Response to the article “Is it only Mr. Bean who resists this new religious intolerance?”1
Driven by secular intolerance and xenophobia, once again Islam and Muslims are maligned in the abovementioned article using the age old excuse of ‘free’ speech. Across the Atlantic Ocean their American cousins are much more candid where anti-Islamic diatribe is constantly propagated and often with vulgarity. Although the holy-secular-warriors brag about their opposition to all religions but in reality they are primarily targeting Islam and Muslims. That begs the question, why, and why use vulgar anti-Islamic diatribes as opposed to debate the issues objectively. The following points will try to explicate the reasons.
A) Cowardice – When the human instincts functions devoid of basic ethics the weak ones are inevitably targeted. Since the Muslim communities virtually have no voice in the corporate run mass media they are an easy target for the vultures. So, it has become fashionable to engage in Islam-bashing and the more powerful and influential communities like the Jews are carefully avoided. Just the threat of anti-Semitism leads them back to the top of the tree waiting for the next victim; the issue of ‘free’ speech is forgotten.
Newspapers columnists like Charles Moore (author of the abovementioned article) ‘bravely’ criticizes behind the protected influential positions just like the Anglo-US forces are bombing from high altitude and torturing the kidnapped Iraqi civilians including women and children! These Newspaper columnists, for once could set a real example of their commitment to ‘free’ speech by giving the Muslims an equal voice so that the discourse is a fair one. Instead, they abuse their monopoly position by incessantly feeding the masses with anti-Islamic tirades and propaganda, reminiscent of the mindset of priests living in the dark ages!
B) Capitulation – Only the Islamic world has not ceded to the secular fanatics and their moderate allies under the guise of reformation or modernization. Islam by default is the final challenge for the holy-secular-warriors. The Christians for example have complied with the secular definitions of what religion should be for the sake of getting accepted. One can see their desperate measures, from endorsing homosexuality, capitulating to feminism, to the selling of Christianity by exploiting the poverty of others. If the Christians are willing to tolerate the constant abuse hurled at Jesus (PBUH) why should that be a yardstick for the Muslims or anyone?
C) Secular Hypocrisy – Ulterior motives results in the selective application of principles thereby exhibit hypocrisy. The US selectively invaded a weak Iraq under the pretext of a security threat but simultaneously avoided confrontation with the Nuclear North Korea. Likewise, the holy-secular-warriors are selectively attacking Islam even though their arguments could be much more applicable against other religions. For example the Talmud clearly endorses blatant RACISM as it upholds the fundamental concept of God’s chosen race. The status of the gentiles (non Jews) is like the animals literally as according to the Talmudic edict, gentiles have been created to serve the Jews, they are to be enslaved (Goyeem). Numerous other edicts from the Talmud make this very clear.
Like typical hypocrites the holy-secular-warriors fear to confront the Jews and they run like cowards, barley holding up their trousers. Do we not frequently witness their hypocritical politicians getting caught with their pants down after lecturing about ‘morality’ then attempt to do a similar exit?
D) Xenophobia - As most Muslims tend to be of non-White origin they are targeted openly under various pretexts but the underlying motivation is racism. This is self-evident when you observe the increasing number of the rightwing organizations have taken an anti-Islamic stance from the old position of being anti-foreigner. The shift may also reflect a change in the sentiments of the general native white population. Of course, the media is always doing its best to increase the xenophobia through writers like Charles Moore.
E) Secular Intolerance – Why resort to vulgar anti-Islamic diatribe instead of engaging in a civilized dialogue? Mr. Charles Moore  admits that ‘free’ speech has limits and it should not be used to incite violence. How those limits are decided and enforced is another matter but it inherently contradicts the very notion of being ‘free’. Such notions of freedom can also exist under absolute dictatorship! However, Charles Moore simultaneously argues that in a modern liberal society one should be able to “attack all beliefs”.
So where does one draw the line, as abusing the values of others would naturally lead to anger, potentially translating into violence. This is where secular hypocrisy and intolerance begins. They expect everyone to endure any amount of abuse of religious values but when it suits them they curtail criticism under the guise of ‘incitement to violence’ as it was done with Sheikh Abu-Hamza and Sheikh Faisal.
Secularism has no sacred values other than their material interests; therefore, they are happy to lower the level of discussion using abusive language to all areas and only restrict criticisms to their defined areas of interest. However, the primary reason for using abusive and vulgar language is due to intolerance towards Islam. This intolerance is natural since the secular hypocrites are unable to pose an intellectual challenge by providing an alternative coherent set of values and principles. They define themselves primarily by criticizing Islam. Despite their constant propaganda of the ‘backward’ and ‘evil’ Islam it continues to gain converts in the heart of their own territory. Paradoxically the level of conversion increased after 9/11. If Islam is so primitive and insignificant then how can it pose a threat and why so much resource is allocated to containing it?
What are the Secular ‘Ethics’?
The incoherent secular ‘ethics’ was demonstrated by Charles Moore’s own example as he casts a slur on the Prophet (SAW) by mentioning the old question - if the Prophet (SAW) was a Pedophile as he married the young Aisha. Words were deliberately selected to denigrate the Prophet (SAW) and injure the feelings of the Muslims. In the same way Prophet Ishmael was described as a Bastard child by the Xenophobic and Jewish controlled media to denigrate the Arabs, yet benign terms like ‘love child’ are used to describe the illegitimate children of their celebrities.
The definition of pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. Where as the marriage of the Prophet to his only virgin wife was conducted after puberty in line with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Furthermore, prepubescent sex with a child as young as 3 is sanctioned in Judaism not Islam; the Rabbis are permitted to have non-penetrative sex with them. So if the young age is really an issue why the hypocritical silence?
It seems peculiar for the likes of Charles Moore to suggest that it is immoral for two individuals with a considerable age difference to marry or engage in a relationship. Consider the following points. Why a marriage between heterosexual couples with disparity in age is more immoral than homosexual marriages that are licensed by the same liberal principles? It is the same liberal societies that are permitting all forms of sexual deviancies from bestiality, cannibalism to genuine pedophilia activity. In fact in the US there is an organization (NAMBLA) seeking to legitimize pedophile activity and the Danish government has refused to ban pedophile websites.
By the liberal criteria of freedom two consenting adults (meaning post puberty as defined by Islam) should be able engage freely in a marital relationship. Finally, if the secular west is really opposed to young people engaging in sex then why do they subject children to Porn-culture and casual sex? And teach them the tricks and provide them with the necessary tools to avoid the consequences of illicit sexual activities!
Non Muslims under Islamic Rule
Charles Moore also claimed that Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State) are oppressed as they have to pay the Jizyah tax. But he ignorantly or conveniently does not mention that the Dhimmis are also excluded from many other taxes that are levied upon the Muslim citizens. Consequently, the Dhimmis as are either financially better off or in the same position as the Muslim citizens! The point of Islamic conquest (Jihad) is to gain converts not to engage in wanton killings and plundering like that is happening in Iraq and has happened for the last 400 years or so. Let’s remind Charles Moore that it was not the Muslims that took the crown jewels from different parts of the world back to Mecca or Medina! Oppressing the Dhimmis would defeat this central objective.
There are no historical records of where Dhimmis have revolted due to the oppressive Jizya in fact the non-Muslims enjoyed far greater levels of security and prosperity under Islam than they found in Europe amongst their co-religionists. The brutal Spanish inquisition and the conflict between the Latin and Orthodox Church in the Balkans are two a clear reminders.
Furthermore, minorities are the second class citizens in a secular state not the Dhimmis! How? The rights of the Dhimmis are protected by the clear Islamic texts and the laws are fixed and permanent. The same cannot be said of the minorities in secular societies as the Jews found out under the Nazis, Rodney King is a recent example and now the Muslims are beginning to find the same. Minorities have rights subjected to the democratic majority approval who are at liberty to change those rights.
The incarceration at camp-X-ray and the brutality of the US-run prisons in Iraq are a reminder for those who think we are talking in the realm of hypothetical possibilities. There is nothing to stop Europe or the US resurrecting the gas chambers if the majority approves. Secular West in fact has only recently learnt to exercise a bit of tolerance after centuries of intolerance.
Christians have lived under Muslim rule for centuries and their presence in the Islamic lands is proof of the vicious lies that are circulating in the Western media. If the Muslims were as intolerant as the Christian leadership the Christian communities would have been annihilated in places like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, suffering a similar fate of the Muslims in Spain. So, this is emanating from the mainstream press imagine the utter garbage in the tabloids. This shows that the West is still medieval when it comes to dealing with Islam and Muslims.
The Muslim Response
The Muslims being tolerant have not resorted to vulgar abusive language in the face of such vicious attacks. Despite the historic crimes that are being committed in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan they have not generated chauvinistic outbursts. However, the readers need to contemplate the following points to get a glimpse of how the Muslims would have responded to the constant denigration in the mass media if they had the mentality of the holy-secular-warriors.
The Muslims could have coined the term “a nation of Bastards” based on the statistics of huge number of children (30% to 50%) in the West born out of wedlock. Given the recent pictures from Abu-Ghraib and the carnage in Fallujah as corroborative evidences of that bastard nature! Or they could have also used the label “a nation of pimps” as the flesh trade is flourishing in the West. In fact, women can be purchased cheaper than cattle. The Muslims could have referred to the Pig like behavior using the old saying “what you eat is what you are” as it is the only animal that does not fight for its mate when another pig approaches it!
Looking at San Francisco, Jerry Springer, Abu-Ghraib and the Internet would it be constructive if the Muslims generalized by calling the West a nation of: homosexuals, necrophilia, serial killers and rapists. Or could the Muslims not look at the British history selectively and paint them as a ‘nation of pirates and thieves’; the process is being repeated now in Iraq. Or they could have reflected on the American history describing them as a ruthless greedy nation with an insatiable appetite for wealth and blood.
I am sure Mr. Moore and others would immediately burst into frenzy, newspaper headlines would be filled with venomous responses. But the more objective and enlightened individuals would recognize such name calling would not lead to a dialogue but a confrontation. The end result would be an increase in hatred and bigotry instead of mutual respect and understanding.
The Muslims to the contrary are happy to engage in an open civilized debate. They do not have a history of inquisitions or burning heretics at the crescent! There is no Islamic literature where volumes of information containing lies, vulgar profanities targeted against other faiths. Even the awful medieval crusades did not lead to such materials emerging in the Islamic world and that is true even to this day. Besides the mass media, if you search the Internet, there are many hateful anti-Islamic websites run by secular hypocrites and the foul mouth missionaries but one would be hard pressed to find any that is run by Muslims.
The likes of Charles Moore ought to realize that by vilifying Muslims it can end up in helping the cause of Islam by raising curiosity amongst the native population. During the time of the Prophet the pagan Arabs also engaged in a similar vilification campaign which only led to an increase in the number of followers as has happened due to the propaganda post 9/11. Islam has great resilience; it has stood many tests of time and continues to remain strong this day. History and the current reality proves that the West are only capable of containing Islam through the annihilation of Muslims e.g. Spain but never through intellectual dialogue!
Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria.
Published in 1/12/2004