||The ideology of the Summit was summed up by its four-point declaration: radical Islam is a threat to civilization, the United Nations is a failure, Israel is in need of defense and the war on terrorism is a righteous cause.
The Price of Hatred
- Political - Article Ref: IV1210-5294
Number of comments: 1
Opinion Summary: Agree:0 Disagree:0 Neutral:1
By: Dr. Habib Siddiqui
In our time there is no denying of the enormous influence of the social media employing web- and mobile-based technologies to support interactive dialogue and communication between organizations, communities and individuals. Thus, mass communication which was once a very expensive avenue to propagate
one's views is now almost a free item. Social media are also unregulated in most parts of our world, thus, allowing every John or Jane Doe to express and share his or her views on any matter big or small whether or not he or she is qualified or knowledgeable on such matters. It is, therefore, possible that while expressing
one's unfiltered views others can feel abused, demeaned and hurt. And consequently, those feeling hurt, demeaned or abused can react either proportionately or disproportionately, which can turn into violence.
Consider, e.g., the latest case involving the posting of highly inflammatory and offensive pictures in the Facebook by someone named Uttam Barua, a Buddhist in Bangladesh. Consequently, angry mob have ransacked some monasteries. There are rumors that Barua may have been a foreign agent working for the Myanmar regime to incite such violence.
In repressive and authoritarian societies where the government controls most outlets of social media, its views define the narratives on most matters. For years, thus, in places like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria it was always those governments that had a tight control on what needed to be fed and consumed for their public. But with the social media like the Internet and Facebook, which could not be controlled by the governments, the general public was no longer willing to digest government narratives on any matter of importance unquestioning. By offering an alternative source of communication, the social media have triggered something like a revolution of the mind, thus, freeing hundreds of millions of people around our globe. Thus, one after another
yesterday's despots were overthrown yielding place to the newly elected democratic leaders. Probably, one of the days not too far from today, other despots like
Syria's Bashar al-Assad would also be removed.
Social media can, however, as already hinted above, be abused spreading lies and deceptions, promoting hatred and intolerance. And we have been witnessing many such abuses of freedom of expression in many western liberal democracies, especially in its treatment of Islam and Muslims in the post-9/11 era.
According to the U.S. government accounts, the tragic event of 9/11 was brought about by terrorists that were linked with
OBL's al-Qaeda. [Note: there are many credible engineering experts who doubt the government narrative on this tragedy.] In spite of Bush
Jr.'s announcement that the religion of Islam had nothing to do with this tragedy, it was no less of a person than his own attorney general who would later go on to say that
'Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends His son to die for
you.' John Ashcroft is an evangelical Christian and his bias is understandable, although he later indicated that his remarks to Christian columnist Cal Thomas did not
"accurately reflect what I believe I said."
Sadly, Ashcroft was not the lone Republican politician in this media campaign against Islam and its adherents. Others like Giuliani, Gingrich, Palin, King and Bachmann joined the hate campaign. Many of these promoters of hatred are individuals with very flawed moral fiber and their views on Islam revealed far more about their own evil selves than anything else. And then there were others -- intimately tied up with the Zionists on the contentious Palestine-Israel debate -- who for their own religious or political beliefs or inclinations jumped on the wagon of intolerance. They became the mouthpieces for the land-grabbing Zionists in Israel. Nine-Eleven for them was a Reichstag Fire moment to launch an all out war against the Muslim world so that not only could
Israel's illegal annexation of Palestine with settlements and dehumanization of the Palestinian people be sanctified the entire Muslim world would be brought down to their knees as a subjugated people. They even planned for redrawing the map of the Muslim world. However, with the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq going wrong, dragging valuable American resources and killing thousands of soldiers, their evil plan had to be shelved.
The intellectual leadership for Islamophobia and intolerance of anything Islamic was provided by some pen-pushing frauds and charlatans who mastered the art of cherry-picking
Qur'anic verses out of context to suit their ludicrous theories about Islam. Thus, came disingenuous and greedy guys like Ibn Warraq and others, who basically repackaged the centuries-old missionary polemical writings against Islam to justify Islamophobia and bigotry against Islam. With material support provided by powerful pro-Israeli Americans and Europeans, virtually anyone (or so it seemed) who could ridicule Islam soon became a media celebrity. In the post-9/11 era of Islamophobia, they were to become the new faces of
'experts' on Islam. Interestingly, many of these 'experts' (including some with Arabic sounding names like Irshad Manji and Ibn Warraq, and other Christian and Jewish zealots like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, respectively) hardly know the language of the
Qur'an. But who dare question their expertise on Qur'an and Islam or the Muslim world when they are promoted as experts in media mogul Rupert
Murdoch's TV channels, tabloids, newspapers and magazines, and have powerful advocates like Daniel Pipes and Ann Coulter!
But probably nothing was more sinister in this scheme of things Islamophobic than the Jerusalem Summit, a think tank that was sponsored by Michael Cherney Foundation, which provided the first venue for anti-Muslim zealots (including Hindu and other extremists from countries with records of deep intolerance against their Muslim minorities) around the world to unite on a common agenda in Jerusalem in 2003. The ideology of the Summit was summed up by its four-point declaration: radical Islam is a threat to civilization, the United Nations is a failure, Israel is in need of defense and the war on terrorism is a righteous cause.
Lost in that mendacious campaign are the facts that it is Israel which with its racist Likudnik Zionist leaders is a threat to every Arab neighbor and the entire region, and it is the Palestinians, Iranians and other Arabs who live in the Middle East that need protection against Israeli terrorism, and that when it comes to extremism
- no religion has a monopoly there. All the extremists - religious and non-religious alike
- are a threat to civilization, and they are the ones who need to be defeated. That is, secular fundamentalists in France and other parts of Europe and the Americas are no better than the Muslim Talibans of Afghanistan and Pakistan, or the Hindu extremists in India, or the Buddhist extremists in Myanmar and Cambodia, or the Christian extremists in the Philippines, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya and Serbia, or the Christian/Jewish Zionist extremists in much of the western world. As a matter of fact because of the support that many of these non-Muslim extremists (e.g., the likes of Narendra Modi and L.K. Advani of India; Gingrich and Bachmann in the USA, and so on and so forth) enjoy from the government apparatus in their respective countries they are seemingly more dangerous than most Muslim extremists who
don't enjoy such support.
In essence, the neoconservative organizers and participants of the Jerusalem Summit wanted nothing short of a civilization war with the world of Islam. Fear of Islam and its people was exploited as one of the most surreptitious and invisible powers to denigrate the religion of nearly a quarter of humanity and encourage open promotion of intolerance and hatred against Muslims.
It is because of such a common agenda that the limit of freedom of expression to insult Islam is ever pushed to its newer heights where anything and everything to do with Islam is a fair game. Thus, the Danish Cartoons and the recently filmed
'Innocence of Muslim' are only part of this long list of hatred and intolerances hurled against the Muslim world. These are meant to provoke Muslims and ultimately bring about a clash of civilizations. They also have powerful backers with links to the citadels of power from Jerusalem/Tel Aviv to Washington D.C. Many of these provocateurs are also criminals who should have been locked up in the prison for the good of the society.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer, who initially went by the pseudonym "Sam
Bacile," is a California-based Coptic Christian who spent two days in jail and received three years of probation after being arrested for
"intent to manufacture methamphetamine" in 1997, and was convicted on federal bank fraud charges in 2010. In recent days he has been arrested for parole violations. He is affiliated with Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, another Egyptian American Coptic Christian. Abdelmasih owns the Media for Christ, a Christian nonprofit organization, based in Duarte, California, which took out a film permit for the production of Desert Warriors that was to later become the highly offensive video/movie
'Innocence of Muslim.' Abdelmasih also own The Way TV, a TV network established in 2005 that includes a talk show hosted by Steve Klein, who has said he was one of the consultants on Innocence of Muslims.
Pages : 1 | 2
The opinions expressed herein, through this article or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of
iViews. These are offered as a means for iViews to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
The iViews site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. iViews is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.