’t watch American cartoons, nor am I interested to see this particular cartoon (South Park). I don’t need others, especially non-Muslims who make cartoons, to teach me about life or what kind of views I should have. I don’t believe people should give up their right to learn truth, or become lazy. (Someone commented to me that South Park is teaching ignorant people. I don’t know if that’s true, though. Probably some people, like racists won’t have their minds changed by a cartoon, and will disagree with the message of the S P creators, even if it’s done (according to her views) with humor and is smart). There are some who don’t care to learn, another story altogether. I really appreciate the fact that I can do what I want, watch what I want, and hear what I want, for the most part. I think, considering the level of freedom enjoyed by everyone, Muslims don’t have to give up anything. Maybe that’s what is really bothering the majority of the non-Muslims who oppose anything Islamic, but especially views expressed by Muslims, which are varied and sometimes leaning towards the extreme (I will get to that later).
(Muslims don’t have to give up anything; I mean, they can practice Islam and still live and work in America if they want to, and if jobs are available to them. So, they are as free as anyone else. Hamza Yusuf finds living in America as a practicing Muslim easier (in many ways) than living in Mauritania, or maybe other countries where “the regime” is watching and questioning Muslims who are praying or maybe studying Islam. He is also an active Muslim in the world arena.)
The YouTube video response to the fatwa and threats by some (Muslims) against the South Park creators is an example of extremism, too. He makes a video response to the “terrorists”; but the narrator, honestly, comes off sounding like he’s crazy, ranting about “the first world” and that religion is backwards, etc, etc. Those who agree are either not in the minority, or are perhaps a vocal few (individuals), but one doesn’t really know. Do we ever really know what the majority think? Anyway, I’d guess the vote is split 60, 30 and 10 % don’t know (I’m guessing, the same as “for the war in Iraq”, “against the war”, and the “undecided”, as per the beginning of the war according to Michael Moore). People like him (the anonymous narrator) refuse to consider that religion is never going away, ever. And the realization hasn’t yet dawned on him that religion isn’t the cause of all the world’s problems. I do bring up America’s war on terror and George Bush. While GW did use the Crusade word, it’s not all about a crusade, but it’s (as much) about the oil, and the appetite for taking what we want, even if we have to kill. Does religion make us do things? No, not in today’s world. But do people excuse what they do by hiding behind religion? Yes.
Even parents who feel they lack control, become overly strict and then lay it on religion, or God, “God doesn’t want you to play games on the internet all afternoon”. Because we fail to teach our kids, or instill in them some responsibility isn’t religion’s fault. Because people are angry, isn’t religion’s fault. Because America is still imperialist, isn’t religion’s fault. America has to evolve past the state of imperialist to the state of humanist. That doesn’t mean turning their back on God, but it means to live and let live. And find alternatives to energy, find alternatives to war, make compromises. Pay more for oil. Let Muslims express themselves legitimately, so they feel less angry. (By the way, they pay 3 dollars a barrel or something for oil, to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis also finance a great part of the war on terror)
Maybe not everyone considers You Tube “the media” as broadcasting yet, but it is mass media, anyway. But this particular story (South Park creators receiving death threats) first aired on a major news network, and received lots of attention. Then as Muslim public opinion mounts, it’s shot down by every critic out there. Not to worry, there are always more on the case than can be processed by the atheistic, xenophobic, or extremist Atheist, Christian or Jewish people on the net. There are too many Muslims in cyberspace, even if they are fighting an uphill battle. No one knows what the result of these cyber wars will be.
The Media:
(Almost at every turn, non-Muslim media is attempting to bolster freedom of expression for them, while trying to curtail it for us. And Joe public may or may not realize or care, which is also hurting the problem).
There’s CNN trying to make the religious fundamentalist even more extreme by putting words in his mouth. I listened to that interview on You tube as well; nowhere in that interview does the Muslim say anything about killing the innocent non-Muslims, or I think it was put, “women, and children”. This is one of those things the media loosely throws out (slings), as if words don’t matter when you are talking about a Muslim. On that point, I think he has every right to feel unfairly attacked. The outspoken Chaudry (another video on You Tube?) does say that he morally supports some people in Yemen if they want to attack American sites (and can), for example. According to the CNN reporter (and probably the law) that qualifies Mr. Chaudry for a long stint in prison for supporting terrorism. We recall that the Cole was attacked at a Yemeni port a few years back.
Not only are American soldiers not legitimate targets (according to American and others’ thinking) of religious fundamentalists who believe that they are duty bound to fight aggression in their lands; but ipso facto this makes them international war criminals. So,(it seems) to CNN, Muslims (not only religious fundamentalists like Chaudry) are not allowed to even think about or believe in jihad in self defense. (‘This have something to do with the AUMF?) Voicing such an opinion (will probably) mean(s) a life sentencing at the international criminal court, for any Muslim unlucky enough to end up there. This is most likely the reason that Muslims won’t admit to feeling hostile towards Americans, or their allies i.e. being against the war on terror, or hostile opinions following incidents of allied aggression and crimes by troops against Muslim civilians (Chaudry believes many more Muslims share his sentiments). The war on terror is itself a broad issue which has been overly simplified for military purposes and public opinion.
Even more ludicrous is the media suggesting the Muslim fundamentalists will try their darnedest to apply sharia on every non-Muslim. Islam doesn’t say anything about such an obligation and so doesn’t Yusuf Mohammed, a young, outspoken Muslim in NY yet they are accusing him of that by twisting his words. (Obviously as an outspoken Muslim he speaks for everyone!)Even if it were true it would be impossible to do, therefore it is more scare- mongering by the media than anything of “probability”, once again.
They even accuse him of terrorism. He explains that his idea of what is the meaning of “terrorism” and theirs are different. The CNN doesn’t want to hear any of it, but if you listen to him speak about what “terrorism” in one very specific sense means, from his interpretation, which I’m not saying is wrong, is to “put fear into them” by preaching verses from the Qur’an, basically. Is it illegal to put fear into someone? Maybe, if it is harassment, or threat of bodily harm. But is it an international war crime to (attempt to) put fear into someone (again, by preaching only)? Don’t be ridiculous.
The only placed Mr. Chaudry is in obvious trouble is in trying to defend his actions on the internet, when he “encourages” (according to the video, and he admits) Muslims outside of America or Britain to “attack” (some) American or other sites. (This is where the responsible media has to draw the line between accusing an entire religion of extremism, and only accusing the person responsible, be he, Muslim or otherwise). Whether or not he will/does actually face such charges is an important question.
In the (first example) interview Yusuf Mohammed clearly denies that Islam requires Muslims to kill innocents. He speaks about terrorizing the public (with speech about eternal Hellfire, as is obvious from the video). Chaudry specifically supports military, or terrorist attacks, therefore, does that mean that American sites should be military targets? I think, he will regret having ever gotten into the question of ‘retaliation’. (Meanwhile, extremists against Muslims capitalize on this to suggest that “it’s not just one bad apple”). So, two different viewpoints are expressed, but both Muslims are taunted by the American media.
A more proper view might be that Islam stands for peace, not aggression. Aggression might be one alternative (some Muslims, think), but there are many cautionary tales in Islam, too. A hadith Qudsi (saying of the Prophet Muhammad expressing Allah’s statements to him in revelation; not direct quotes, nor part of the Qur’an, but in the Prophet’s own wording) says, on the authority of the Prophet: (On the Day of Judgment) a man will come holding the hand of another man and say: O Lord! It is he who killed me. Allah will say: Why did you kill him? He will say: I killed him so that glory may be established for you. Allah will say: Indeed it. Then another will come taking hold of another fellow’s hand and say: It is he who killed me. Allah will ask him: Why did you kill him? He will say: I killed him so that glory may be established for so-and-so person. Allah will say: Indeed glory is not his. (So the killer will bear the sin). P. 63, 110 Ahadith Qudsi (Sayings of the Prophet Having Allah’s Statements). The heading reads, “Sin of the one who murders unjustly”. I just opened a book, but there are many better examples than this hadith. Off the top, I can’t think of any, that’s my bad. (Maybe I’ll try adding an appendix)
Finally, I have a big problem with the media, as a tool for propaganda, and the non-Muslims’ aggressive tactics of using media to “force feed” viewers what we are supposed to know or believe. Things that once were not an issue become an issue, and then later they (almost) attain force of law. I am against the idea that the non-Muslim media and non-Muslim world, some call it the “first world”, can ‘own’ exclusively the words “freedom” or “free speech”, and so on. And just like they take a word and change its meaning, and then accuse anyone who hasn’t “caught on”, such as with the meaning of the word fundamentalist, which is actually quite benign; that before was acceptable, is in the present a “slur”. Myths are spread by these forces (hit- and -run attacks in the media) and by forced beliefs. How many times have I heard/read on the internet the belief that “Muslims need to be saved”, they need to be “educated”, the suggestion that they don’t even have an education system in their countries, and such nonsense. Then Muslims need to be “democratized”, and their belief system overhauled, or they need to be controlled by unIslamic, secular laws or a new (puppet) government. Religious fundamentalists must submit to the “first world” laws because the West knows better. Other “’men’ in power” should tell you what to do, but never God, or religion. Sadly, even some Muslims loudly agree, not really knowing the complete Islamic ‘story’.
The ‘story’ gets muddled:
I spoke briefly in one of my comments recently about what David Letterman gets away with on his show. He is “being racist”, I wrote, because his jokes about Arabs, Arabic customs, or something connected in some way to the Arabs. For example, he once joked about “goats’ milk” being sold in the supermarkets in the [Middle East] or in Arabic countries, which I have not seen by the way, in the GCC. I asked, “… does it make me less of a human being?” if I drink goats’ milk instead of cows’ milk. And isn’t that a racist attempt at humor? Recently, he tried to be funny by suggesting that Elton John sang “Camel in the Wind” at Muammar Gaddafi’s funeral. Isn’t that racist humor (Not to mention lame)? It has nothing to do with what others think of the late leader, but is poking fun at (all) Arabs because they own camels. Similarly, he has joked in the past about “camel jockeys”. Again, if they own camels (they also own beautiful horses), are they less deserving of human rights (or self determination)? Are cows better than camels? Based on what? Are sheep better than goats, and therefore the owners of sheep better than the owners of goats? Again, based on what?
I’ve seen so many comments on the internet, also some directed at me personally, which are hateful, extremist and beyond defense. On the one hand, that’s the price we pay in this fast and furious age. Those people will be scorned by sensible others. Many Muslims as well as non- Muslims continue to defend Islam as the “peaceful religion” and its having many good teachings. In many ways, the internet has made the preaching of Islam easier for many average Muslims, without having to take up the pen as a career in journalism or religion. It is a two edged sword, therefore, Muslims have to be careful of how they wield that sword, “the pen”, or in this case, the keyboard.
Wait for the conclusion in Part Two
Introduction:
Cartoons are hate speech, being used as anti Muslim, anti Islam propaganda.
Who invented the “law” that free speech should be beyond reproach?
The Qur’an teaches us that we are responsible even for our speech.
We can also be rewarded for our speech.
A prophetic hadith explains, that one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad asked, “will we be responsible even for what we say?” and the Prophet, SAWS, answered, “may your mother be bereaved of you (an admonishing kind of expression) Muadh, (I think it was Muadh), and explained further that it is mostly the speech, what the tongue earned, that lands a person in the hellfire.
Uttering speech to promote or defend Islam, or to stop a sinful act, and so on are all considered good, but sometimes speech is considered a lesser good than acting. For example, not stopping a thief but only warning him about the consequences of his actions.
Sometimes speech is the highest form of jihad, such as the writings of a scholar and his preaching to the people. Scholars are also the most responsible before Allah for their speech, being more educated about religion and (insha Allah) more pious, than others. They shoulder more responsibility than/to the rest, and before Allah.
Another hadith mentions that the jurist who is correct in his opinion will receive double reward, and the jurist whose opinion is incorrect still will receive a reward, for trying his upmost to make the religion clear and for his attempt at understanding.
Hate Speech:
I’ve expressed my opinion about cartoons, caricatures in the media which insult Islam and hurt Muslims’ sentiments, and anger Muslims (Muslims have shown a perfectly normal response to caricatures of the Holy Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings be upon him). I explain why even death threats are directed against the creators of South Park, and that it’s not the fault of religion if some people go to extremes.
The Van Gogh was killed for something he did in his ‘artwork’, or ‘freedom of expression’ which a Moroccan man, aged 26 living in Denmark, I believe, took upon himself to punish by slitting Van Gogh’s throat and beheading him, according to media, etc. This, the media said, was an innocent man, killed by a religious extremist.
What I want to express, has nothing to do with apologizing for the behavior of other Muslims.
I want to shed light on this problem; the free speech vs. Muslims debate.
I wrote something, which unfortunately I am unable to publish right now. So to quickly tell what that is; the main idea I had was that not everything that claims to be free speech is. Maybe some free speech is hate speech.
Also, the fact that non-Muslims, or Atheists, or people who hate Islam are using their ‘right to free speech’ to anger Muslims is appalling. I compare this to a game of Russian roulette. In Russian Roulette, most people are familiar, a gun has several places where a bullet would be but only one or two bullets is placed, whereas the rest of the places are left empty. So, when the chamber is spun, and the people involved in the game point the gun at their own head and pull the trigger, maybe there is a bullet, which will lodge in their brain if they are a loser, or maybe no bullet is there, then they are ‘lucky’. The non-Muslim knows that most Muslims will not do anything (violent) about the insults they are hurtling at Islam’s Prophet, which he, SAWs, in his human perfection never deserves. But there is a minority of Muslims who due to anger, and also proximity, and maybe other things, will become that ‘bullet’ in this game which the non-Muslim is encouraging. I think some really enjoy this game of Russian roulette, and for that reason I suspect, far from being sincere in their intentions (I’m just expressing my free speech, I’m just an innocent artist, etc.,)they are malicious bigots, and possibly mentally unstable, or irrational. They “rationalize” everything and think they can get away with murder; but they are willful players in this. Without anyone to play the game wouldn’t succeed. In my analogy before, I actually had the ‘free speech’ as the bullet, not the Muslim extremist. What do you think? Which analogy is better?
The reality is, that the person whose free speech is so important to him, that it supposedly takes precedence over any other considerations, is the instigator in this dangerous game. Not only that, but he is willing to let society suffer the consequences. As the narrator of the You Tube video promoting and supporting the South Park creators, says himself, “100 people have died”. It’s a chain reaction. Every action has an equal or even greater reaction, or maybe it’s like a speeding train with malfunctioning brakes, you don’t know ‘what’, if anything will happen. The narrator also complains that South Park made a previous insulting cartoon in 2001, to which there was NO REACTION. So why do Muslims react in 2010, or the next time that South Park creators decide to make another insulting cartoon; boo-hoo-hoo, asks the narrator of the You Tube video in support of S P.
100 people have died due to the Muslim ‘backlash’. How many have died in Iraq? Oh, well that is not related to this debate, and I will just put that away. But, doesn’t with “great freedom [come] great responsibility”, as one famous American said? Shouldn’t peace, as far as can be possible in an imperfect world, and safety of the general public take precedence over a ‘caricature’?
I think these people are instigators of violence, they know, just like in Russian Roulette, that chances are that something ‘bad’ will happen.
My response to comments:
I don’t watch American cartoons, nor am I interested to see this particular cartoon (South Park). I don’t need others, especially non-Muslims who make cartoons, to teach me about life or what kind of views I should have. I don’t believe people should give up their right to learn truth, or become lazy. (Someone commented to me that South Park is teaching ignorant people. I don’t know if that’s true, though. Probably some people, like racists won’t have their minds changed by a cartoon, and will disagree with the message of the S P creators, even if it’s done (according to her views) with humor and is smart). There are some who don’t care to learn, another story altogether. I really appreciate the fact that I can do what I want, watch what I want, and hear what I want, for the most part. I think, considering the level of freedom enjoyed by everyone, Muslims don’t have to give up anything. Maybe that’s what is really bothering the majority of the non-Muslims who oppose anything Islamic, but especially views expressed by Muslims, which are varied and sometimes leaning towards the extreme (I will get to that later).
(Muslims don’t have to give up anything; I mean, they can practice Islam and still live and work in America if they want to, and if jobs are available to them. So, they are as free as anyone else. Hamza Yusuf finds living in America as a practicing Muslim easier (in many ways) than living in Mauritania, or maybe other countries where “the regime” is watching and questioning Muslims who are praying or maybe studying Islam. He is also an active Muslim in the world arena.)
The YouTube video response to the fatwa and threats by some (Muslims) against the South Park creators is an example of extremism, too. He makes a video response to the “terrorists”; but the narrator, honestly, comes off sounding like he’s crazy, ranting about “the first world” and that religion is backwards, etc, etc. Those who agree are either not in the minority, or are perhaps a vocal few (individuals), but one doesn’t really know. Do we ever really know what the majority think? Anyway, I’d guess the vote is split 60, 30 and 10 % don’t know (I’m guessing, the same as “for the war in Iraq”, “against the war”, and the “undecided”, as per the beginning of the war according to Michael Moore). People like him (the anonymous narrator) refuse to consider that religion is never going away, ever. And the realization hasn’t yet dawned on him that religion isn’t the cause of all the world’s problems. I do bring up America’s war on terror and George Bush. While GW did use the Crusade word, it’s not all about a crusade, but it’s (as much) about the oil, and the appetite for taking what we want, even if we have to kill. Does religion make us do things? No, not in today’s world. But do people excuse what they do by hiding behind religion? Yes.
Even parents who feel they lack control, become overly strict and then lay it on religion, or God, “God doesn’t want you to play games on the internet all afternoon”. Because we fail to teach our kids, or instill in them some responsibility isn’t religion’s fault. Because people are angry, isn’t religion’s fault. Because America is still imperialist, isn’t religion’s fault. America has to evolve past the state of imperialist to the state of humanist. That doesn’t mean turning their back on God, but it means to live and let live. And find alternatives to energy, find alternatives to war, make compromises. Pay more for oil. Let Muslims express themselves legitimately, so they feel less angry. (By the way, they pay 3 dollars a barrel or something for oil, to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis also finance a great part of the war on terror)
Maybe not everyone considers You Tube “the media” as broadcasting yet, but it is mass media, anyway. But this particular story (South Park creators receiving death threats) first aired on a major news network, and received lots of attention. Then as Muslim public opinion mounts, it’s shot down by every critic out there. Not to worry, there are always more on the case than can be processed by the atheistic, xenophobic, or extremist Atheist, Christian or Jewish people on the net. There are too many Muslims in cyberspace, even if they are fighting an uphill battle. No one knows what the result of these cyber wars will be.
The Media:
(Almost at every turn, non-Muslim media is attempting to bolster freedom of expression for them, while trying to curtail it for us. And Joe public may or may not realize or care, which is also hurting the problem).
There’s CNN trying to make the religious fundamentalist even more extreme by putting words in his mouth. I listened to that interview on You tube as well; nowhere in that interview does the Muslim say anything about killing the innocent non-Muslims, or I think it was put, “women, and children”. This is one of those things the media loosely throws out (slings), as if words don’t matter when you are talking about a Muslim. On that point, I think he has every right to feel unfairly attacked. The outspoken Chaudry (another video on You Tube?) does say that he morally supports some people in Yemen if they want to attack American sites (and can), for example. According to the CNN reporter (and probably the law) that qualifies Mr. Chaudry for a long stint in prison for supporting terrorism. We recall that the Cole was attacked at a Yemeni port a few years back.
Not only are American soldiers not legitimate targets (according to American and others’ thinking) of religious fundamentalists who believe that they are duty bound to fight aggression in their lands; but ipso facto this makes them international war criminals. So,(it seems) to CNN, Muslims (not only religious fundamentalists like Chaudry) are not allowed to even think about or believe in jihad in self defense. (‘This have something to do with the AUMF?) Voicing such an opinion (will probably) mean(s) a life sentencing at the international criminal court, for any Muslim unlucky enough to end up there. This is most likely the reason that Muslims won’t admit to feeling hostile towards Americans, or their allies i.e. being against the war on terror, or hostile opinions following incidents of allied aggression and crimes by troops against Muslim civilians (Chaudry believes many more Muslims share his sentiments). The war on terror is itself a broad issue which has been overly simplified for military purposes and public opinion.
Even more ludicrous is the media suggesting the Muslim fundamentalists will try their darnedest to apply sharia on every non-Muslim. Islam doesn’t say anything about such an obligation and so doesn’t Yusuf Mohammed, a young, outspoken Muslim in NY yet they are accusing him of that by twisting his words. (Obviously as an outspoken Muslim he speaks for everyone!)Even if it were true it would be impossible to do, therefore it is more scare- mongering by the media than anything of “probability”, once again.
They even accuse him of terrorism. He explains that his idea of what is the meaning of “terrorism” and theirs are different. The CNN doesn’t want to hear any of it, but if you listen to him speak about what “terrorism” in one very specific sense means, from his interpretation, which I’m not saying is wrong, is to “put fear into them” by preaching verses from the Qur’an, basically. Is it illegal to put fear into someone? Maybe, if it is harassment, or threat of bodily harm. But is it an international war crime to (attempt to) put fear into someone (again, by preaching only)? Don’t be ridiculous.
The only placed Mr. Chaudry is in obvious trouble is in trying to defend his actions on the internet, when he “encourages” (according to the video, and he admits) Muslims outside of America or Britain to “attack” (some) American or other sites. (This is where the responsible media has to draw the line between accusing an entire religion of extremism, and only accusing the person responsible, be he, Muslim or otherwise). Whether or not he will/does actually face such charges is an important question.
In the (first example) interview Yusuf Mohammed clearly denies that Islam requires Muslims to kill innocents. He speaks about terrorizing the public (with speech about eternal Hellfire, as is obvious from the video). Chaudry specifically supports military, or terrorist attacks, therefore, does that mean that American sites should be military targets? I think, he will regret having ever gotten into the question of ‘retaliation’. (Meanwhile, extremists against Muslims capitalize on this to suggest that “it’s not just one bad apple”). So, two different viewpoints are expressed, but both Muslims are taunted by the American media.
A more proper view might be that Islam stands for peace, not aggression. Aggression might be one alternative (some Muslims, think), but there are many cautionary tales in Islam, too. A hadith Qudsi (saying of the Prophet Muhammad expressing Allah’s statements to him in revelation; not direct quotes, nor part of the Qur’an, but in the Prophet’s own wording) says, on the authority of the Prophet: (On the Day of Judgment) a man will come holding the hand of another man and say: O Lord! It is he who killed me. Allah will say: Why did you kill him? He will say: I killed him so that glory may be established for you. Allah will say: Indeed it. Then another will come taking hold of another fellow’s hand and say: It is he who killed me. Allah will ask him: Why did you kill him? He will say: I killed him so that glory may be established for so-and-so person. Allah will say: Indeed glory is not his. (So the killer will bear the sin). P. 63, 110 Ahadith Qudsi (Sayings of the Prophet Having Allah’s Statements). The heading reads, “Sin of the one who murders unjustly”. I just opened a book, but there are many better examples than this hadith. Off the top, I can’t think of any, that’s my bad. (Maybe I’ll try adding an appendix)
Finally, I have a big problem with the media, as a tool for propaganda, and the non-Muslims’ aggressive tactics of using media to “force feed” viewers what we are supposed to know or believe. Things that once were not an issue become an issue, and then later they (almost) attain force of law. I am against the idea that the non-Muslim media and non-Muslim world, some call it the “first world”, can ‘own’ exclusively the words “freedom” or “free speech”, and so on. And just like they take a word and change its meaning, and then accuse anyone who hasn’t “caught on”, such as with the meaning of the word fundamentalist, which is actually quite benign; that before was acceptable, is in the present a “slur”. Myths are spread by these forces (hit- and -run attacks in the media) and by forced beliefs. How many times have I heard/read on the internet the belief that “Muslims need to be saved”, they need to be “educated”, the suggestion that they don’t even have an education system in their countries, and such nonsense. Then Muslims need to be “democratized”, and their belief system overhauled, or they need to be controlled by unIslamic, secular laws or a new (puppet) government. Religious fundamentalists must submit to the “first world” laws because the West knows better. Other “’men’ in power” should tell you what to do, but never God, or religion. Sadly, even some Muslims loudly agree, not really knowing the complete Islamic ‘story’.
The ‘story’ gets muddled:
I spoke briefly in one of my comments recently about what David Letterman gets away with on his show. He is “being racist”, I wrote, because his jokes about Arabs, Arabic customs, or something connected in some way to the Arabs. For example, he once joked about “goats’ milk” being sold in the supermarkets in the [Middle East] or in Arabic countries, which I have not seen by the way, in the GCC. I asked, “… does it make me less of a human being?” if I drink goats’ milk instead of cows’ milk. And isn’t that a racist attempt at humor? Recently, he tried to be funny by suggesting that Elton John sang “Camel in the Wind” at Muammar Gaddafi’s funeral. Isn’t that racist humor (Not to mention lame)? It has nothing to do with what others think of the late leader, but is poking fun at (all) Arabs because they own camels. Similarly, he has joked in the past about “camel jockeys”. Again, if they own camels (they also own beautiful horses), are they less deserving of human rights (or self determination)? Are cows better than camels? Based on what? Are sheep better than goats, and therefore the owners of sheep better than the owners of goats? Again, based on what?
I’ve seen so many comments on the internet, also some directed at me personally, which are hateful, extremist and beyond defense. On the one hand, that’s the price we pay in this fast and furious age. Those people will be scorned by sensible others. Many Muslims as well as non- Muslims continue to defend Islam as the “peaceful religion” and its having many good teachings. In many ways, the internet has made the preaching of Islam easier for many average Muslims, without having to take up the pen as a career in journalism or religion. It is a two edged sword, therefore, Muslims have to be careful of how they wield that sword, “the pen”, or in this case, the keyboard.
Wait for the conclusion in Part Two
No comments:
Post a Comment