E sikur të uleshim të flisnim vërtet me Islamin?

[fioreal]

HANS KÜNG

Duhet të pranojmë, atëherë, pas polemikave mbi karikaturat daneze, se teoria e Samuel Huntingtonit mbi “përplasjen e qytetërimeve” qenkësh e drejtë? Jo, sepse qytetërimet nuk janë aktorë në skenën e politikës botërore, e aq më pak shpallin luftra. Popuj me kultura të ndryshme jetojnë, në shumë vende, pak a shumë paqësisht. Politika botërore është çështje që u përket shteteve dhe udhëheqësve të tyre, e kështu ka qenë gjithmonë. Këta udhëheqës, nëpërmjet politikave të gabuara, mund të arrijnë, ama, t’i japin vlerë analizës së gabuar të Huntingtonit, duke e shndërruar teorinë e tij në një profeci që duhet të vihet në jetë. Ashtu si disa personazhe të medias e të politikës në Danimarkë e në Itali, edhe ata që në Washington ngucin për t’i shpallur luftë Iranit, bëjnë lojën e Bin Ladenit dhe të Al Qaedas, të cilët synojnë pikërisht plasjen e një lufte qytetërimesh. Por një luftë e tillë jo vetëm që nuk është kryekëput e pashmangshme, por duhet penguar me çdo kusht. E vetmja pikëpyetje është se si. Pa asnjë dyshim, hapi i parë përbëhet nga dialogu. Sigurisht, kjo nënkupton që muslimanët duhet të vihen në rolin e bashkëbiseduesve. Dialogje të tilla kryhen tashmë dhe përfshijnë, në shumë vende të botës, persona, grupe dhe komunitete fetare të larmishme. Polemika, tashmë në dukje e fashitur, mbi karikaturat e Muhametit solli shpërthimin e frustracioneve dhe mllefeve të rrënjosura thellësisht mes popullsive islamike. Shumë vetë, në Perëndim, arritën në përfundimin se indinjata e muslimanëve u ushqye nga fondamentalistët të cilët nuk lënë rast pa shfrytëzuar për t’i fryrë zemërimit popullor. Është e vërtetë që organizatat islamike radikale dhe qeveri të caktuara gjetën tek karikaturat një argumet të pëlqyer për t’i mëshuar idesë së vjetër mbi një Perëndim të dhunshëm e të pamoralshëm. Ashtu si në rastin e fotove të torturave në burgun Abu Ghraib, ku të drejtat e njeriut rregullisht dhunoheshin dhe muslimanët qëllimisht përqesheshin, edhe karikaturat u përdorën për të shfrytëzuar zemërimin popullor.
Por ky zemërim popullor nuk do të ishte shfrytëzuar po të qe se kjo fuçi baruti nuk do të ishte mbushur nga vetë Perëndimi. Për çdo ditë, nga Maroku në Indonezi, muslimanët dëgjojnë dhe shohin veprimet mizore ushtarake në Afganistan, në Irak, në Palestinë dhe në Çeçeni, dhe është ndjenja e nënshtypjes që u përcjellin këto lajme çka përshkallëzon shpërthime të dhunshme si protestat për karikaturat. Kështu, është tepër sipërfaqësor qëndrimi i analistëve perëndimorë sipas të cilëve liria e të shprehurit dhe e shtypit duhet mbrojtur me çdo kusht, dhe se, në fund të fundit një duzinë karikaturash të padëmshme janë pako gjë. Natyrisht, nuk ka demokraci pa media të lirë, e megjithatë liria e të shprehurit dhe e shtypit nuk duhet përdorur pakujdesshëm për të shkelur bindjet fetare dhe për të ngrehur imazhe stereotipikë, qofshin këta për çifutët, për muslimantë a për të krishterët. Liria e shtypit lyp një shtyp të përgjegjshëm, në brendi të të cilit të drejtat vlejnë po aq sa përgjegjësitë. Nëse nuk lejohet të hidhet baltë kundër njerëzve dhe t’u shkelet dinjiteti, mediat duhet të veprojnë me takt edhe përkundrejt udhëheqësve të mëdhenj fetarë të njerëzimit, qoftë profeti Muhamet, qoftë Buda, qoftë Jezu Krishti. Epiqendra e përballjes mes Islamit dhe Perëndimit mbetet konflikti izraelian-palestinez. Gjetja e një zgjidhjeje përkatësisht të kënaqshme për të dyja palët mbi këtë çështje do të ndihmonte zgjidhjen e gjithë të tjerave, ndërsa pa një marrëveshje në Palestinë “përplasja e qytetërimeve” shkon drejt përshkallëzimit. Problemi në Lindjen e Mesme, porse, nuk është problem terrorizmi, por një konflikt territorial, e si i tillë duhet zgjidhur. Një hap i parë u hodh me tërheqjen nga Rripi i Gazës. Që paqja të jetë e qëndrueshme nevojiten lëshime nga të dyja palët, por sidomos nga ana e më të fortit, dhe sot Izraeli është fuqia më e madhe ushtarake në Lindjen e Mesme.
Sa për Hamasin, zgjedhjet i fitoi duke premtuar se do të çlironte popullin palestinez nga mjerimi, nga korrupsioni dhe nga pushtimi. Mos vallë demokracitë perëndimore duhet të ndëshkojnë popullin se bëri zgjedhjen demokratike për të cilën ishte thirrur të zgjidhte? Është arsyetim tragjikisht i gabuar ta trajtosh qeverinë e re palestineze si një organizatë terroriste dhe të kërkosh të pengosh vullnetin popullor duke i krijuar vështirësi e duke i mbajtur në mënyrë të paligjshme të ardhuart nga taksat që i takojnë qeverisë së dalë nga votimi. Mos kjo do të thotë që duhet të pranojmë sulmet e dhunshme të islamistëve radikalë dhe pushtimin e ambasadave dhe të instituteve të huaja të kulturës? Sigurisht që jo. Por nuk duhet as t’i përgjigjemi dhunës me dhunë. Përkundrazi, duhet t’i shtrohemi një debati serioz e të hapur: lypset një dialog parandalues, jo një luftë parandaluese. Duke ruajtur parasysh impaktin e karikaturave të Muhametit dhe fotografitë e torturave të Abu Ghraibit, është e rëndësishme që Perëndimi të mos e kufizojë veten duke nxitur vlerat e bashkëndashme si liria, barazia, solidarësia, demokracia, të drejtat njerëzore dhe toleranca, por edhe të jetojë sipas këtyre parimeve nëpërmjet një etike të shenjuar nga njerëzimi, respekti për jetën, solidarësia, sinqeriteti dhe bashkëpunimi i ndërsjellë. Në përgjithësi, muslimanët e Bashkimit Europian dhe të Shteteve të Bashkuara kanë reaguar të përmbajtur ndaj ngjarjeve të dhimshme, dhe janë orvatur të ushtrojnë një influencë moderuese në bashkëfetarët e vendeve muslimane. Duke bërë thirrje për një dialog të ndershëm e të hapur mes islamikëve dhe Perëndimit nuk dua të dëmtoj marrëdhëniet e mira që ekzistojnë mese muslimanëve dhe jomuslimanëve në Perëndim, por dua për më shumë t’i ndihmoj për t’u vënë në provë e për t’u rritur sëbashku, edhe po të jetë se kjo rritje duhet të kalojë nëpër jetimin e përbashkët të përvojave negative.
Për vite me radhë perëndimi e ka nëvlerësuar idenë e dialogut mes botës muslimane dhe asaj perëndimore. Por tani, këtë dialog, nuk mund të mos e shqyrtojmë më seriozisht. Nëse duam që teoria kallpe e përplasjes së qytetërimeve të mos kryhet, është koha për të dyja palët t’i flasin njëra tjetrës hapur dhe ndershmërisht, duke njohur ndryshimet përkatëse për të gjetur një terren të përbashkët.
© 2006 Hans Küng Distributed by The Neë York Times Syndicate

[kuds]

FAMILY LIFE CRISIS IN THE WEST

"We are a society in transition. The old models have collapsed. We are not stable in the way that our grandparents were stable. This is frightening for us as individuals and as a culture, and it would be simpler to try to retreat. The truth is that it's too late to go back. We have to go forward, through this troubled time, and keep bright our commitment to change." Jeanette Winterson, 'The Guardian', May 2004.

Over the last few decades the concept of family and what this consists of has undergone many changes in the West. The 1950s image of the hard-working and dedicated husband, the housewife baking cookies, and their obedient and well-mannered son and daughter are now seen as a relic of the past. The old values of close-knit families living near each other, pulling together in times of trouble, and going to church on Sundays are now only remembered from Enid Blyton story books and television series such as 'The Waltons'. These are now criticised for being idealistic and even sexist and backward, with the mother's role being confined to the home and the father being 'head of the family'. These images have been replaced with the modern day dysfunctional family as seen in programmes such as 'Party of Five' and 'Dawson's Creek'.

Governments of the past have paid lip service to supporting the family. Ex-Prime Minister John Major launched a 'Back to Basics' campaign in the last Conservative government, when he called for a return to the traditional and basic British family values. Tony Blair has also portrayed an image of having an ideal well-adjusted family. However these images have fallen apart, as after the 'Back to Basics' campaign a stream of Tory scandals became public, namely the affair of the then Minister David Mellor. Recently, it has emerged that John Major himself was having an affair with his colleague Edwina Currie during his cabinet career. Similarly Tony Blair came under fire when police picked up his son, Euan, for being drunk in the street. This has led to debate and discussion as to which is the best family model? Is the old model outdated? Or should there even be one at all? Why have these changes occurred? Surely the epitome of free living is for people themselves to define what they feel is family?

THE NEW WESTERN FAMILY

Naturally, the starting point of a family is a man and woman marrying to have children. However the institution of marriage is under threat in Western society. Partnership formation has changed over the last 30 years. The proportion of married people has fallen, while the proportions of cohabiting, single and divorced people have increased. 1 in 4 women aged between 18-49 are co-habiting, the average time of the relationship lasting is just 39 months. Over 40% of children are born outside of marriage. Marriage is occurring much later on in life, or not all as some people believe it to be unnecessary. This translates into insecurity for both men and women, as they do not legally have any rights upon each other. People start to live together easily and then just as easily leave each other. Women usually have to become the breadwinners, being left to raise the children alone. Figures from the Child Support Agency highlight the amount of men who conveniently 'disappear' when asked for maintenance.

The roles in marriage have also been left to the whims and desires of the man and woman. These roles have therefore changed over the years. Men are no longer the primary breadwinners and sometimes feel undermined by their wives working and neglecting the home and children. Women, having been influenced by feminism, believe that equality means taking on the man's role of earning and being the decision maker. They view material gain and career advancement as more beneficial and fulfilling than raising children.

FAMILY BREAK-UPS AND THEIR EFFECTS

There has recently been a rise in divorce. Over 40 % of marriages end in divorce, the average length being nine years. Again the trends in society breed insecurity between partners, and children also face futures in one-parent families. Western culture is dominated by sexual promiscuity, with people jumping from relationship to relationship trying to fulfil themselves and find the 'one'. No human being would choose to live in such a situation, which is why studies consistently show the adverse effects that family breakdowns have upon the individuals involved. Women are more prone to depression after suffering a divorce and the suicide rate has increased amongst men, which has been partly attributed to family break-ups. Insecurity is so prevalent that womens magazines are full of advice concerning how to get a man and more importantly, how to keep him.

The effect of family changes upon children is disastrous. One of the biggest problems is that increasingly more children are born to teenage mothers. A recent UNICEF report named Britain as having the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe and the second highest in the world, the USA being the first. The Government has realised this trend and has introduced half-hearted solutions, highlighted by the recent ludicrous strategy that was aimed at teenagers to teach them more about sexual practises such as oral sex, in an attempt to curb this increasing trend.1 in 10 children are born to teenage mothers. UNICEF added that Korea and Japan were the lowest due to their 'traditional values'. Studies have shown time and again that children from single-parent families do not perform as well educationally as children from married homes. They are more likely to commit crime, and to lack good social and communication skills. In 2001 23% of children lived in a lone parent family.

There is an epidemic of 'latch-key children' who return from school to an empty house. Many parents are therefore unaware of what their children are doing, who they are with, or even if they are safe. The rise in truancy and delinquency are the effects of leaving children without guidance from the family home. Children from broken homes are also facing real danger. A Childline survey showed that 5000 children a week suffer the pain and anguish of a broken home. A child whose mother is living with a partner (not their father) is 33 times more likely to be exposed to abuse than a child living with its natural parents. At least 920,000 children in Britain are living in a home where one or both parents have a problem with alcohol. There have also been increases in domestic violence.

The relationship between parent and child has also significantly changed from before, where children no longer show respect and deference to their parents, and the parent no longer disciplines and directs the child. Children are now viewed as equals to their parents and have the right to privacy and to make their own decisions.

The mentalities of family members have also changed drastically. Individuals now only give importance to themselves, they seek to achieve what they want, and if their family members do not give this to them they easily estrange themselves or neglect their relatives. Parents leave their children if they feel that they are a burden, and neglect them for the sake of their own career, their new partner, or their 'night out.' Children in return often leave home at the first chance they get, and return only at Christmas or if they need financial assistance. A common occurrence in Western societies is for people to live near, and see their friends more than their families. Even the relationships between siblings are strained and based upon the benefit that each can gain from one another.

ADAM AND STEVE, NOT ADAM AND EVE

There has also been a rise in 'alternative' family structures due to all barriers being shed and all freedoms becoming dominant, regardless of the negative effects upon children. Gay weddings and adoption have become recognised by law. This, along with the desire to have a child however people want, has led to a rise in surrogacy, the use of sperm banks, and even the advertising of children on the internet for sale by their birth parent, as in the recent case of Moira Greenslade. Children have become a commodity along with everything else in a Capitalist state.

The attitude towards old people is an example of a significant change in recent decades. Whereas previously extended families took care of grandparents, Old People's Homes are now a norm and totally acceptable in society, or even the leaving of old parents to fend for themselves. Many cases have arisen where old people have died unnoticed, with their children only coming to claim their inheritance. A government report stated that combined with the abuse in Old People's Homes, 1 million elderly people were victims of cruelty and neglect. Some horrific examples include Margaret Barr, 85, who had her fingernails ripped out by a nursing home carer, and Honora Derham, 82, who died in agony after nursing home staff failed to notice bedsores were slowly rotting away her body, down to her spine. Honora was given only paracetamol for the pain, and a specialist said her condition was the worst he'd seen.

The state having been unable to revert back to 'family values' has given in to the reality and actually facilitated these changes. Laws are expanding regarding the rights of co-habitees, homosexuals and surrogacy. The current Labour government prides itself on doing the most for homosexual rights than any other government. The 'Civil Partnership Scheme' grants gay couples many similar rights to married couples. Other cases include the boy in the USA who won the right to legally 'divorce' his father. Also the 14-year-old Nottinghamshire schoolgirl who was assisted in having an abortion, by her school, without consulting her mother, because the school 'was not obliged to do so'. The state also offers incentives to women who choose to work and leave their children, for example through the Working Families Tax Credit. The media is also responsible for undermining the family. Soap dramas encourage alternative families such as gay couples, and disobedience to parents and deceit between family members as being normal.

The result has been the almost total annihilation of the family and the concept of the family as the bedrock of society. In turn, roles and responsibilities have become confused such that Parents are no longer seen as responsible for the well being of their children but their offspring can make independent decisions from them such as taking contraceptives and abortion supported by the state apparatus.

MUSLIM FAMILIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THIS TURMOIL

Living and growing up in the West has also had a profound effect on the Muslim family. Regrettably, Muslim communities have been affected by many of the social ills that have characterised the break up of the family unit in the wider host society. As a generation of Muslims reach adulthood and begin to embark on having families and taking control of the family life, it is very evident that the West has had a major influence. Children are increasingly filling Old People’s Homes, with elderly Muslims, because they do not want to look after them. 'Apna Ghar' an old people's home in the Midlands specialises in Asian elderly care, a phenomenon unheard of in the past, and still alien in the Muslim countries. The elderly, once revered members of a household, who were asked for advice and guidance, are now regarded as an unnecessary burden to be dealt with. It has been reported on numerous occasions that systematic abuse of the elderly is a major problem, in wider society as well as in Muslim households.

The demise of the Western family structure has also had an effect on the parent-child relationship within Muslim households. Parents are no longer given the respect due to them, children are left unsupervised and free to behave as they wish and conflict and angst has entered the community. Patience, understanding and empathy with family members appears to be on the wane and is being replaced with arguments, conflict and disobedience within the household.

Fortunately, the institution of marriage has not been abandoned by the Muslim community in the same way that has occurred within Western states. Yet, a series of problems have arisen that has resulted from the weakening of the family structure. Muslim boys and girls nowadays commonly have girlfriends and boyfriends, and often with the full knowledge of their parents. Stories exist of members of the family running away with partners who the parents have not accepted. Equally, as confusion towards the proper Islamic family set up remains some Muslim families have been divided due to the daughter being forced to marry her cousin from abroad. Whilst the son becomes frustrated and angry at his parent's desire for his marriage from a family of 'high status'.

As a result of this the solution put forward by many Muslim parents is to arrange marriages, including forcibly marrying two individuals, so as to prevent such problems arising, but this situation is completely wrong as well, and often ends in heartache. There has been a distressing increase in so called 'honour killings' which have seen individual family members being killed for expressing a desire to marry someone who does not fulfil the suitable criteria. There is a lot of confusion mainly due to the fact that many of the Muslim family values are only being held together by traditions and cultures, and as these are attacked by the Western values, they are unable to stand up to the onslaught. So situations are arising now that even ten years ago would have been unheard of.

WHY THE CHANGES?

The question arises when examining the multitude of facts and information regarding such a vital and fundamental institution as the family that where did this rot start? Where has the West gone wrong? Many Western academics and journalists have commented on the crisis in family life and are unhappy with the changes that were previously seen as 'liberating' starting from the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

More fundamentally, the cause of the disintegration of the family structure lies in the change in the values and norms of the society. Capitalist societies espouse secularism and freedom. They consequently allow for the evolution of ideas, views and attitudes, suiting the individuals in their societies. Actually they hail this as progressive, hence the attitude towards homosexuality now being seen as a right whereas in previous decades it wasn't. Therefore it is only natural that viewpoints will change towards the family as what people desire and want changes.

The concept that dominates Western culture is individualism. This concept places importance on the individual above all else, the satisfaction of his or her needs or desires. This has become more prominent in Capitalist society over time to the extent that it has undermined everything else, such as family. Family is now whatever the individual wants it to be. So if somebody wants to cohabit they may, if their partner conflicts with their desires they feel free to leave and go through different partners regardless of the effect that this may have on themselves or their children. Naturally a situation will arise where many different forms of 'family' are in society. In schools they are now teaching children about 'non-conventional' families in Personal and Social Education, because they are becoming so prevalent.
Individualism also causes people to neglect the families they have, as it interferes with what they wish to do. They may not gain anything from meeting their relatives so they will not make any effort to. This is why the family structure has become fragmented, with families rarely meeting or having to rely on other institutions and people, such as carers, homes or bank loans in times of need. Within the family, the prevalence of this selfish and self-centred mentality has led to instability and clashes over the most basic issues such as who cares for the children, looks after the home and who is the main provider. The result has been an almost total breakdown in any form of meaningful partnership, with relationships being a temporary phenomena.

ISLAM AND THE FAMILY

The Islamic attitude to family is very clear and defined. Islam places great importance on the family, viewing it as the cornerstone of society. The family unit will produce the upstanding citizens of the future that will interact with society, and is therefore responsible for the moulding of personalities and for supporting and protecting them in the future. The well functioning and stable family is crucial in a successful society.

From the very outset, men and women are encouraged to come together to fulfil their instincts and to benefit mankind, through procreation, in marriage. Marriage is the source of all other relationships, and so it is crucial for both partners to choose exceptionally. Marriage should provide companionship, security and stability for both, ensuring certain rights that both parties have upon each other. Both man and woman are encouraged to look for someone with piety. Men are directed to look for a potentially good mother to their future children. Once married, the roles are clearly defined as to how the man and woman should live, their rights and duties. It is incumbent upon both partners to maintain a peaceful and tranquil relationship. They should both strive for intimacy and love to thrive between themselves. Divorce is only considered as a last option. The objective of the marriage is for the man and woman to live in harmony together and to build a family out of this compatibility and tranquillity. Therefore Allah I has given both men and women distinct roles to balance one another, and to prevent friction and conflict. The man has the duty of providing for and protecting the woman. He is responsible for her well being and maintenance, and is head of the family, where he has the final say in decision-making related to the marital life, in order to bring about harmony where there is discord. He should treat his wife with justice and to take counsel from her.

الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء
"Men are the protectors and guardians over women". [TMQ: Surah Nisa: 34]

The wife in turn accepts this and must show obedience to her husband. Her primary role is of being a wife and mother, and of maintaining the home.

Her responsibility is to nurture the children, producing individuals with an Islamic personality, who are psychologically, emotionally and physically sound. The child has these rights over their parents. Muhammad (saw) said

أكرموا أولادكم وأحسنوا أدبهم
"Honour your children and bring them up well"

Islam places great importance on lineage. The child has the right to know their parents, therefore Western practices of sperm banks and surrogacy would not even be contemplated.
The responsibilities towards parents are also defined. Parents have the right to be visited, to receive respectful treatment from their children and that the child should be anxious to fulfil as many of their parents wishes as they are able. If the parents are in need of financial security and help in their old age they must receive this from their children if they can. Siblings also have rights to be helped in times of need and it is encouraged to have good and close relationships with them.

A man said to the prophet (saw)

يا رسول الله ربما فضلت لي الفضلة خبأتها للنائبة وابن
السبيل؟ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أمك
أباك أختك أخاك أدناك أدناك
"Who shall I show kindness to?" He (saw) replied "Your mother, father, sister and brother".

The atmosphere in the Muslim family should be one of wanting to achieve reward to get closer to Allah (swt) so the family members are encouraged to forgive errors, not to hold grudges, to give gifts to build warmth between each other, and to help in times of trouble. Keeping relations with extended family and helping them is also very highly recommended in the Sunnah. Anas bin Malik narrated that Muhammad (saw) said:

من أحب أن يزاد في عمره ويزاد في رزقه فليصل رحمه
"Whoever loves that he be granted more wealth, and that his lease of life be prolonged, then he should keep good relations with his kith and kin".

All members of the Muslim family should be motivated by the worship of Allah I, and performing actions that will bring them success in the afterlife. Thus, the effects of the perfect system that Allah I has created result in harmony and tranquillity in the Islamic society. Muslims living in the West need to be very careful to maintain an Islamic family and exert immense effort to ensure the family unit is preserved. So it is imperative for the current generation to play an active role to uphold the true Islamic values and to promote these for future generations to come whilst being a beacon of light in the darkness that surrounds us.

[kuds]

me ke duhet te bisedojne keta ?
se pari duhet te formohet khalifati ku te gjitha grupet muslimane te jene te disiplinuara nen urdherin e amirit te besimdrejteve(khalifit)

...asnje zgjidhje tjeter nuk mund te kete jashte kesaj korrnize baze.
allahu alem!
s.a!

[kuds]

Reflections on Hatred and the Defamation of the Prophet Muhammad
Jamaal al-Deen Zarabozo
Article ID: 1256 | 1635 Reads



When it comes to the relations between “the West” and the “Muslim world,” there is no question that we are currently living in an environment of heightened fear, hatred, anxiety, violence and extremism. We are living in a time in which the prudent and wise person will think about what he will say or do. It is obviously not a time in which we avoid speaking the truth and working for justice—as that is always a given. However, it is a time for reasonable people to avoid anything that can be used in a negative way to further destabilize the situation and cause senseless harm.

In particular since 9/11, one often hears the following question being posed by the people of the West, “Why do they hate us?” It is interesting to observe what behavior is occurring at the same time that they are asking this question—and, in fact, what behavior has been occurring for centuries, as shall be noted later. At the same time that they are, it must be presumed, sincerely asking the question, “Why do they hate us?” many of their societal leaders and many in their media continue to disrespect and ridicule Islam, Muslims and even the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—doing acts that seem to be intended only to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Most recently, one can point to the cartoons in Denmark that depicted, for example, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having a bomb in his turban.[2] These classless and offensive cartoons were later republished in other newspapers throughout Europe, demonstrating support for the original publishers.[3] Even before these events, one can find Christian leaders and social commentators in the United States making antagonistic and hate-provoking statements about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), calling him a terrorist or even a child molester. The situation has not been much better in Europe, although they have much larger Muslim minorities.

In this environment, beyond asking “Why do they hate us?” perhaps another important question needs to be asked by all: Is our own behavior leading us in a positive or beneficial direction? Maybe the answer to this question may shed some light on the answer to the aforementioned question.



The Legal Framework

Those who engage in the practice of defaming Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have claimed that they are simply exercising their rights of freedom of speech, opinion and belief. Within the Western framework, they may have an argument. At the end of January 2006, the Blair government was defeated in attempting to pass a law that would have made ridiculing faiths and religious leaders a type of hate crime. In an interview with BBC on February 1, 2006, a Member of Parliament who opposed the bill said that the law must protect life and property but need not protect “feelings.” Thus, as long as a person’s “life or property” is not physically attacked, one should be free to express what one wishes. This approach reflects the currently accepted Western emphasis on individual rights as opposed to social welfare. Indeed, in the aftermath of the dispute concerning the cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), some in Europe are proudly—actually, arrogantly—proclaiming that they have the right to insult God if they want to.

Whatever the man-made legal rights may be and ignoring the gravity of the manner in which such insults have been done, what if such statements do eventually lead to harm and attacks on life and property? What is the logic behind permitting “causes” that lead to “harm” while prohibiting the act of harm in itself? For example, is there anything reprehensible about drunk driving in itself or is it prohibited by law only due to the harm that it can result in, the loss of life and property?

In any case, of course, simply because something is legal by law does not necessarily imply that it is moral or even wise. In the current environment, this is the more important issue. One should never invoke one’s “rights” in defense of harmful and hateful actions that could eventually even lead to bloodshed. Thus, it is not a matter of passing new laws, as was attempted in England. Instead, it is a matter of recognizing the morally correct path to follow and the prudent path to follow.



The Dangers of Defamation and Ridicule in the Media

No one can doubt that images and stereotypes presented in the media are very powerful. In many cases, they form a person’s perception of reality. In particular, many of the West, more so in the US than in Europe, do not have first hand experiences with Muslims and therefore they must rely on the media to develop their perception of Islam and Muslims. Nacos and Torres-Reyna write, “Some 55 years ago, before the advent of television, Walter Lippmann observed that what people know about the world around them is mostly the result of second-hand knowledge received through the press and that the ‘pictures in our heads’ are the result of a pseudo-reality reflected in the news.”[4]

Thus, the press bears a great responsibility. What and how the press presents something can ultimately lead to decisions of life and death or war and peace. Indeed, political cartoons and yellow journalism can be sufficient to drive a country into a war frenzy—as they appeal to the emotions of the masses. Anyone familiar with the Spanish-American War is well aware of this fact. There were powerful forces in the United States who were determined to go to war against Spain, fearing the “Spanish threat” on the Americas. The New York Morning Journal (headed by William Randolph Hearst) and The New York World used yellow journalism to depict Spanish oppression in Cuba. Even though President McKinley wanted to follow a hands-off policy, the effect of the media was such that it led to great popular support to come to the aid of the Cubans. This put great pressure upon President McKinley, leading him to send the Battleship Maine to Havana in 1898. The Battleship Maine exploded. The Navy at that time was unable to determine the cause of the explosion—although more recently many have concluded that it was due to mechanical problems. At that time, the Spanish offered to turn the issue of responsibility over to an arbitrator. However, even without being able to identify the exact cause of the explosion, the media pounced on the opportunity, spread the slogan “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain” and continued to depict the evil Spaniards in their cartoons. The United States was now definitely going to war. The lessons of those events should not be lost on the world today.

Another example of the influence of the press is discussed in the following passage: “The racism that led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was created partly by the motion picture industry, which for years typecast Orientals as villains, and partly by the press, especially the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst.”[5] Today, of course, the internment of the Japanese is something that we Americans remember with shame.

The result—if not the goal—of blatant defamation and ridicule is the dehumanization of the enemy. When the enemy is dehumanized, one no longer cares how much they suffer. One can then do things to them that humans would, under normal circumstances, completely shun—such as all forms of horrendous torture and humiliation.



Who Would Want to Participate in or Support Such Defamation and Hate-Filled Actions?

Inexcusable defamation is occurring. Before discussing who may be pleased with such occurrences, I would like to first discuss who should not be participating in such activities.

First, it seems to me—and only God knows—that those who want to display the Christian witness to humanity certainly should shun and oppose any such behavior. It is the Christian who usually claims that Muslims do not understand that “God is love” and that one should love one’s enemy. Thus, they should be at the forefront of putting an end to such harmful statements and defamation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). These shameful acts certainly do not demonstrate grace and love.

Second, those who are truly interested in peace must also take a stand. You cannot simultaneously allow and support hate-provoking messages and ridicule while at the same time claiming to be working for true peace among the different peoples. True peace cannot come without some form of mutual respect and understanding. Certainly immaturely attacking the icons or beliefs that are dear to millions living on the planet could not be seen as a means of respect and understanding.

Third, those who are interested in human rights and human dignity should also be outraged at what is done in the name of freedom and human rights. If the concept of human rights is going to mean anything it should at least mean respect for humans! To unjustifiably ridicule, attack or defame others should be considered a violation of one’s right to a decent life without unwarranted aggression and attack. When will the paradox of humans being dehumanized and humiliated in the name of human freedoms and human rights ever be solved? Indeed, when will secular humans finally realize that such is a paradox for which they may never have a solution?

Muslims also should never engage in false or ridiculing propaganda against others. Even if there is great hatred between the Muslim and others, a Muslim is never allowed to deviate from what is truthful and proper. This is because the ultimate goal of a Muslim is the pleasure of God and God is pleased with truth and justice. The mere ridicule of others resulting only in increased hatred—not to speak of hatred between individuals but, indeed, even a hatred for God’s religion—is not part of the character of a Muslim. The following verses of the Quran should make all Muslims alert to these points:

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice…” (al-Nisaa 135);

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do” (al-Maaidah 8);

“And do not insult those [objects of worship] whom they worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fair-seeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do” (al-Anaam 108).

The question then remains: Who is it that could possibly be pleased with and support such rude and ill-mannered behavior as the defaming of the spiritual leader of almost one-fifth of the planet? Unfortunately, there are a few categories of people who are actively pushing and promoting a phenomenon described as “Islamophobia,”[6] putting the fear of Islam and Muslims in the hearts of non-Muslims. It is hoped that no rational, sincere person would want to be from these different groups of people who foster such hate and, eventually, violence.

First and most obvious are people who are simply racists. These people have a hatred for all “others” and see them as inferior, untermenschen. They want their own people to also hate the “other” and therefore they are happy to spread any slurs or insults. The whole basis of racist thought is that someone is superior not due to anything that he has actually done but only due to something given to him by God and over which the individual himself had no control or choice. It seems that this would appeal most to persons who have no individual redeeming qualities of their own! Be that as it may, it is amazing how prevalent racism and racist feelings are in the West. It is the people of the West, in general, who are saying that they want the Muslims to become modernized, claiming that Islam and Muslims are barbarians, backwards, uncivilized and un-modernized. Is it any wonder that their message has been unappealing to so many Muslims?

Unfortunately, there are also many strong political factors behind the current demonizing of Muslims. There is a political-philosophical belief that one’s country needs a well-defined and dangerous enemy. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that enemy has more and more been identified as Muslims and Islam (sometimes referred to in more politically correct terms as “fundamentalist Islam”). One can return to the example of the Soviet Union to see how an enemy can be created and made as giant as can be. During the 1950s, the children of the United States were repeatedly going through drills in case the Soviets should attack the US with nuclear weapons. Looking back, the reality seemed to be very different. Former US statesman George Kennan, who had originally proposed the policy of Russian containment, admitted that he knew that Russia did not want to go to war. He stated, “The image of a Stalinist Russia poised and yearning to attack the West, and deterred only by [US] possession of atomic weapons, was largely a creation of Western imagination.”[7] A report in the Guardian also states that British military and intelligence chiefs believed that, “The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe,” so said a classified paper marked “Top Secret, UK Eyes Only.”[8] One of the leading proponents of the concept of the clash of civilizations, Samuel Huntington, is himself one of the believers in this outlook. Among the many things he stated pointing to this view of the world is, “We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.”[9]

Finally, those Muslims who might hold some extreme views in regards to the West are also very happy with such practices that demonstrate the West’s lack of respect toward Muslims. In turn, they use this as an argument that the people of the West, therefore, are not deserving of respect. They want no limits to the manner in which they fight—and it is only a small step from quoting non-Muslim disrespect for Muslims to convincing a person that civilian non-Muslims, therefore, are also not deserving of respect. Hence, those people who defend acts of defamation and ridicule in the name of “rights and freedoms” are simply playing right into their hands.

These are the main categories of people who would be pleased with such acts of defamation and ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), of Muslims or of the “other” in general. As stated earlier, it is hoped that rational and sincere people would not wish to be counted among such groups of people.

However, there is another important point that needs to be made. This has to do with those who defend such hate-producing acts, again probably in the name of free speech, liberty and so forth. What, though, is the difference between defending acts like this—that lead to more hatred and therefore more violence—and directly supporting known terrorists? Yes, one can argue that there is a difference. But to the person who truly wants to take responsibility for the ramifications of his actions (what he does as well as what he advocates), he should consider what occurs when he supports or sees nothing wrong with denigrating and defaming others in such a manner that will only produce more hatred. There is no question that this hatred may easily lead to more violence, bloodshed, turmoil and suffering. Certainly, he cannot truly believe that his hands are absolutely free of any guilt.



Defamation versus Critique

Most of the inhabitants of the West are non-Muslims. Many of them are not Muslim because they feel that there is something unacceptable in Islam. Hence, it is to be expected that they would have thoughts about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that Muslims would not share. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself debated with Jews, Christians and polytheists who did not believe in him and even after discussions with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself they remained true to their own faiths. Thus, no one, Muslim or otherwise, should be surprised if a non-Muslim has a lesser opinion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than a Muslim has.

The Quran welcomes discussion and dialogue with the non-Muslims:

“Invite (mankind, O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and debate with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided” (al-Nahl 125).

In fact, more than once, the Quran even asks the non-Muslim to,

“Produce your proof if you are truthful” (al-Baqarah 111; al-Naml 64; al-Qasas 75).

Thus, the objection is not to non-Muslims—especially in their own lands—expressing their view about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If what they state is sincere and rational, then they can be spoken to on a rational level with sincerity. Indeed, Muslims welcome such discussions and, in reality, such discussions are best for Islam, because, to this day, most of the people in the West have distorted views of Islam. If they wish to express their views honestly and discuss them honestly, they can be presented with the truth of Islam. This act in itself may reduce the tension and discord that exists between non-Muslims and Muslims. In fact, after the events of 9/11, many Americans took the effort to find out more about Islam and there was much more exposure of Islam and Muslims. Thus, in comparing surveys before 9/11 and after 9/11, Nacos and Torres-Reyna found that “the American public in general viewed Muslim-Americans more favorable after September 11, 2001.”[10]

One can respond to rational arguments with an honest and straightforward rational discussion. However, there is no real response to something that is meant only to ridicule, insult or harm.

In sum, if non-Muslims want to debate and discuss the real issues of religion and belief, Muslims are more than ready to do that. If they resort to defamation and ridicule, then they should not be surprised if they are in turn responded to with hatred and disrespect. There is no need for them to then ask, “Why do they hate us?” The answer should be clear.

Actually, there is one author who makes the point that those in the past who attacked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did so in an attempt to avoid discussing the real issues. Minou Reeves writes in a work entitled Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making,

The trouble started with early medieval Christian polemicists. They chose not to attack Islamic theology, which was too seductive in its simplicity and clarity, and which raised too many awkward questions about Christian dogma. Nor could they cast doubt on the pious practice of ordinary Muslims. Instead, anticipating the worst excesses of tabloid journalism, they personalized the issue and attacked the Prophet of Islam, dispensing with all but the barest knowledge of any facts and inventing falsehoods. Muslims could not reply in kind, since they are told by the Qur’an to revere Jesus as a holy prophet.[11]

It seems that not much has truly changed over the centuries.



Conclusions

In conclusion, I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such practices is more hatred, violence and fear. Certainly, if you disrespect someone else, you cannot expect that he will show great respect for you in return. If this hatred does turn into more terrorism, the longer term result may simply be more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms in the West. Those who are supporting such cartoons in the name of rights and liberties may, in the long-run, find their liberties restricted because of what these disrespectful acts produced. In essence, nobody wins in the long-run. There is simply no rationale for such behavior.

At the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of Islam. It is time for leaders in the West to realize that the “freedom” which is very dear to the Western conscience should not be an unwise or harmful freedom. I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, “My freedom to swing my fist stops where your chin begins.” In today’s turbulent environment, perhaps it should be said—not as a law but as moral behavior—“My freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] ©2006, Jamaal Zarabozo

[2] It should be noted that the Muslim outrage concerning these cartoons is not related simply to the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is depictured in these cartoons. Although Muslims would not draw pictures of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the essential problem with these cartoons is the defamation and ridicule of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This point is explicitly made here because some news reports have presented the issue as if it were simply a matter of depicturing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

[3] We commend those Western media outlets that refused to show these cartoons, deeming them too insulting.

[4] Brigitte L. Nacos and Oscar Torres-Reyna, “Framing Muslim-Americans Before and After 9/11,” in Pippa Norris, Montague Kern and Marion Just, eds. Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 135.

[5] Nacos and Torres-Reyna, p. 152.

[6] A number of publications cover the manifestations and extent of Islamophobia in recent years. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) published a paper entitled, “Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001.” Another important work was published by The Runnymede Trust entitled, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for us All.” The Runnymede Trust earlier produced a Consultation Paper in which they stated, “Islamophobia is dread or hatred of Islam and of Muslims. It has existed in western countries and cultures for several centuries but in the last twenty years has become more explicit, more extreme and more dangerous. It is an ingredient of all sections of the media, and is prevalent in all sections of society.”

[7] Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2003), pp. 8-9.

[8] Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, pp. 9-10.

[kuds]

Kosovo: Behold the New World Order
Dave Sharp
Article ID: 817 | 482 Reads



Behold the New World Order. Like most wars, the Kosovo war is about money


BIG MONEY. It has NOTHING to do with ethnic cleansing, genocide, or atrocities. It's all about money. FOLLOW THE MONEY. The NATO powers are making a bold power grab to control a mining complex in Kosovo. "Last May, Mytilinaios SA [a Greek mining company] signed a five-year contract worth $519 BILLION with the state-owned RMHK Trepca [located in Kosovo] and the Serbian agency of foreign trade, in which Mytilinaios will forward one third of the mineral production in the international market and lso upgrade mining equipment and facilities. Trepca mines are on the list of companies soon to be privatised, thus allowing the Greek company to buy stock."


Reference:


The state-owned Trepca mining complex (Stari Trg) is worth about $5 billion as a piece of real estate. Earning potential, however, is a different matter. The mine has not been sold. The referenced $519 billion contract with Greece obligates the state-owned mining facility to deliver one third of the minerals it produces over five years to Mytilinaios SA, the Greek mining company.


This suggests that the remaining two thirds of minerals produced over five years could be sold at a comparable price to other mining companies. The grand total would be $1.56 TRILLION - paid to the owner of the mining complex - for minerals produced over five years. Keep in mind that $1.56 TRILLION would be wholesale cost. We haven't even discussed mark-up yet. Mining companies like Mytilinaios SA will sell minerals produced from the mine - lead, zinc, cadmium, gold, silver - to the international market at a marked-up price. If the mark-up is 200 percent, the net profit would be $1.56 TRILLION. This would be the net gain if NATO played by the rules and allowed countries to honor their agreements with Serbia. But what if NATO were to steal the mine?


If NATO takes over the mine in Kosovo, then the profit is potentially doubled. That would give NATO about 3 TRILLION over five years minus a few billion to cover labor and maintenance of the mining equipment. We're talking big bucks. And it will be divided among mining companies in NATO nations. Is it any wonder that U.S. politicians are foaming at the mouth? If NATO loses this war, certain politicians will think their pockets have been picked. "Russia is a basket case. They cannot do anything... We cannot be disuaded from proceeding to victory... The debate should not be about how or why we got involved..., that is academic now.



We must proceed to victory." -- Senator John McCain - 4/9/99 Behold the New World Order. Dave Sharp


Comment on this article (0 Comments posted)






Subscribe to
Our Mailing List:

subscribe
unsubscribe