Maligning Muslims is now Cause for Applause
I recently published this piece on The Muslim News.
What once could not be said about any ethnic or faith minority, is now legitimate and meritworthy when said against Muslims.
It's been a pretty bad few weeks. The war in southern Lebanon and the total devastation of the country's infrastructure set a pretty depressing backdrop to the subsequent events. The death upon death in Lebanon was re-packaged by Condoleeza Rice as "birth pangs." In mid-August air travel and the airports came to a standstill in the wake of the foiled attacks on flights from London to the US. Travellers are now facing stricter safety measures on travel, and the episode has re-injected fear and hatred for Muslims into the general population.
In the run-up to the days marking the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, George Bush decided that the War on Terror was the wrong war. The latest war was the War against Islamic Fascists. I carried out an unscientific poll of a group of my flabbergasted friends and colleagues who felt that this new terminology was an oxymoron (a George-Moron?), a contradiction in terms, designed to create an image in people’s minds that Muslims are fascists. It’s not a meaningful term, nor a helpful term they told me. It’s too muddled up with Italian history. And, most worryingly of all, it is part of what now seems to be open season on Muslims. It seems you can say anything you like these days about Muslims without being held to account.
The Pope got in on the act and decided to quote an “erudite Byzantine emperor” of the 14th century who was having a discussion with a Persian Muslim. The emperor said “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Pope insisted this was a quotation given in an academic discussion. But he put the idea out there. And just like creating a connection between Islam and Fascism, it adds to the acrid atmosphere building up against Muslims.
The Pope is a religious leader, and spiritually and politically he should have known better. Despite his subsequent comments that this connection was not his intention, his speech actually used the idea of violent conversion as something to reject as it is against the nature of man. He juxtaposed this caricature of the violent Muslim against the conceptualisation of Christian doctrine being based on reason and in accordance with the nature of man. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was impressed and agreed wholeheartedly.
There was rightful condemnation from around the Muslim world. The Pope did indeed need to be corrected. And when the Pope starts sending out signals against the followers of another faith, we know that there is trouble brewing and we need to nip it in the bud. On the whole Muslim protest was peaceful, measured and well-conducted. But in a few places the protests smacked of Muslims jumping up and down on their turbans again, and a couple of churches were attacked in Nablus. It made me cry. We need to learn to select our weapon of choice wisely – this is a war of ideas, and we need to combat it with ideas.
The Evening Standard – well-known for its anti-Muslim views – surpassed itself and published a rabid hate-filled piece by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of the Barnabas Fund. He writes: “Contemporary Islam has burst out of its colonial restraints. Once colonialism removed power, jihad and territorial control from Islam, it was left a benign force focusing on prayer and good deeds. But contemporary Islam has reverted back to early Islam, with all its theological rage against the non-Muslim world”. What a lot of imperialist nonsense. Colonialism as a force for good in managing the primitive violent Muslims who don’t know better? Early Islam having theological rage? I refer both the Pope and Dr Sookhdeo to the Crusades parts 1 to 9 (and beyond) as examples of colonialist attitudes and theological rage. The thing that made me laugh, albeit at the irony, was the statement by the Barnabus Fund that says, “We reject utterly any implication that our literature stirs up hatred against Muslims”.
Dr Sookhdeo also rails against Muslim schools, claiming that he doesn’t believe they can live up to the “noble tradition” of Christian and Jewish faith schools. To paraphrase him, mosques teach Muslims to hate everyone else, and Islamic law is mediaeval and unalterable. He sprinkles his toxic poison liberally: “I believe Islam needs different treatment from other faiths because Islam is different from other faiths.”
And therein lies the rub. It’s now OK to say whatever you like about Islam and Muslims because they are being seen as different. Not quite the same. Not at all the same, in fact. The voices that were once whispers are now recognised and applauded for saying that Muslims are violent people, that they are evil, uncontrollable, the cause of all terror and the source of all our woes. Already people are pulled aside for wearing headscarves, for having tufty beards, for being brown in colour. Names are scrutinised for sounding Muslim, and their owners subjected to investigation. This scary world is one that we already live in.
These loaded comments, blanket discrimination and characterising of Muslims is dangerous. For Everyone. And Everyone needs to be worried. In a sick Orwellian fashion they are building up a portrait of a Muslim villain, a de-humanised monster that lives in our midst. A scapegoat and a legitimate target. Will the next step be for Muslims to carry identity cards with little yellow crescents on them? Let’s not go down that road again.
What once could not be said about any ethnic or faith minority, is now legitimate and meritworthy when said against Muslims.
It's been a pretty bad few weeks. The war in southern Lebanon and the total devastation of the country's infrastructure set a pretty depressing backdrop to the subsequent events. The death upon death in Lebanon was re-packaged by Condoleeza Rice as "birth pangs." In mid-August air travel and the airports came to a standstill in the wake of the foiled attacks on flights from London to the US. Travellers are now facing stricter safety measures on travel, and the episode has re-injected fear and hatred for Muslims into the general population.
In the run-up to the days marking the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, George Bush decided that the War on Terror was the wrong war. The latest war was the War against Islamic Fascists. I carried out an unscientific poll of a group of my flabbergasted friends and colleagues who felt that this new terminology was an oxymoron (a George-Moron?), a contradiction in terms, designed to create an image in people’s minds that Muslims are fascists. It’s not a meaningful term, nor a helpful term they told me. It’s too muddled up with Italian history. And, most worryingly of all, it is part of what now seems to be open season on Muslims. It seems you can say anything you like these days about Muslims without being held to account.
The Pope got in on the act and decided to quote an “erudite Byzantine emperor” of the 14th century who was having a discussion with a Persian Muslim. The emperor said “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Pope insisted this was a quotation given in an academic discussion. But he put the idea out there. And just like creating a connection between Islam and Fascism, it adds to the acrid atmosphere building up against Muslims.
The Pope is a religious leader, and spiritually and politically he should have known better. Despite his subsequent comments that this connection was not his intention, his speech actually used the idea of violent conversion as something to reject as it is against the nature of man. He juxtaposed this caricature of the violent Muslim against the conceptualisation of Christian doctrine being based on reason and in accordance with the nature of man. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was impressed and agreed wholeheartedly.
There was rightful condemnation from around the Muslim world. The Pope did indeed need to be corrected. And when the Pope starts sending out signals against the followers of another faith, we know that there is trouble brewing and we need to nip it in the bud. On the whole Muslim protest was peaceful, measured and well-conducted. But in a few places the protests smacked of Muslims jumping up and down on their turbans again, and a couple of churches were attacked in Nablus. It made me cry. We need to learn to select our weapon of choice wisely – this is a war of ideas, and we need to combat it with ideas.
The Evening Standard – well-known for its anti-Muslim views – surpassed itself and published a rabid hate-filled piece by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of the Barnabas Fund. He writes: “Contemporary Islam has burst out of its colonial restraints. Once colonialism removed power, jihad and territorial control from Islam, it was left a benign force focusing on prayer and good deeds. But contemporary Islam has reverted back to early Islam, with all its theological rage against the non-Muslim world”. What a lot of imperialist nonsense. Colonialism as a force for good in managing the primitive violent Muslims who don’t know better? Early Islam having theological rage? I refer both the Pope and Dr Sookhdeo to the Crusades parts 1 to 9 (and beyond) as examples of colonialist attitudes and theological rage. The thing that made me laugh, albeit at the irony, was the statement by the Barnabus Fund that says, “We reject utterly any implication that our literature stirs up hatred against Muslims”.
Dr Sookhdeo also rails against Muslim schools, claiming that he doesn’t believe they can live up to the “noble tradition” of Christian and Jewish faith schools. To paraphrase him, mosques teach Muslims to hate everyone else, and Islamic law is mediaeval and unalterable. He sprinkles his toxic poison liberally: “I believe Islam needs different treatment from other faiths because Islam is different from other faiths.”
And therein lies the rub. It’s now OK to say whatever you like about Islam and Muslims because they are being seen as different. Not quite the same. Not at all the same, in fact. The voices that were once whispers are now recognised and applauded for saying that Muslims are violent people, that they are evil, uncontrollable, the cause of all terror and the source of all our woes. Already people are pulled aside for wearing headscarves, for having tufty beards, for being brown in colour. Names are scrutinised for sounding Muslim, and their owners subjected to investigation. This scary world is one that we already live in.
These loaded comments, blanket discrimination and characterising of Muslims is dangerous. For Everyone. And Everyone needs to be worried. In a sick Orwellian fashion they are building up a portrait of a Muslim villain, a de-humanised monster that lives in our midst. A scapegoat and a legitimate target. Will the next step be for Muslims to carry identity cards with little yellow crescents on them? Let’s not go down that road again.
Labels: Muslim News
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 11:28
18 Comments:
I blog in a liberal Christian neighbourhood. In fact I have a link through to your site because of its calm, erudite and informative nature. My blogmates, on the whole, support the Palestinians (Christian and Muslim), they all oppose Bush and his wars, they are committed anti-rascists, into the freedom of speech and expression and who try to understand all other faiths and cultures.
The Muslim reaction to the Pope's lecture has pretty much destroyed all the hard work that has been done by my community in respect of interfaith relations.
FREEDOM. The freedom that allows Muslims to practice their faith, and to even proselytise, in Christian countries, is so important to my liberal, peace-loving friends, that they would give their lives for its cause.
Do Muslims not see how ridiculous and unintelligent a violent reaction to somebody inferring that you are violent is? I'm afraid liberal Christains do and Muslims have now lost their respect.
For many years, reasonable Christians have been apologising for the terrible things the west has done in the past (religious and secular). We have apologised for slavery, colonialism, the Spanish Inquisition and although it was originally a reaction to Arab aggression, you know full well that we fully accept that the Crusades will be forever a thing of shame for the Christian Church.
What we, ordinary Christian people, not politicians or oil company executives, want from Islam is this:
1. A commitment to freedom of speech within the law.
2. An open discussion of the doctrine and history of Islam, in which anything can be said, leading to a real theology that can explain the violent words and actions of Mohammed during his lifetime. If this is not possible then Muslims will have to accept that theirs is a violent religion in respect of non-Muslims.
3. An understanding that the present situation where Muslims feel threatened is due in part to the deliberate destabilising of the situation by renegade Muslim groups.
4. An acceptance of the fact that in western cultures there are some bits of Islamic culture that cannot be accomodated because they are too alien to our culture. Of course, the same should apply if a westerner wants to live in a Muslim land.
5. The understanding that the idea of a woman being stoned to death for adultery or of somebody being punished for converting to a different faith is an absolutely sickening thought for most westerners (and I would assume, a lot of Muslims too).
6. An end to all Fatwahs - especially across national boundaries and especially when the offense is only spoken or written. Muslim leaders appear to westerners liked spoilt schoolboys when they do this sort of thing.
7. A bit of humility about themselves and their faith. Less shouting when dealing with the west. Shouting may be an acceptable part of Islamic culture and may mean little, but in the west it means "I'm going to hurt you."
8. If when one Muslim person is attacked all Muslim people are attacked then it follows that if one Muslim person crashes a plane into a skyscraper then all Muslims are guilty of that act.
9. Stop blaming everybody else. Some of it is your fault. Certainly some of it is the fault of powerful Muslims.
10. Get about a bit. Join in. Let your hair down. Take a lesson from the Sikhs in Britain. They were treated like crap when they first came here but because of their willingness to adapt in some things whilst holding on to those things of real importance to them (which don't threaten because things of real importance tend to be of the same substance whatever the religion) they are now part of our communities and they are respected. But then nobody has ever thought that Sikhs want to take over the running of our country, change the law and make their own religion a state religion. We think this of Muslims because this is what many of them tell us they want to do.
At the end of the day the reason why Muslims are getting it in the neck is because the rest of the world is scared of them. They have created fear, not just with bombs, but with words.
It would be good if Muslims could put themselves in our shoes occasionally in stead of demanding that we put ourselves in their shoes all the while.
All I have said only applies to ordinary people. If the ordinary people can work out how to live together then maybe, together, we can sort out the powerful idiots at the top.
Its more dangerous when a community doesn't recognise the extreme and intolerant factions that hide within it. Anti-semitism, goose stepping and obsessing over 'zionist plots' are all historical traits of some totalist schools. I would suggest facism to be one of these.
I wasn't aware that every muslim was an Islamofascist, nor do I think this is the case.
Some muslims are Islamofascist because they want everyone else in the world to live their way, and their dour interpretation of Islam is fascist, hence, the term Islamofascist for such people.
So, I suggest that muslims start maligning Islamofascists, because that would definitly cause for applause, considering that the most likely victims of Islamofascists are muslims themselves.
If Muslims were more calm and measured in their responses to (perceived or genuine) slights, they would find that the response they got from the wider community would be more positive.
Something along the lines of 'Whilst the Pope is entitled to his opinion, this is why he is wrong in what he says', rather than 'He must apologise because I am offended'. Peaceful demonstrators or not, Muslims don't really have anything to complain about except that somebody exercised his or her legitimate right to free speech.
As for the comments about it being open-season on Muslims - I'm sorry, but it's nonsense. Either you're reading remarks about facist organisations such as Al Qaeda or Hamas and somehow imagining that they refer to all Muslims, or you're reading the BNP newsletter and imagining it's somehow representative. Either way, it's a stretch, and probably a conscious one.
If you want to be taken seriously, you'll drop the severe exaggeration and the whiney culture of grievance.
In your sidebar you proclaim a desire not to see things as black and white, i guess that means you want to resist prejudice. That is a laudable aim, but can you truely say your treatment of the Pope's speech is without prejudice?
Did you read and attempt to contextualise the whole text?
Let me phrase this another way. If the Pope truly intended to portray Islam as inherently violent why did he begin by using this quote from the Koran:
"There is no compulsion in religion"
What follows is a quite specific discourse on the relationship of faith and reason. To construe this as a provocation of Muslims is either the result of a complete misunderstanding or, sadly, a wilfull desire to take offence. I hope it is the former.
Your tears are of little consolation to those hurt or killed, even "a couple of churches" is two too many.
You say the muslim world was right to criticize. Perhaps it was. But you are intellectually dishonest when you downplay the worst it had to say and the way it did it. The worst extent was not people "jumping up and down on their turbans" it was death threats, and threats of violence against Christians, some of which were realised.
For trying to minimize that you should be ashamed.
As a matter of fact at least 7 churches were attacked with guns and bombs in Palestine.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21317
Fortunately Palestinian Muslim leaders had the humility and solidarity to reach out to these marginalized christians, not minimize the wrongdoing of their co- religionists.
If Islamic fascist is too provocative, how about the term medievalist?
"What once could not be said about any ethnic or faith minority, is now legitimate and meritworthy when said against Muslims."
You are joking, right? Firstly, there has never been any restriction (in the UK) apart from the limits set by law of saying anything at all about any ethnic or faith minority, or indeed, majority, or any other size group irrespective of the legitimacy or merit of what is said.
Secondly, there is nothing that has not been said about them.
I can say that islam is a ridiculous charade, carried on by misogynists and their willing victims, that it is undemocratic, that there was never an angel gabriel, that mohammed was a skilful liar and politician, that muslims are deluded religionists and would be better off if they dumped the whole lot of nonsense etc. etc. I can say the RC church is a collection of paedophile charlatans. I can say my MP is the biggest idiot that ever walked the face of the planet. I can say anything. Muslims are fascists. The irish are bigoted morons. The frogs are cheese eating surrender monkeys. The krauts are fat beer swilling nazis. Merkans are all fat dimwits. No legitimacy, no merit. So what?
The only thing that baffles me is why some muslims think all this will lead to them being put in concentration camps. The suggestion is ridiculous and without legitimacy or merit. It will never happen because of the same principles that allow me to spout all the garbage above.
The one thing that has no legitimacy or merit is violence as a reaction to words, pictures, ideas one disagrees with. For that, people deserve to be locked up.
Here is the actual text of George Bush's speech. Please note how carefully he disassociates his description of extremism from mainstream Islam. It would surely take great effort to take it that the President was smearing Islam itself here, as he is incontrovertibly specific: Islamofascism, militant Jihadism, or whatever you might want to call it is "very different" from the religion of Islam and is a distortion:
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision."
If there is a hidden agenda here, it IS extraordinarily well hidden. One would have to think the opposite of what he says. And the movement he is describing does include among its manisfestations, suicide bombers in marketplaces or on public transport, televised beheadings, and the desire to run Taleban Afghanistan Act II, presaged now by bombings and executions in schools where girls are educated. What would you call those who perpetrate these phenomena in the name of Islam? Personally I do think they share many of the characteristics of historic fascism, from the general desire to bend persons to the will of the movement on pain of death all the way to Hezbollah's Nazi-like salute and vow to eradicate the Jewish race. Oh, and their somewhat overdeveloped adolescent tendancy to feel sorry for themselves and to see persecution everywhere.
There are terms such as Christian Socialism as distinct from other forms of Christianity, and most people are adult enough to understand the distinctions made by language. It seems to me that religious people should be particularly sensitive to the meaning of language, given that they live by the words of those, written in books, who they see as infallible. However, it appears that you are wilfully ignoring those distinctions and failing to come up with any better terminology (if such is required) and advancing the debate not one whit. This is treating language cheaply and replacing analysis with cynicism. To argue that there has been an 'open season' declared on Islam when a French teacher and writer is currently living in hiding for expressing his free opinion is to discount the obvious fact that clearly, where Islam is concerned, very little if anything IS in fact open. It way past time for a discussion by adherents of Islam for the terrible actions committed by certain persons in their religion's name. Perhaps such a discussion could come up with a name for an ugliness that undoubtably exists that would satisfy all parties. But please do not try and divert attention from that ugliness: it must be confronted without cynicism and evasion: things that are important, particularly lives, are at stake.
"I carried out an unscientific poll of a group of my flabbergasted friends and colleagues who felt that this new terminology was an oxymoron ..... It’s too muddled up with Italian history
Funny, I've never heard that objection to the use of the term "fascist" to characterize right-wingers before. Some how, I doubt I'd ever hear a liberal or progressive argue that "you can't call David Duke a fascist - it's too muddled up with Italian history".
"a contradiction in terms, designed to create an image in people’s minds that Muslims are fascists."
Your friends also seem to have a very tenuous grasp on language an logic. "Islamic Fascist" no more implies that all Muslims are fascists (or than any muslim is a fascists because he/she is muslim) than "Italian Fascists" implies that all Italians are or were Fascists (or than any Italianis a fascist because he/she is Italian).
"his speech actually used the idea of violent conversion as something to reject as it is against the nature of man"
Are you suggesting that violent conversion is not something to reject, or that it is consistent with the nature of man ?
"The Pope did indeed need to be corrected"
On what precisely ? Are you suggesting that the 14th century emperor was misquoted ? That violent conversion is acceptable ? What, precisely in his lecture is factually inaccurate that needs to be corrected ?
Lets call a spade a spade.
'Islamofacist' is the latest tool used by people who wish to deny others the space and dignity to disagree with them. They lump the evil murderers of Al-Qa'ida, the handful of nutcases who eagerly burn effigies in front of cameras with those who legitimately challenge the West's authority whether that be through peaceful discussion or legitimate resistance to aggression.
Similar labels were cast before not so long ago. 'Rebels and terrorists' was the catch-all term to describe those who blew up bridges or joined the Japanese against the Brits with those who opted for peace, non-violent non-co-operation: Gandhi.
So, there is only one word to describe those posters here who object to the critique of the term 'Islamo-facist'.
Bigot.
madpriest claims he/she is a liberal. Sounds more like an evangelical colonialist. You chaps made the same howls of derision about Islam and other faiths when plundering Africa and Asia in the name of Christianity and the White Man's Burden. You say you did these things as a response to 'Arab aggression'. Oh, I'm so sorry, you poor things. The next thing you'll say is that the Holocaust wasn't entirely the Christian Nazis fault, the victims had a part to play. How outrageous.
You're right, the reactions of a handful Muslims to the Pope's comments are inexcusable. But, as Gary Young so eloquently put it in yesterday's Guardian, if you are going down that route, lets compare the actions of an irresponsible few, with the terrorism of a whole nation's armed forces.
Muslims have the freedom to practise their faith in the West and this must be applauded. But evangelicals everywhere are trying their very best to put a stop to this.
As for your 'demands', you say you want:
1. A commitment to freedom of speech within the law.
And who disagrees with you on this? That’s right, extremists. Will the group 'Christian Voice' be held to this?
And does this freedom include a freedom to incite violence, as does the BNP who benefit from existing loopholes to incite violence against Muslims?
2. An open discussion of the doctrine and history of Islam, in which anything can be said, leading to a real theology that can explain the violent words and actions of Mohammed during his lifetime. If this is not possible then Muslims will have to accept that theirs is a violent religion in respect of non-Muslims.
Yes, sure, bring it on. You think the Prophet himself did not have the pleasure in engaging such debate?
The trouble is, its evangelists who assert this by taking things out of context to deny Islam its due worth. We say the same in Victorian India.
You talk of violence in Islam and the Qur'an? Oh brother, how rich coming from a Christian:
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3)
This is just one in a pantheon of many quotes....
3. An understanding that the present situation where Muslims feel threatened is due in part to the deliberate destabilising of the situation by renegade Muslim groups.
'renegade Muslim groups', the term itself was deployed in the British era
But the sentiment is right. Let’s add to that evangelists neo-conservatives and neo-colonialists
4. An acceptance of the fact that in western cultures there are some bits of Islamic culture that cannot be accomodated because they are too alien to our culture. Of course, the same should apply if a westerner wants to live in a Muslim land.
No acceptance. Western culture has been enriched by Islamic culture and vice-versa. Your demand is no different to those bigots of yesteryear, including the Nazis.
In a similar quest to have a compliant Jewish population in Russia, Pobedonestsev, an advisor to the Tsar said:
'One third must assimilate, one third must emigrate and one third must die'
5. The understanding that the idea of a woman being stoned to death for adultery or of somebody being punished for converting to a different faith is an absolutely sickening thought for most westerners (and I would assume, a lot of Muslims too).
Agreed. No contest. But out of 1 billion plus Muslims, how many can you account for?
6. An end to all Fatwahs - especially across national boundaries and especially when the offense is only spoken or written. Muslim leaders appear to westerners liked spoilt schoolboys when they do this sort of thing.
Ignorance is behind this demand. 'Fatwa' simply means legal opinion and is not always binding. They can be entlighted legal opinions or regressive ones in which the likes of you revel in to deny Islam its place. Know what you talk about before you open your mouth.
7. A bit of humility about themselves and their faith. Less shouting when dealing with the west. Shouting may be an acceptable part of Islamic culture and may mean little, but in the west it means "I'm going to hurt you."
Agreed. Doesn't help when people like yourself say 'I'm going to clobber you, then humiliate you, then I want you to say sorry'
8. If when one Muslim person is attacked all Muslim people are attacked then it follows that if one Muslim person crashes a plane into a skyscraper then all Muslims are guilty of that act.
Absurd logic. Talk about doing the terrorists bidding. Does this mean that you are guilty of the tens and thousands of deaths in Iraq, Palestine and (in the past) the killings in Kosovo and Rwanda?
9. Stop blaming everybody else. Some of it is your fault. Certainly some of it is the fault of powerful Muslims.
Propped up by whom I wonder?
10. Get about a bit. Join in. Let your hair down. Take a lesson from the Sikhs in Britain. They were treated like crap when they first came here but because of their willingness to adapt in some things whilst holding on to those things of real importance to them (which don't threaten because things of real importance tend to be of the same substance whatever the religion) they are now part of our communities and they are respected. But then nobody has ever thought that Sikhs want to take over the running of our country, change the law and make their own religion a state religion. We think this of Muslims because this is what many of them tell us they want to do.
I refer you to point 4. You just can't stomach the idea that people want equal rights.
"At the end of the day the reason why Muslims are getting it in the neck is because the rest of the world is scared of them. They have created fear, not just with bombs, but with words."
Created and reaping the benefits by people like you
With Christianity being a beacon of Reason, surely the Pope should have quoted the opinions of Islam of Christian Kings who were around during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and not someone who came along many centuries later. He would have found that the Christian king of Ethiopia welcomed the Muslims as fellow believers and in fact died as a Muslim. The Prophet (pbuh) prayed his funeral prayer in Medina. Heraclius even said he would have washed the Prophet's feet had he met him. Unfortunately as such a logical approach did not support the Pope's agenda, he ignored reason. Read this other article to also provide some well-needed balance, it is from a Jewish atheist. http://www.hamza.co.uk/stuff/ed7/important.html
Regarding Jackson's response to Madpriest, item 2, relating to an open discussion about the violent words and actions of Mohammed. Jackson immediately puts forth the old 'out of context' excuse.
Lets consider this story from the Islamic hadiths (accepted by all Muslims):
Quote: Ibn 'Aun reported: ...The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Muslim Book 019, Number 4292 - also in Bukhari). (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321
Notice the references and links. Notice that this from Muslim and it is repeated word for word in Bukhari - considered the most reliable Islamic sources for the Sunnah.
So what is the proper context to consider murder, plunder, enslavement and rape?
There is no excuse for this and there is no way that anybody can justify this - yet Muslims write PHUM/SAW after this man's name and he is considered a great moral example. Think about what that means. Do the math.
This is why Muslims cannot be trusted. This is why, in this old man's opinion, there are no 'moderate' Muslims. Until I hear condemnations and apologies for this vile behavior, I cannot, will not, accept Islam as anything but an ideology of hate and violence. Seems reasonable to me.
It is time for Muslims to be honest. No more "you don't understand" "bad translation" "out of context" "that was then" "It is a cultural practice" "they are not real Muslims" "Billy did it too" and the dozens of other excuses we hear to explain the evils done by this religion.
If a Muslim cannot condemn Muhammed for what he did at Banu Mustaliq (not to mention hundreds of other accounts of murder, torture, robbery, slavery, rape and even wife-beating) then there can be no civil discourse. Muslim standards are obviously not Western standards. Such things as honesty, freedom, and human rights are alien to Islam.
That is my position. I will not move an inch.
Kactuz
Jackson
In the late 1970s I used to spend my weekends in Brick Lane trying to keep out the National Front skinheads who were marching up and down in the next street. I am not an agressive person or a good fighter. I would have been killed if those thugs had got hold of me. Or the police, for that matter - you think they're racist now - believe me, they're a bunch of peace loving hippies compared to what they were back then.
It is people like me (though more influential than me) who are stopping the less tolerant members of the non-Muslim British population, white and black, from getting very scared and doing something very wrong. Attacking people like us is not the most intelligent thing to do.
One thing I think you should understand that it is only certain Christians who have a similar view of the Bible as Muslims have of the Koran. The rest of us do not believe every word to be true. I think you'll find Zachariah was Jewish, not Christian. I think he lived about 400 years before Jesus was born.
Anyway, we'll probably find out that we were all wrong about god. That the Taoists are right and only the Japanese are going to heaven.
That would serve us right.
My internet access is down :-(
Pants BT say they'll fix it within 2 days...
In Latin fascis means bundle. A bundle of rods (signifying unity of the people) was a symbol of authority of the Roman magistrates. It now refers to a form of govt. in which state power is used to reproduce elite privelege based upon class,race,religious,or ethnic inequality.
The fascist state has two main activities: suppression of dissent at home (usually by force and propaganda), and exploitation of minorities or other countries to ensure loyalty from the masses at home. Germany,Italy,Spain and Portugal were the first modern states,in 20th C, to try fascism.
We also now have techno-fascism which means the use of computers and other electronic devices to monitor the behaviour of workers,customers,voters,students,and petty criminals. These range from software that counts the number/time/topics of employees who use the computer, to electronic "dogs" that sniff out all sorts of forbidden chemicals. I can go on... but you probably get the drift.
I think it's disingenuous of all the Popish supporters to claim that the so-called quote (there are even doubts by academics as to the veracity of whether such a dialogue ever took place between the emperor and the Persian;but let's leave that aside) was within a context. The most reasonable thing to do would have been to illustrate from the Catholic tradition and cite the violence of the Catholic conquistadors in the 16th C. Mexico and Peru and highlight how their genocidal violence in exterminating whole nations and races was against reason and could not certainly have been for the love of God! That would have provided integrity to the Pope's talk!!
But then hyprocrisy does come in many shapes and forms....
It is important to note for historical accuracy that the the Pope apparently,so it is said, belonged to Hitler Youth in his teens!!!
Your concluding sentences were telling! Islamophobia and xenophobia are now so much part of everyday life in Europe that in Holland the governing Liberal part,the VVD,epitomised by the hardline stance of its former immigration and integration Minister Rita Verdonk, has internalised xenophobia. Though some of Verdonk's most openly offensive proposals have been rejected by the parliament - such as her plan to introduce integration badges, subsequently compared to the Star of David forced on the Jews by the Nazis- she pressed ahead with the introduction of a general code of conduct for the public which emphasises Dutch identity.(see Liz Feteke below)
A comment on these rigt-wing bloggers. Israel's Information ministry maintains and provides ammo to 100,000 Jewish bloggers and they have been known to drown out other voices in the net world. The Times had a good newspiece on them in August during Israel's failed war in Lebanon.
Also many of the neo-con ideologues who are raising the issue of Islamo-fascism were erstwhile Trotskyists who have forgotten their first love Trotsky's proclamation: " Out of human dust , fascism unites and arms the scattered masses. It gives the petty bourgeois the illusion of an independent force. It begins to imagine it will really command the state". Trotsky, of course, was talking in context of western nation-states.
To understand which road we may be heading towards pls read " I Shall Bear Witness - The Diaries of Victor Klemperer 1933-41" published by Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Possibly we are in 1933.... you may draw your own conclusions.
Also to have an understanding of what is happening right across contemporary Europe pls read the cover essay in the current issue of Race & Class Vol 48, No 2,- " Enlightened Fundamentalism? Immigration,Feminism and the Right " by Liz Fekete.
We are living in uncertain times, maybe even in dangerous times....
The Story behind Banu Mustaliq:
The comments raised a few lines above by anonymous/cactuz are interesting and prompted me to go off and research the incident of Banu Mustaliq. Muslims don’t always know history inside out and upside down – just like other normal people, so flinging around stories and rebuttles is not very useful.
My main concern is that the way that cactuz brings up the narrative it is to fit a preconception of the “violent Muslim”, something that is becoming more and more commonplace. Anyway, here is what I found, in summary, and then more details (for the boffins, or the interested amongst you. I wonder if cactuz will actually bother to read it or just likes to keep hold of his headlines??)
The hadith is based on one single weak report, and when compared with the evidence of noted historians, it seems that the event could not have happened as described here. . It is not true to say that if it is included in Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bukhari then it must be true. No hadith is considered sacrosanct in that way.
It seems the hadith was more about a legal issue about the tactics of war, namely the permissibility of ambushing the enemy overnight, which is a controversial issue among Muslim jurists.
The people described were not civilians, but on their way to wage war against the Prophet – therefore the rules of war rather than civilian law apply. The Prophet invited them to Islam and they retaliated with arrows, so they actually fired the first shots, so to speak.
They were not massacred. Not all, or even many of them were killed. When they were defeated most of them were taken as slaves (as per the rules of war at that time), and then later freed.
Anyway, for those of you who want the nitty gritty details, here they are:
They had camped around water called Muraysi' (the water alluded to in the above traditions). They were lead by Harith b. Abi Diraar from Banu al-Mustaliq and were a collection of different tribes.
The Prophet sent Burayda b. al-Hasib to verify this, who met with the leader Harith, saying he wished to join them. Harith indicated he wanted to attach the Prophet, and so Burayda returned to the Prophet and told him of his findings. .
The Prophet quickly mustered an army of seven hundred men and set out towards Muraysi'.
Bukhari and Muslim report an isolated tradition (khabar al-wahid) from Ibn Umar that upon his arrival the Prophet ambushed Banu al-Mustaliq; that is the hadith that was quoted. So basically – it is one single report of this happening, something that would have weak historical validity.
Despite the weakness of the report, even if it were true (which is in doubt) , it tells us nothing more than a tactical method of war adopted by the Prophet.
Everyone knows that all wars are about violence and to describe the commander of a just army as a violent person is absolutely ridiculous.
However, the tradition cannot be true because:
a- the great historians like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd do not agree that the ambush took place. Bukhari and Muslim were certainly not historians and the isolated tradition they report cannot stand against historical reports provided by experts of history and sira.
b- The historians mention that the news of the departure of the Prophet had reached the army of Harith well in advance and the different tribes that had gathered around Harith soon dispersed out of fear, and that Harith was left only with his own tribe, Banu al-Mustaliq. As a matter of fact, it was impossible that the news of Prophet's departure did not reach Banu al-Mustaliq despite their spies and their allied tribes on the way, bearing in mind that it took the Prophet more than ten days to reach there.
c- al-Halabi and al-Dhahabi mention that before fighting the Prophet sent Umar b. al Khattab to invite them to Islam but they did not accept the invitation. al-Waqidi and al Dhahabi report that Banu al-Mustaliq were the first army who started the battle by unleashing the first arrow, and that before the engagement of the men in battle, the two camps were throwing arrows at each other for about an hour.
d- all accounts mention that only ten men from Banu al-Mustaliq were killed before they surrendered. All others were saved by the Prophet including Harith himself. The report of Bukhari and Muslim that all the fighters were killed cannot be accepted because all men in that camp were fighters and this means that all men of Banu al-Mustaliq should have been killed; something that is utterly against the historical facts. Above all no one disagreed that Harith himself was saved.
E according to the universal laws of battle in those days everyone in that camp should have been enslaved by the victors. In the distribution of the booties of war, Harith's daughter, Juwairiya, was in the share of Thabit b. Qays and his cousin. She sought her manumission from them and they agreed to free her in return for nine ounces of gold. Juwairiya went to the Prophet and asked him to help her with the price. The Prophet agreed to give her the money and she married the Prophet after she was set free. Upon hearing the news of that marriage all Muslims released the captives of Banu al-Mustaliq out of respect for the Prophet's wife. It is reported that altogether two hundred families were set free immediately, hence the report that no women has ever been more blessed for her tribe than Juwairiya.
Post a Comment
<< Home