In the Wake of "Obsession" Hate-DVDs: Muslim Children Gassed in Ohio Mosque | MuslimMatters.org
For the last few years the Daily Express, in the UK, has been running a front-page hate campaign against Muslims, continually harping on every petty concession they hear Muslims have received from some council or other, and crowing about every purported move to "get tough" on Muslims, as with the cover story on the most recent Sunday Express. My contention has been that media vilifications of ethnic or religious groups can lead to violence, and said as much in my letter two months ago to Standpoint, which they finally got round to printing in the most recent edition. While they printed most of the letter, they omitted that bit, despite the low hum of violence which has sounded for the last few years: an imam blinded in London, another suffering brain damage, a mosque being destroyed in Basildon, a man threatened with a chainsaw in Bolton, and this past weekend, a Muslim cemetery vandalised in Southall, west London.
Recently, a pro-Israeli group paid various newspapers in "swing" states in the upcoming American Presidential election, including Ohio, to distribute a propaganda DVD called Obsession, which features interviews with one anti-Muslim "expert" after another and essentially portrays Muslims as Nazis. Some editors have refused to distribute it, and have faced accusations of "censorship", as if newspapers did not have to make judgements from day to day (or week to week) on what to publish and what to hold, and as if the film cannot be downloaded for free off YouTube. It's such a coincidence that last Friday night, a mosque was attacked in Dayton, Ohio. The thugs - terrorists, to some minds - who did this did not just pour petrol through the letterbox at night and set fire to the place; oh no, they sprayed a "chemical irritant" into the building while people were praying their taraweeh.
It can't be proven, of course, that this happened as a direct result of someone watching Obsession, given that there have also been various hate attacks on mosques and individual Muslims since 9/11 (and even before that, particularly after the Oklahoma City bombings, which were initially blamed on Muslims). Perhaps the perpetrators were more influenced by garbage they had been listening to on the radio. After all, it is highly likely that the people who vandalise cemeteries, burn mosques and attack Muslims in the UK have never heard of, much less watched, this video. What is likely is that they had seen what the Daily Express had spewed on its front page, or similar sensationalist anti-Muslim stories which appear in the Sun from time to time.
They routinely call for crackdowns on free speech. In the USA, that is impossible because of the First Amendment. In the UK, we have no Constitution, and no equivalent of the American Bill of Rights, and the right to free speech can be torn up with a majority of one in the House of Commons. After the 2005 bombings, Tony Blair promised to ban Hizb-ut-Tahreer and al-Muhajiroun; in the event, it did not ban the former. What they have banned, as a result of the vexatious antics of a small minority of idiots who are given prominence out of proportion to their numbers by the popular press, is speech "glorifying" terrorism, a law which has not greatly reduced the rantings of the former Muhajiroun, but has put the chills on theatre companies who want to put on plays about the subject, for example.
Nobody reading this could have missed the reports about a down-turn in the global economy, banks going bust, being bailed-out or being nationalised. It tends to happen that at times of crisis or hardship, people look for easy targets for blame and it becomes easier to foment hate. Admittedly, Muslims are not generally associated with finance, as Jews were in the early 20th century, but we have a political party in the UK, the British National Party, which aims to take advantage of any crisis in order to gain influence and advance its agenda of hate and fascism. Despite a few murmurings on talk shows such as Eddie Nestor's and Big George's last night on BBC London about why those who have wrecked companies are getting seven-figure bonuses while ordinary people who had done such a thing would get the sack, and why big banks who go under get bailed-out while small companies are allowed to die, it is unlikely (albeit possible) that there will be a wave of public anger against the financial system. The trend since the 1980s has been for the public's anger to be focussed downwards, on "benefit scroungers", single mothers, and allegedly noisy ethnic and religious minorities. It would be only too easy for violence to be occasioned by a front-page story about some misdeed by a Muslim, or group of Muslims, at a time of widespread economic hardship.
Even if this does not happen, it is unjust that a minority should face restrictions on free speech and the free practice of religion because of public hostility stirred up by a profit-making newspaper. To borrow a slogan from the mid-1970s: who governs Britain? The answer should be: the government. It should not allow its hand to be forced by the gutter press. While I am sure many people would prefer to see a proper constitutional guarantee of free speech introduced in this country, and nobody wishes to see censorship (including me), while we do not have such a guarantee, it is in the government's gift to clamp down on rabble-rousing newspapers. Therefore, in the interests of public safety, and particularly that of my own community, the government should do such in the case of the Daily Express (and put the Sun on notice).
If you are concerned that "villification leads to violence", then why not denounce the hate-preaching of the Imams uncovered in "Undercover Mosque" (rather than those who uncovered them)? Why not denounce, for that matter, the hatred of "unbelievers", particularly Jews, in the Koran itself?
The Dayton 'attack' now appears to have been a hoax.
Given that Muslims represent a tiny, weeny minority of the population of the UK, they do seem to have caused rather a lot of strife when say, compared to the Jewish community which is only slightly smaller.
If one needs evidence of villification leading to violence, one only need listen to a popular nasheed sung in and outside the mosque prior to gathering for Salaat ul-Eid il-Fitr:
الله اكبر الله اكبر الله اكبر لا اله الا الله
الله اكبر الله اكبر ولله الحمد
الله اكبر كبيرا والحمد لله كثيرا وسبحان الله بكرة واصيلا ولا اله الا الله وحده
صدق وعده ونصر عبده وعز جنده وهزم الاحزاب وحده لا اله الا الله
ولا نعبد الا اياه مخلصين له الدين ولو كره الكافرون
اللهم صلي على سيدنا محمد
وعلى آل سيدنا محمد
وعلى اصحاب سيدنا محمد
وعلى ازواج سيدنا محمد
وعلى انصار سيدنا محمد
وعلى ابناء سيدنا محمد
وعلى ذرية سيدنا محمد وسلم تسليما كثيرا
The part about 'Allah hating the disbelievers' is particularly villifying and no doubt it doesn't lead to any violence against non-Muslims whatsoever. Yes, the stultifying spectacle of fathers urging their impressionable young charges to recite such bigotry is truly edifying and no doubt sows the seeds for a childhood fostered with respect for religious plurality.
Whilst the gutter press choose to obfuscate the true origins of violence grounded in Islam, they waste precious newsface with titillating titbits.
Just like other innocents mistaken for paedophiles, many Muslims have suffered directly from the rantings of these tired hacks.
Let us instead have a proper debate in the media over this new-found appetite for Muslim-bashing stories. Why are they so popular? Why do Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists not feature so prominently in such dubious fayre?
The Dayton 'attack' now appears to have been a hoax.
No, it doesn't. A can of pepper spray was found near the mosque, so perhaps that's all it was, which would perhaps make it a prank rather than a terrorist or hate attack, but not a hoax, unless those who were overcome with it while they were praying were lying.
Given that Muslims represent a tiny, weeny minority of the population of the UK, they do seem to have caused rather a lot of strife when say, compared to the Jewish community which is only slightly smaller.
This overlooks the contribution of some Jews to strife abroad, i.e. agitating on behalf of Israel, holidaying there, in some cases moving there and joining the Israeli army. Those who have "caused strife" are a small minority and often they are given undue prominence by the media, i.e. the al-Muhajiroun types, because they sell papers.
If one needs evidence of villification leading to violence, one only need listen to a popular nasheed sung in and outside the mosque prior to gathering for Salaat ul-Eid il-Fitr:
Where have you heard it sung? Egypt? That is the first time I've heard that particular song.
Whilst the gutter press choose to obfuscate the true origins of violence grounded in Islam, they waste precious newsface with titillating titbits. Just like other innocents mistaken for paedophiles, many Muslims have suffered directly from the rantings of these tired hacks. Let us instead have a proper debate in the media over this new-found appetite for Muslim-bashing stories. Why are they so popular? Why do Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists not feature so prominently in such dubious fayre?
As far as I am concerned, the gutter press prints these stories because it sells copy to their ill-educated readership, and similar anger-raising stories are a staple of the popular press, such as stories about the frustration caused by health and safety laws or "reverse discrimination" against whites in police recruitment. Muslims have not been the only target - one recalls the periodic anti-Gypsy campaigns and the whole "foreign criminal" affair which led to people being rounded up after having served sentences years ago, the reason being that (a) crap sells and (b) the government will run scared.
That's true as far as the pepper spray is concerned. Most rational people would condemn such actions, as do I. But, as you rightly question, are they unequivocally the result of villification of Muslims in the press? Was this an orchestrated hate attack on a relgious minority or random evil? I used the word hoax as the story rapidly spread across the Net only for it to 'disappear' off the radar of the MSM as soon as the hate crime aspect was challenged. Perhaps I was foolhardy to use such a loaded term in the context of what is an extremely sensitive piece of news...
Jews are only a source of strife for SOME Muslims. The majority of the other inhabitants of planet earth feel no such antipathy towards this religious minority. Indeed, even al-Qur'an praises the children of Israel on several occasions.
"Those who have "caused strife" are a small minority and often they are given undue prominence by the media, i.e. the al-Muhajiroun types, because they sell papers."
I disagree. Whilst the vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims do not take part in terrorist violence or conduct hate campaigns against other human beings, a significant and vocal minority do. These people spout their bigoted invective on a daily basis and curtail the freedoms of the indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles as well as those recent arrivals who do not share their ideology. Moreover, the lifestyle, religious beliefs and cultural mores of the majority lead to the villification of other non-Muslim groups all too often. IMO, this is why people are so keen to read Muslim-bashing articles. Alas, being chased around the land of my ancestors by a crazed bunch of bile-spewing Sylhetis with my wife in tow did not make the front pages, but I'm sure that had this episode been published, two things would have happened: three people would now be dead and another disturbing aspect of Muslim 'culture' would have whetted the appetites of Express readers.
"Where have you heard it sung? Egypt? That is the first time I've heard that particular song."
You won't hear it in the UK except for a few mainly Arab patronised masjids. Try Baker St. next Yoam ul-Adhaa.
You can hear this particular nasheed in the Yemen, Egypt, Syria and Turkey. I haven't heard it in Morocco or Jordan and can't speak for the Gulf.
I concur with your reasons for the kind of tripe found in the Express et al. Yet, Islam-inspired terrorism appears to be a global phenomenon and avid newsreaders are catered for by all kinds of media, not just the trash.
IMO until we can have an HONEST debate on the origins of 'Islamophobia' and 'Occidentophobia', we're just biding our time.
This overlooks the contribution of some Jews to strife abroad, i.e. agitating on behalf of Israel, holidaying there, in some cases moving there and joining the Israeli army.
Is that the best you can do? Yes, because that's the best anyone can do when it comes to the Jews. "Agitating" - in the UK entirely non-violently - on behalf of a tiny country the size of Wales. Going on holiday there. Scary or what? Going to join their army, as opposed to killing fellow Britons. Really scary.
Apart from that, Jews are entirely peaceful, very intelligent, productive members of the community, underrepresented in crime, unemployment etc.
If all Muslims did was "agitate" on behalf of a tiny country, holiday there and move there - that would be perfectly fine. Nobody would give a monkey's.
The Dayton story is not a hoax. Period. Why are some right-wing bloggers so eager to believe that one? Hmmm...
And what you allege to be a "song" is not a "song", for God's sake, that's the takbiraat said in masjids on Eid-- the long version-- and you are deliberately misrepresenting it. Most mosques stop at Allahu akbar wa li-laahi l-Hamd". It does NOT say ANYTHING about Allah "hating the disbelievers!
It says in this line:
ولا نعبد الا اياه مخلصين له الدين ولو كره الكافرون
"And we don't worship any except Him (God), sincere to Him in our religion, EVEN IF THE DISBLIEVERS HATE IT (wa law kariha l-kaafiroon)".
There is absolutely NO linguistic way the sentence can be interpreted in the way you allege, so don't even try it. You obviously know nothing about Arabic grammar. The sentence would have to be completely different for it to mean what you allege.
You are also clearly an extreme novice at the Arabic language. It's "Salaatu `eiidi l-fiTr". Not "Salaat ul-Eid il-Fitr". You would have to leave the "Fitr" part off to say "Salaatu l-`eiid". The former expression is rarely used anyway. So you don't even know this very basic rule of iDaafah, and yet you believe yourself qualified to interpret a standard, orthodox prayer in this inflammatory way!? Clearly, you are neither qualified in knowledge nor in good faith to do so.
Stop posting hate under a fake "Muslim" name, referring to yourself as an "Imam" no less. Br. Indigo Jo, please take note of this fool's IP address.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I checked it and he is posting from Cairo. I cannot ban an IP address because every time someone logs in to an ISP, they get a new IP address - this is called DHCP and almost all dial-in and broadband internet services use it. If I were to ban that IP address, I would just ban the next unlucky person to get that address when they log in.
It's a sad reflection on our times that anyone (even Muslims) who questions anything to do with Islam and its adherents are labelled as 'right-wing'...
"The Dayton story is not a hoax. Period. Why are some right-wing bloggers so eager to believe that one? Hmmm..."
Leaving aside the word 'hoax', according to the media, and especially the local paper, there was no evidence of a hate crime...so this story can hardly be used as an example media villification leading to violence.
I (sort of) apologised for using the word 'hoax' before as I think it's rather loaded. The way the story spread across the Internet though and was picked up by many mainstream Islamic sites despite the lack of credible evidence suggesting an 'anti-Muslim' motivation does lead one to query the incident. If I'm being right-wing by bringing this up then so be it.
You are quite right, of course, to highlight my naivite as far as the Arabic language is concerned: my egregious mistake as far as the nasheed or takbir-type invocation by reading something into it that wasn't there is unforgivable on my part. I guess I've just heard the word kaafiroon, put it together with the word's contextual connotations in the Islamic canons and seen the red mist. Thank you for clearing this up and pointing out my deficiency.
Likewise, you rightly state that the word 'Fitr' is not an adjective describing 'Eid' but the final component in the genitive construct; Eid is already definite by virtue of the syntax and requires no definite article. My apologies again and thank you for underscoring my deficiency in this area.
As far as 'believ(ing) (my)self qualified to interpret a standard, orthodox prayer in this inflammatory way!?' is concerned, I wasn't aware that I was 'interpreting' any 'prayer'; wasn't I merely using the anomalous title of 'Salaat ul-Eid il-Fitr' as a point of reference in which to higlight the oration of the nasheed or takbir-type invocation which I so egregiously mistranslated?
I appreciate that you may have taken umbrage with my opinions, my fallacious mistranslation and transliteration, but surely anyone is free to interpret thinks however they wish; after all, you have just interpreted my mistakes as malice towards Islam.
"Clearly, you are neither qualified in knowledge nor in good faith to do so."
Nonetheless, I can assure you of my good intentions towards all mankind by posting on this site and others.
"Stop posting hate under a fake "Muslim" name, referring to yourself as an "Imam" no less. Br. Indigo Jo, please take note of this fool's IP address."
I've already established elsewhere that, whilst Imam Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi is not a pseudonym, it's not my full name. As for using the honorific 'Imam', not only is it part of my name, anyone who leads a prayer is entitled to be referred to as an Imam, regardless of their mistakes in Arabic grammar or Arabic to English transliteration. One might be called Shaykah but have no Islamic academic qualifications whatsoever.
As I have made clear elsewhere, the proprietor of this site is entitled to ask me not to post and I would accede to his wishes should that be required.
Whilst I find your tone and insinuations a trifle harsh, I fully grasp the import of your posting and am gratified to have learnt something along the way.
As far as villification of Muslims in the media is concerned and whether this correlates to violence against Muslims, then I would say that it certainly has a bearing on the actions of a small minority of people who are led to commit acts of premeditated or unpremeditated inhumanity. Nonetheless, this week, we have have seen the other side of the coin, where an author has written disingenuously about Muhammad's wife's age at consummation only for the mere idea of a book being written on the subject to lead a savage trio to try to incinerate the UK publisher.
Whilst the book does not 'villify' the Prophet of Islam in any way shape or form, it deliberately falsifies key information surrounding the main protagonists; but then it is fiction after all. This is but another example of violence inspired by Islam. The very fact that the individuals concerned are being dealt with fairly under the auspices of the British justice system sends a powerful message to individuals, countries and organisations that seek to undermine liberty for all but subvert it for their own nefarious ends when it suits them.