Posted on 03/06/2006 6:54:15 AM PST by Eurotwit
Anyone who hasn't capitalized on the recent malicious caricature portrayal of the Prophet to express their outrage, promote their organization, get their name in the paper, pontificate the loftiness of Islamic ideals, start a membership drive, do a little political posturing, or to open dialogue, or defend the Prophet has missed their opportunity. The issue has now officially become a non-issue. There was no fatwa or official sounding consensus of scholars declaring cessation of protest. On the contrary, the media puppeteers, knowing what motivates Muslims to action, simply turned off the cameras and directed them to another venue. Muslims are well trained to tailor their activity on the basis of subliminal media directives, and it looks like we were duped again. In other words ladies and gentlemen, we've been had. Or as al-Hajj Malik Shabaaz (Malcolm X) used to say, bamboozled, hoodwinked, flimflammed.
Of course there are those in denial and that's to be expected. After all, Islam is our universal adapter. All we need to do is preface an action with; "this is for the sake of Allah" or, "this is for Islam", or, "this is in defense of Islam" and it assumes immediate legitimacy irregardless of whether it's fair, Islamic, prudent, or in agreement with the shariah. Since as Muslims, everything we do is ostensibly in the name of Islam, for Islam, for the Muslims, for Allah, in defense of Islam etc., we are never wrong about anything, ever. Perhaps this is how we justify suicide bombings where the innocent (including women and children) are casualties. If the world was unaware how sensitive Muslims are about our Prophet , then our recent response not only erased any ambiguity, it showed how malleable the global Muslim community has become.
By even the most conservative accounts, we've shown that we are unpredictable, volatile, rage driven, and that a little name calling and scribbling on a piece of paper can stir us into frenzy. People have been attempting to demean and ridicule the Prophet ever since he became a Prophet. When does that warrant a full scale campaign? What are we going to do the next time someone demeans the prophet of Allah? Why was this incident singled out for response when there are numerous incidents of negative references to the Prophet Muhammad all over the place? A couple of years ago a well known television evangelist from California did a whole series of lectures in which he vilified the Prophet much more insidiously than this unknown cartoonist (who we now made famous and probably wealthy from his future book deals). Why wasn't there an outpour of condemnation and rage then?
Since this issue surfaced, the demeaning images of the Prophet have been reprinted in at least 143 newspapers in 56 countries. In defiance of Muslims umbrage, many media publications have stepped up their parody of not only the Prophet himself but the hypersensitive way that we have responded to the issue. There will always be persons an institutions who will do, say, or write something that we can consider an affront to the dignity of the Prophet especially since we are so adept at interpreting words and events as anti-Islamic. Should Muslims therefore assume a perpetual state of protest? On second thought, that might not be the most efficient use of labor. How about we just appoint a group of people whose job will be to hunt down and protest every insult to the Prophet . That way the rest of the Muslim world can concentrate on other matters.
Whether we care to admit it or not, we're slowly evolving into a people so consumed with self righteousness; rage, indiscipline, and intolerance, we cannot admit that we also make mistakes. Let's grow up folks. Even Adam admitted his mistake and performed a healthy self assessment. To say that we overreacted to the cartoons is not only an understatement, it also raises questions about who we are and what we stand for. Let me see if I got this right. A three month old negative caricature of the Prophet and we take to the streets by the thousands, protest, throw rocks, issue death threats, tear down buildings, blame whole nations and make our angriest and most menacing facial expressions for the cameras. In the process, scores of Muslims are killed, hundreds more injured, countless man hours are expended, and after the dust settles, there is no measurable tangible gain we can claim from the experience.
Ironically, when Muslims bomb Masaajid while people are worshipping in Iraq, or when 400 Muslims killed in the last week alone, there's hardly a whimper! We claim that we must protect and defend the honor of the Prophet . Meanwhile in America alone, Muslims contribute upwards of twenty million dollars per year towards cable and satellite TV industry which broadcasts every imaginable abomination opposed by the Prophet ; homosexuality, pornography, blasphemy, gambling, infidelity, deception, gluttony, you name it, cable's got it. I don't see any mass rush to cancel our cable subscriptions. Bridges TV a Muslim orientated cable station had to almost beg for the marginal support it receives from the Muslim community.
We clamor for tolerance yet we are notoriously intolerant. Discriminate against a Muslim and there is immediate outrage, yet we unabashedly champion nepotism and discrimination within our own organizations, boards, masaajid and Muslim controlled lands. We want inclusion in the world arena yet we cannot stop fighting each other long enough to be create our own alternative industries. We protest the killing of Muslims by the Americans, the British, the French, the Israelis, or any other so-called infidel. However, we are curiously silent about Muslims killing each other. It's like we are saying; hey, don't kill Muslims! Let us kill each other! Don't hate Muslims! We have enough hate not only to hate you, but plenty left over to hate ourselves. Don't disrespect the Prophet ! We can do that ourselves by ignoring the standards of civility, fairness justice to which he commanded us.
The Muslim motto is becoming; 'you disagree with me, therefore you are my enemy'. Some of us take the mantra it a bit further; 'you disagree with me, therefore I must kill you and your children'. The internet is full of one or another Muslim group, leader or imam condemning the other. Have we simply lost our minds? Somebody turn on the lights! Does it occur to anyone that the Muslims in the world are in a weakened state? There is no doubt that there are many forces confronting the Muslim peoples in this new millennium. Is there some law somewhere that says we have to contribute to our own malaise? Can we call a moratorium on inter-religious conflict between Muslims? Do you think that we can come up with better stratagem our usual blame and complain? We're turning into complainaholics (okay I made the word up). The world's crybabies.
Holding the western democracies accountable to standards of law, fairness, civil liberty, and inclusion, has merit. Self serving as it may be, there is some merit there. After all, printing the cartoons in the first place was a criminal offence under sections 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. However, what is the Muslim standard? Do we have one? Of course the unanimous response to this question is; Islam is our standard! This ladies and gentlemen, is my point. If Islamic law, ethics, protocol or to put is bluntly, Quran and Sunna is the standard by which Muslims must be held accountable, are we then obligated to address errant behavior of Muslims done in the name of Islam? I'm not referring to contentious issues about which there is legitimate scholarly disagreement, or even the triangulated fatwas cloaked in ambiguity. What I'm referring to are the incontrovertible standards of behavior, law, civility, honesty, good character which all Muslims or most of us agree are the foundations of our faith. Does corruption, nepotism, racism, bribery, fratricide, inter-religious sectarianism, spousal abuse, issues which as Muslims we are obligated to address? You darn right they are! Does our failure to collectively enforce the Prophetic standard of conduct in government, community, business, and politic, and lifestyles effect our overall condition and standing in the world? What do you think!
90% of Muslims in the West get their news from commercial broadcast networks. We only know what the media tells us, and it seems like our collective responses are so scripted and choreographed, we might as well get paid for it and become members of the screen actors guild. We have threatened boycotts of western products for years, yet our own division and intolerance of each other, prevents us from up with viable alternatives. Every six months or so, some Muslim scholar, organization or politician calls for a boycott of American, British, Israeli or another western countries products. . A recent fatwa from a well known Muslim scholar demanded that Muslims boycott all American Products. I guess that means Chinese products too since a lot of the product sold in American are made in china. While we're at it, lets add Dubai to the list since they will now have a hand in managing several US ports. And aren't we still supposed to be boycotting the French because of the Hijaab ban? I guess we might as well boycott Turkey too since they also ban hijaab. Boycotting Sweden may be tough. I mean, who can compete with IKEA's prices and ingenuity? By the way, who's keeping track of the boycott targets? Where is the list? Can they email Muslim enemy of the week list to my Treo handset? Like to keep track of such things you know.
If the sum of what we are saying is, 'do not portray Islam in a negative way'. Are we not then responsible for ensuring that we as Muslims do not portray Islam in a negative way? If the answer is no, then we've abdicated responsibility for our own behavior, which to do so is unislamic. If the answer is yes, then the negative portrayals of Islam which we ourselves exhibit, i.e. the killing of innocents and non combatants, collective blaming for individual acts, racism within the Muslim community, rampant corruption, Muslim on Muslim killings, the proliferation of Muslim owned liquor stores, the absence of Muslims in the social services arena, inter-religious intolerance, public mudslinging, and unbridled rage are all issues for which we bear responsibility. In other words, if Joe Abdullah straps a bomb to his shoulder, walks into a grocery store, calls out the name of Allah (Allahu Akbar) and indiscriminately blows himself up along with twenty innocent bystanders who were just out doing a little shopping, and the Muslim community says and does nothing about it, any outsider could reasonably conclude that Joe Abdullah's actions represent Islam. After all, he did it in the name of Islam, and the Muslims didn't do anything about it. In Islamic law, the acquiescence (iqraar) of the Prophet towards an action, essentially sanctions it. Doesn't this rule apply to the rest of us?
No matter how much we try to avoid taking responsibility for our collective actions and behavior, the issue moral responsibility will always come back to bite us, erode any moral capital we have left, and invoke divine consequences upon us, unless we face up to it. We do after all; have a higher authority (Allah) to answer to. Oh yeah, remember Him? Well He's got going anywhere, and guess what? He has standards, and rules that govern behavior. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If we are going to use Islam as our raison de'tre, we must then also accept Islamic standards as governing criteria for our actions.
When was the last time that Muslims came out and apologized for anything, or admitted that we might be wrong about some of our methods, or choice of priorities, or assumed any responsibility for our condition? I know, even hinting that Muslims could be wrong about anything is risky, and possibly hazardous to one's health. But hey, I'm feeling a little adventurous today. Besides, somebody's gotta say it. No one besides Allah's Prophets (ASA) is immune from occasional lapses in judgment, blunders, mistakes, sins or outright stupidity. If the practices of the Prophet Muhammad serve as any standard for Muslims, as Imam Zaid Shakir adeptly elucidated in a recent article, .hatred, anger, revenge, rage, and puritanical oppression, are not always the best catalysts for action. Anger has its place. However, it wasn't something the Prophet prioritized. On the contrary, he emphasized the contrary. A man came to the Prophet and asked for advice. The Prophet replied: "Do not get angry". The man returned repeatedly and each time the Prophet replied: "do not get angry".
Negative emotions tend to take on a life of their own. We have become so accustomed to employing anger as an organizing staple, that many Muslims leaders are now finding that the only platform upon which they can motivate masses of Muslims is by tapping into their reservoir of fury. Find a common enemy, or common target of anger, you've got yourself thousands in the streets. Make an appeal for Muslims unity or curbing sectarianism and you get lip service, and photo-ops. Perhaps we're suffering from post traumatic stress disorder at the loss of the caliphate, or maybe we're still a little lightheaded from fasting during the month of Ramadan or who knows, maybe we're bored. I' m certain that with a billion Muslims on the planet, we can come up with some issues on our own, or sustainable, practical agendas to better our condition with Allah's help. I guess until that happens, we'll just have to wait and see what the next issue of the week is going to be. As a parting note, I do have one humble request; next time, can we schedule our response closer to the actual time of the occurrence? I like my issues fresh. And hold the mustard please.
Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad is an Imam and freelance writer on the East Coast USA. He can be reached at imamabulaith@yahoo.com
Interesting views from an imam.
Cheers.
The islamists are using "fake rage" just like the liberals do in our country regarding all things conservative. The islamists must be reading the NY Times and learning.
Can you believe this? What century is this, Ahmad ?! These people are reality-challenged psychotics, the whole bunch of them. (And this lovely American Imam was trying to be diplomatic !) .
Very good! Good points, sarcastic, funny.
Thanks for the ping!
(btw - what do you think about Ms Verdonk?)
Here's another article by him.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16118
pong
Unusual to such a viewpoint expressed in such a way at Islamicity.
About Verdonk:
Not sure. I haven't followed her closely enough to make a good judgment. Anyhow...
She is trying to get a handle on a set of very tough issues. Some of what she has done has been couragous and right. Other stuff have been way over the top: Like the talk about outlawing anything, but Dutch being spoken in the streets.
She has been shot at. At any rate her office has. Perhaps, she should have higher priorities with the militants and fundantalists, than with gay Iranians. Then again, from what I am reading, Amsterdam seems to already be getting pretty unsafe for gays as it is.
Perhaps, she is getting carried away by her "Iron Rita" nickname.
What do you think?
You might be interested in this article, too.
"I'll have a multifaith Danish (with lavish sprinkles of tolerance, respect and humor)"
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2006/02/ill_have_a_mult.php#more
This guy is sane. I would like to know his bio. Will any of his fellow muslims hear him?
I LOVE IT!!!
Ms Verdonk?
Verdonk....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1589836/posts
BTW - check out the link in #6 too
I think he was born in Philadelphia to muslim parents
"What do you think?"
Verdonk not only thinks it's perfectly safe to send gay's back to Iran, but also to send converted christians back.
She's dangerous, sounds like a biogot and should lose her job.
The first word that comes to mind is....insane.
If he doesn't have good security, his bio is probably close to its endpoint....
From Wikipedia:
Policy
Verdonk has proposed the following plans, that have raised controversy:
In order to reduce migration because of marriage, she has proposed that partners of Dutch citizens are only allowed to immigrate into the Netherlands if the Dutch partner earns more than 130% of the minimum income.
She refused to grant pardon to 26,000 asylum seekers who lived in the Netherlands for over 5 years but who were not be granted asylum.
To integrate migrants into the Dutch society, every person who wants to immigrate into the Netherlands must have passed an integration test. It tests knowledge of the Dutch language, political system and social conventions. The test must be taken before entering the Netherlands, preferably in a Dutch Embassy in the country of origin. "Oudkomers", migrants who have lived in the Netherlands for a long time, but are not "integrated", are also requested to take the exam.
She was called to parliament for the following issues:
In October 2005, the Immigration & Naturalisation Services provided information to refugees home-countries about asylum requests. This risked that when refugees were denied and send back to their homecountry (in this case Congo) they could possibly be tortured by their government, but no proof of this was provided by any party. Verdonk maintains that no sensitive information was transferred [1] in accordance with the findings of a special committee (Commissie Havermans) [2].
In December 2005, a cell-complex for denied refugees at Amsterdam airport burned down, 11 refugees died, surviving refugees reported that they had to wait more than 45 minutes before released from their cell. Verdonk stated before investigation on the fire was completed that prison workers handled adequately under the circumstances.
As a minister Verdonk has proposed the following, without it becoming policy yet:
In October 2005 Verdonk proposed a ban on Muslim women wearing the burka in public places, on the grounds that the burka, which covers the face, is a security risk since suicide bombers could use it as a disguise.
She also cancelled a meeting with Dutch Muslim leaders when some of them wouldn't shake hands with her, being a woman. She has said that "the time for cosy tea-drinking" Muslim groups had passed.
In January 2006, Verdonk proposed the adoption of a national code of conduct, listing the most important conventions of Dutch society, to facilitate the integration of migrants. She was inspired by a similar initiative undertaken by the Rotterdam municipality.
Upon receiving Dutch citizenship, immigrants would have to be able to sing the national anthem, the Wilhelmus.
In March 2006, Verdonk proposed to send homosexual asylum seekers from Iran back because they are no longer prosecuted, despite the fact that acts of homosexual acts are still punishable by death. Note that homosexuality in itself is not punishable by death sentence in Iran.
She's a dangerous menace, and should be relieved of her duties.
A perceptive remark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.