Posted on 12/14/2004 8:30:01 AM PST by Pikamax
We need protection from the pedlars of religious hatred By Iqbal Sacranie (Filed: 14/12/2004)
In his column last Saturday, Charles Moore began with an almost unbelievably provocative question. "Was the prophet Mohammed a paedophile?" he asked.
The charge of paedophilia refers to Mohammed's marriage with Aisha. Yet a paedophile is one who is primarily aroused by children. For most of his married life, the Prophet (peace be upon him) had one wife, who was a widow with children of her own. After her death, he married others, most of whom were former widows themselves. Why would the Prophet have waited three years after his betrothal to Aisha – his only virgin bride – if not because he was waiting for her to attain puberty?
So the charge of paedophilia is nonsense; and, to be fair, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph acknowledged as much in his next paragraph. "People are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile," he wrote. Even so, the conjunction of the Prophet's name and this particular crime will have shocked Muslim readers.
As it happens, poetry in the Muslim world - and, in particular, that of the Urdu poet Allama Iqbal – abounds in complaints and reproaches made to God Almighty. Few poets, however, would dare to cast aspersions upon the name and memory of the blessed Prophet Mohammed. Witness the Persian couplet: Ba khuda deewana basho, Ba Muhammad hoshyar (Take liberty with God if you wish, but be careful with Mohammed).
European writers, though, have a history of taking liberties with the Prophet. As Minou Reeves, a former Iranian diplomat, observes in her book Mohammed in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making: "Over the course of no fewer than 13 centuries, a stubbornly biased and consistently negative outlook had persisted, permeating deep levels of European consciousness. In the works of an overwhelming majority of European writers, Mohammed was portrayed as a man of deep moral faults. Churchmen, historians, orientalists, biographers, philosophers, dramatists, poets and politicians alike had sought to attribute to Islam, and especially to Mohammed, fanatical and disreputable, even demonic characteristics."
It is no easy task to convey to a secular audience the immense love and esteem in which Muslims hold the Prophet. To us, he was the restorer of the worship of the One True God; teacher of an elegant and pristine monotheism; the friend of the orphans and the poor; a wise statesman, brave warrior, loving father, considerate husband; he was also the final of God's Prophets sent to mankind to remind us of the awesome Day of Judgment, when all will be called to account for the deeds we have committed during our lifetimes.
Anyway, back to Mr Moore. We seem to be revisiting the arguments that came to the fore during the Satanic Verses affair. Is freedom of expression without bounds? Muslims are not alone in saying "No" and calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs. Earlier this year, the BBC accepted complaints from Catholics and withdrew its cartoon series Popetown. Why does society not show the same courtesy and sensitivity towards Muslims?
As you may have gathered, Mr Moore disapproves of the Government's proposal to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, seeing it as an "attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam". Quite what "privilege" Islam currently enjoys in Britain over and above other faiths, he does not say.
Yet the proposed legislation does not create a new offence as such. Such an offence already exists in relation to the Jewish and Sikh communities, by dint of their being regarded as mono-ethnic communities. It also exists in relation to all faith and belief communities in Northern Ireland. The Home Office proposal simply extends the current provisions to all faith communities in mainland Britain. If the present provisions in relation to Jews, Sikhs and Northern Ireland raise no concerns - and there is no real campaign to remove these provisions - why should they raise concerns if extended to other religions in Britain?
So, the incitement to religious hatred proposal is not a matter of advancing privileges for British Muslims. It's about establishing equality under the law.
The current loophole in our legislation has resulted in far Right groups such as the BNP modifying their racist rhetoric of yesteryear - no doubt out of fear of prosecution - into a more explicitly and aggressively anti-Muslim invective, this time without fear of breaking the law.
Stirring up hatred against people simply because of their religious beliefs or lack of them ought to be regarded as a social evil. The BNP's ongoing Islamophobia can and has led to criminal acts, abuse, discrimination, fear and disorder. At the moment, there are laws against those who are stirred into committing these offences, but not against those that do the stirring. In opposing the incitement to religious hatred provision, Charles Moore, Rowan Atkinson and the National Secular Society are unwittingly strengthening the hand of those, such as the BNP, who peddle religious hatred.
Quite a few red herrings have been floated this past week about free speech and the dangers of censorship. To be sure, proscribing legitimate free speech is not in the interest of any religion. The death of discussion, debate and robust criticism about a religion is the surest way of routing that religion itself. However, we can make a critical distinction between the substance and form of free speech. The law need not infringe on the substance but can assist to moderate the form, so that all people in this country, whatever their religion, may live in dignity, free from hatred and hostility.
As Martin Luther King observed: "The law might not change the hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." Modern Britain, like the rest of Europe, is now home to millions of Muslims. Some may have sought political refuge in our more democratic societies, some migrating for economic reasons.
Whatever their motives, they are now a part of the social fabric that constitutes these societies. Muslims in Britain do not seek to create an enclave or a parallel culture. They want to be respected as British. That is what they are. And the government that sees and treats them as such, by criminalising offences directed specifically at them, is a government that understands its obligations.
Iqbal Sacranie is secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain
A prophet of BeelzAllah the Unmerciful.
Right, a Satanic death cult to be exact. Those "angels" Mohamed met in that desert cave were not God's holy angels, they were some of Satan's corp of demons.
...everyone thinks/believes/interprets that the prince of darkness is red with horns...wrong!
How about a prophet who has his adopted son divorce the adopted son's wife so the prophet can marry her? Is this a prophet of God?
>>>
Foolishness gone to seed ... and murder.
It's actually very easy: Mohammed was the perfect man, ideal in every way; the role model for all male human beings. And if you say anything bad about him, they cut off your head. And don't dare criticize his marriage to a 9-year-old (whom he liked so much, he slept with her more than his other, older wives, which made them angry) and don't dare critize his terrorist tactics to suppress dissent (murdering poets) and don't dare criticize his caravan raids and genocidal style of warfare.
There, in three sentences I summed it up.
From the horse's mouth. The voice of the muslim himself. Can it be any plainer? How can the islamists' intentions be otherwise construed? Either fight this or live under tyranny and religious law. Death before Shari'ah!
One who rides a bicycal?
Haven't you heard of the Riddlar?
...the Fiddlar on the Roof?
...a snake called a "Rattlar"?
Where have you been? ;-)
False prophet, false god, false religion. Islam is a sick, twisted cult, and an ongoing threat to the civilized world. Mohammed (diss be upon him)was a bloodthirsty pedophile. Truth hurts, but there it is.
***********
I thought it was an error as well, but..
One entry found for peddler.
Main Entry: ped·dler
Variant(s): also ped·lar /'ped-l&r/
Function: noun
in a related story, the history channel has started airing that commercial depicting other churchs as racist homophobes. It the commercial for that unitarian "gay" church or something...
So the charge of paedophilia is nonsense
****************
Well. That was quick work.
I suspect that, like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, he found himself in a certain station in life where he realized that HE was the only one defining morality, and that morality was only what he said it was.
King David had Uriah offed in order to get Bathsheba. Who was the mother of Solomon, btw.
David sincerely repented. Mad Mo just went on to slaughter more innocents in his demented bloodlust.
Excellent post. One for the archives.
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.