West's appetite for attacking Islam

West’s appetite for attacking Islam

By ABID MUSTAFA

In the latest bout of West’s defamation of Islam, an obscure writer Sherry Jones succeeded in the publication of her book Jewel of Medina, despite vehement protests from Muslim groups around the world. Once again Muslims are expected to subscribe to West’s notion of freedom of expression and respect Sherry’s offensive portrayal of the Messenger (PBUH) of Allah with his youngest wife Aisha. Earlier in this year, at least seventeen Danish newspapers vowed to defend freedom of expression and reprinted a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The conservative broadsheet Berlingske Tidende wrote in an editorial: “Freedom of expression gives you the right to think, to speak and to draw what you like…no matter how many terrorist plots there are…” It is evident that both Europe and America did not learn anything from the outcry of Muslims that accompanied the newspaper Jyllands-Posten decision to publish the original cartoons in 2005.

In Europe Islam bashing is an epidemic that infected the whole continent. The Dutch government refused to take action against the Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders who made a derogatory movie about the Quran. The government defended Wilders’s actions by citing freedom of expression. France and Germany have imposed a ban on the wearing of hijabs. European security forces routinely harass, arrest and torture Muslims for simply being Muslims. Writers and journalists are free to insult Islam and their right to do so is passionately defended by politicians. Take Oriana Fallaci, the Italian war correspondent wrote a book entitled Anger and Pride in which she described Muslims as ‘vile creatures who urinate in baptisteries’ and ‘multiply like rats’. To the horror of Muslims, Italy’s Defence Minister, Antonio Martino, praised Fallaci for having the courage to write the book. In Britain under the guise of freedom and tolerance, government ministers routinely denigrate Islam and set new benchmarks for British Muslims to pledge their loyalty to the state.

In Muslims eyes, America - the leading state of the West - is notorious for the humiliation and torture of Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, responsible for the destruction and defilement of Iraq’s mosques, the debaser of Muslim women and the slayer of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims. Testimonies from human rights organisations, journalists, lawyers, US officials, former prisoners, rape victims, tell the true horror of America’s war on Islam. In this war, western ideals of ‘religious freedom’ and ‘freedom of expression’ have given way to religious intolerance and anti-Muslim demagoguery.

Away from Washington, the US media, esteemed think tanks and leaders of the religious right who are counted among President Bush’s closest allies exploited free speech to vilify Islam. Rev Franklin Graham, described Islam as a “very evil and wicked religion.” Evangelist Pat Robertson, called Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) “an absolute wild-eyed fanatic…a robber and brigand…a killer.” Jerry Falwell called the Prophet of Islam a terrorist.

On the international scene the West was quick to sacrifice freedom of religion in preference for forging alliances with despotic regimes across the Muslim world. The regimes of Musharraf and Karimov that habitually torture, imprison and kill Muslims for expressing their Islamic beliefs became the vanguard for the West’s crusade against Islam.

The West claims that individuals are free to worship whatever deity they choose. But in practice this leads to perpetual conflicts amongst people, as religious beliefs and practices professed by some can be interpreted as offensive and insulting to others. Hence, western governments are constantly intervening in the disputes and resort to legislation to protect the religious rights of some people by depriving others. Often, the real benefactors of the freedom of religion are those individuals or groups whose beliefs coincide with the interests of the government or those who possess the ability to exert influence over the government. That is why the religious right in America is allowed to attack Islam because their fiery rhetoric is in full harmony with President Bush’s war on Islam. However, if the same conservative Christians were to insult Jews or the Zionist state of Israel the US government would adopt stern measures to curb their insults. The ostracising of Jimmy Cater by the main stream media is a noteworthy example.

Western governments use religious freedom or freedom of expression to pry open societies closed to western values or totally ignore freedom when it does not concur with their interests. In the case of Karimov’s massacre of Muslims in Andijon, the West has chosen to dilute its response, as the protesters were avid practitioners of Islam and not democracy. Such hypocrisy only serves to underscore the perception amongst Muslims that America and Europe are solely interested in the utter destruction of Islamic values and practices.

Islam does not believe in the fanciful idea of the freedom of religion or freedom of expression, where a handful of men decide which beliefs and thoughts are legally beyond reproach, and which beliefs and thoughts are subject to unfettered criticism and legislation. Islam stipulates that life, honour, blood, property, belief, race and the mind are to be protected by the Islamic State. All the citizens of the Caliphate are guaranteed these rights, irrespective of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims. Islam also protects the rights of non-Muslims to worship without any fear of retribution or vilification of their beliefs. The Messenger (PBUH) of Allah said: “One who hurts a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Caliphate), he hurts me and the one who hurts me, hurts Allah.”

Therefore, it is prohibited for a Muslim to insult the beliefs of a non-Muslim or to harm their places of worship. The Islamic history is unrivalled in its capacity to guarantee the religious rights of non-Muslims under the shade of the Caliphate. Muslims living under the tyrannical rule of regimes supported by the West need to realise that holding demonstration or boycotting western goods will not prevent the West from undertaking further acts of aggression against them. The only way to prevent the West and her surrogates from attacking Islam and humiliating Muslims is to re-establish the Caliphate. The rights of the Muslims were protected, until the very last days of the Caliphate. During the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, Britain decided to stage a play, which depicted the life of the Messenger (PBUH) of Allah in a derogatory manner. On hearing this Sultan Abdul Hamid complained to the British government to stop the play. The British government defended its decision to hold the play citing free speech. But when Sultan Abdul Hamid threatened Britain with military action Britain immediately relented.

The writer is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim affairs.

courtesy The Nation, Pakistan

Islamophobia in Politics :: Part One ::

by Mohamed Elmasry

(Monday, October 13, 2008)

"...in today’s post-9/11 era, Muslim minorities in the West can be added to the top of Profs Quinley and Lock’s list of those who suffer the most from "political derision and attack."

Early in 2003 Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn sparked controversy by stating that anyone who believes in Islam is "achterlijk" -- which translates into English as "backward" and / or "retarded" - and that Holland should not accept any more Muslim immigrants.

Even his right-wing party, Leefbaar Nederland, found his policies so
excessively Islamophobic that it kicked him out. Fortuyn then started a new party of his own, List Pim Fortuyn, which managed to attract many former LN members. Soon after his assassination by an animal-rights activist, Fortuyn’s new party became the second largest in the Netherlands.

During the 2008 American Republican National Convention, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said, "For four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words 'Islamic terrorism.' I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please, tell me, who are they insulting, if they say 'Islamic terrorism?' They are insulting terrorists."

At the same convention, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney asked, "Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitutional rights? [Presidential nominee] John McCain hit the nail on the head: radical violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it!"

A month earlier, one of Sen. John McCain’s leading supporters told Florida media that "the Muslims... [are] going to kill us." [3]

During the same presidential election campaign, Sen. McCain himself has called the United States a "Christian nation" and has used the misnomer "Islamofascism" to describe the perceived terror threat the U.S. faces.

A few weeks after the Florida revelation about Muslims "...going to kill us," the Clarion group began distributing a free DVD in newspapers and magazines to 28 million American households across the United States. (See obsessionthemovie dot com)
Drawing hatred of minorities into politics poses a serious and growing threat to Western democracies, for the victims are not only the targeted minority groups, but every citizen in that society as well.

"At a minimum, the politicization of prejudice is likely to harden and inflame existing societal tensions," say Profs Harold E. Quinley and Charles Y. Glock. "It will lead people to define their interests along religious, ethnic, and racial lines and to treat those different from themselves as political enemies ... In extreme form, the politicization of prejudice can result in the use of the power of the state to repress or even eliminate unpopular minorities. Of all the political excesses of humankind, probably none have been as vicious as those motivated by personal hate and bigotry ... Of critical concern are the nature, extent, and causes of political movements that appeal to public prejudices."

Two days after the fourth anniversary of 9/11 (on September 11, 2005) Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that there would be no Sharia law in his province and that he would move to ban all forms of faith-based arbitration. McGuinty said he would not let his province become the first Western government to allow the use of Islamic law to settle family disputes and that the boundaries between church and state would become clearer by banning religious arbitration completely.

"There will be no Sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians," McGuinty told The Canadian Press.
The proposal to let Ontario Muslims use Islamic law for settling family disputes drew protests throughout Canada and across Europe.

The Canadian Press reported that "Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991. The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights. Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or ... scrap the religious family courts altogether. McGuinty said such courts ‘threaten our common ground’."

Although Profs Quinley and Glock were addressing anti-Semitism in America in the 1940s, their study is very relevant to understanding the spread of Islamophobia in Western politics and society today. "By studying the dynamics of these situations," they wrote, "[we] sought to arrive at a general understanding of the causes and consequences of the politicization of prejudice in America. Additionally, the study examined the susceptibility of Americans ... to political campaigns of hate and prejudice.

To what extent can the elements leading to a politics of prejudice in the past be found among Americans in the present?"

They continue by stressing their efforts to "describe the general conditions under which minority groups are made the targets of political derision and attack. As will be seen, the politicization of prejudice has been more prevalent in America than is commonly assumed ... Irish, Catholics, Jews, blacks, intellectuals, communists, and several other unpopular and vulnerable minority groups have all been subjected to malicious and defamatory political attacks. Such hate-inducing groups have gained strength on the average of once a generation. They have often attracted millions of followers, elected scores of candidates to office, and succeeded in having their prejudices written into the law."

Now in today’s post-9/11 era, Muslim minorities in the West can be added to the top of Profs Quinley and Lock’s list of those who suffer the most from "political derision and attack."

courtesy Media Monitors Network

Re: West's appetite for attacking Islam

I am assuming sultan abdul hamid was the ottomon caliph? but weren't ottomons the 'sick man of europe' at the end of their times? How could they threaten everyone when they were embroiled with christian powers for greece, balkans etc.