American Muslims - Voice of the Muslims in America

CAIR Speaks about Abdul Rahman

2006-03-24T18:55:00.000-08:00

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has called for the release of Abdul Rahman, stating the obvious position most Muslims take, that religious conversion is a personal matter and should not be dealt with by the government.

CAIR Calls For Release Of Afghan Christian

“Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion. Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, such as:

1) ‘If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?’ (10:99)
2) ‘(O Prophet) proclaim: 'This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.'’ (18:29)
3) ‘If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.’ (42:48)
4) ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion.’ (2:256)

“Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention. Faith imposed by force is not true belief, but coercion. Islam has no need to compel belief in its divine truth. As the Quran states: ‘Truth stands out clear from error. Therefore, whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.’ (2:256)

“We urge the government of Afghanistan to order the immediate release of Mr. Abdul Rahman.”

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, and got council from Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law.

Those who are calling for this man's death are very wrong.

CAIR is a good organization who are doing their part to fight against hate, sign the petition today to help correct misperceptions of Islam and the Islamic stance on religiously-motivated terrorism.

Tags: Abdul Rahman

Muslims Converting to Christianity

2006-03-24T00:33:00.000-08:00

I wanted to point readers to this article which details why the Afghani courts are wrong to put a Abdul Rahman on trial for converting to Christiantiy.

Some Thoughts on Muslims Converting to Christianity and Vice-Versa

The Qur'an says, "There is no compulsion in religion, truth stands clear from error".[1] A person who leaves Islam is thus exercising that free choice and no one will shoulder the results of such a choice but himself.

There is no compulsion to be Muslim, if you are Muslim, it is of your own volition. If God wants you to follow the path of Islam, you will find yourself there. But no one should ever say they have the authority to put a man on trial for acting out of his own free will. This goes against the peaceful nature of Islam and should not be accepted in the Muslim world.

There is a particular verse from Surah 2 in the Quran, Al Baqarah, or the Cow, that I am often reminded of when I hear of the harm being done to Islam by people using Islam in a hurtful and mean fashion. (This is of couse a translation)

78. And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

80. And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of Allah what ye do not know?"

81. Nay, those who seek gain in evil, and are girt round by their sins,- they are companions of the Fire: Therein shall they abide (For ever).

The verse is saying to not twist the words from the Quran to use for your own purposes, which is what those who justify killing, and injustice in the name of Islam are doing. They should know that God knows and sees all things, and they will be punished for their wrong doings.

Tags: abdul rahman, quran

"We will kill every last one of you" : A woman leaves a threatening letter at a mosque

2006-02-25T22:35:00.000-08:00

According to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), on February 3 a woman left a flyer at the Islamic Center of Claremont in Pomona, California, that contained the threat

"We will kill every last one of you. . .We are at WAR."

CAIR also said in a statement, that "vandalism or other possible bias-related incidents have been reported recently at mosques in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida, Texas, Nebraska, California, and New York. In December of last year, bombs damaged an Ohio mosque."

All I will like to say is that all five fingers aren't the same. People need to be more tolerable towards each other.

What is the world coming to?

Frank

O Allah (God), I offer my honor and life to You

2006-02-25T22:29:00.000-08:00

"The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) once said: 'Can't anyone of you be like Abu Damdam?' His companions asked: 'Who is Abu Damdam, O Messenger of God?' The Prophet replied: 'When he gets up in the morning he says, 'O God, I offer my honor and life to You,' so that he would not abuse those who abused him, nor would he wrong those who wronged him, or hit those who hit him.'"
Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Volume 4, Number 115

This is indeed a very promising Hadith. Who else can protect our honor and life more than Allah.

Allah (God) forgives all sins

2006-02-25T22:13:00.000-08:00

"Say: 'O My servants who have transgressed against your own souls, do not despair of God's mercy, for God forgives all sins. It is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.'"

The Holy Quran, 39:53

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "I would not trade this verse for the whole world."

Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 752

Wikipedia = The Assholepedia

2006-02-17T18:27:00.000-08:00

There I said it in the title that Wikipedia is the AssHoleRacistpedia.

Why? You may ask?

Because Wikipedia (AssHoleRacistpedia) is fueling the fire by publishing the cartoons. I hate Wikipedia for how its benefitting from the cartoons and how some Asshole wikipedians are not letting people edit the cartoon entries.

Shame on you Wikipedia. Shame on your Asshole management.

You are a racist organization and some racists control your policies.

Prophet cartoons, Mohammed Cartoons

Clinton says cartoons 'a mistake'

2006-02-17T18:26:00.000-08:00

BBC is reporting:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Clinton says cartoons 'a mistake': "Former US president Bill Clinton has said the publication in the West of cartoons satirising Prophet Muhammad was a mistake."

Plan to Attack Iran Revealed!

2006-02-16T22:57:00.000-08:00

I have been wondering why Iran has been in news so much recently. I mean the real reason why all the politicians are talking about Iran and today this article confirms my worst fears.

Revealed: Pentagon plot to attack Iran|18Feb06|Socialist Worker: "The White House is preparing to extend its war to Iran.

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for “a last resort” strike. “This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment,” said a senior Pentagon adviser. “This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.”

Tacticians at central command and strategic command, who report to US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have made up plans for an assault and are “identifying targets, assessing weapon loads and working on logistics for an operation”.

More than 100 US bombers, many based on carriers in the Gulf, could take part in a huge simultaneous surprise air attack on 20 key nuclear and military facilities.

George Bush has refused to rule out military action and said that Iran’s nuclear ambitions “will not be tolerated”.

According to a new report by Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, the proposed attack would result in “a protracted military confrontation” involving Israel, Lebanon and some Gulf states that could result in 10,000 deaths."

© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

Frank

British troops 'abusing' Iraqi prisoners in a new video

2006-02-12T10:42:00.000-08:00

For some reason, I am not shocked at all:

Video shows British troops 'abusing' Iraqi prisoners : "Yet another video footage purportedly showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers has come to light, triggering a fresh controversy over the conduct of western troops in the war-ravaged country.Hours after the news of the footage was published in the widely circulated The News of the World, the Ministry of Defence ordered a probe into the images which appeared to show UK soldiers brutally beating a group of Iraqi teenagers. The newspaper says the video was shot in southern Iraq in 2004. "

This is really horrible. These bastards should be tried and fired from the military.

Frank

Jyllands-Posten Mohammed Cartoon- Putting an end to Riots

2006-02-08T05:37:00.000-08:00

Islamic Groups Call for End to Riots - AP

Islamic Groups Call for End to Riots - Yahoo! News: "'Islam says it's all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop,' said senior cleric Mohammed Usman, a member of the Ulama Council —
Afghanistan's top Islamic organization. 'We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam.'"

I agree that although Muslims should demonstrate, there should be NO VIOLENCE involved. Muslims worldwide should demonstrate in a peaceful and more civilized way. Burning buildings or resorting to voilence is not the solution.

Frank

Jyllands-Posten Mohammed Cartoon: Freedom to spread hate?

2006-02-07T17:56:00.000-08:00

Another great article:

Freedom to spread hate?

Should free speech extend to Nazi leader Nick Griffin?

The furore over the Danish cartoons shows the growth of Islamophobia, writes Alex Callinicos

Free speech has suddenly jumped to the top of the political agenda. This is mainly because of the spreading protests provoked by the decision of a number of right wing European newspapers to reprint offensive cartoons portraying the prophet Mohammed that first appeared in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.

But the issue of freedom of speech was also at the heart of the trial of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett, leaders of the Nazi British National Party.

They were acquitted last week on charges of incitement after calling Islam a “vicious, wicked faith” and comparing asylum seekers to cockroaches.

This verdict makes left wing opponents of the Religious Hatred Bill look pretty stupid.

They had argued that extending to Muslims the same protection against bigotry and incitement to religious hatred that Christians, Sikhs and Jews currently enjoy was unnecessary since any serious cases would be covered by existing law.

But a key element of Griffin’s and Collett’s defence was that they had attacked Islam as a religion, and not Muslims on racial grounds, and therefore hadn’t broken existing legislation that makes incitement to racial hatred a crime.

This kind of specious distinction ignores the fact that since 11 September 2001 Islamophobia has become the most visible – and “respectable” – form of racism in the Western world.

Muslims, whose origins can be traced overwhelmingly to Africa, Asia and the Middle East, are subject to the same kind of demeaning and humiliating stereotypes from which, historically, Irish and black people have suffered in Britain and the US.

The Danish cartoon row illustrates this very clearly. Denmark can boast probably the most right wing government in Europe.

Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen holds power thanks to the support of the viciously anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party. Denmark has troops in Iraq.

This is the climate in which Jyllands-Posten decided to “provoke a debate” by publishing cartoons doubly insulting to Muslims because they depicted Mohammed and associated him with terrorism. Fogh refused to meet Arab ambassadors who complained about the cartoons.

It is not true, as some idiot on the radio said the other day, that Islam prohibits all images.

As anyone who has read Orhan Pamuk’s novel My Name is Red will know, the great Muslim states that dominated western Asia in the 16th and 17th centuries – the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires – developed very rich traditions of visual art.

But when the prophet appeared in these pictures, his face was always blank. To portray him full-face wearing a turban with a bomb in it, as Jyllands-Posten did, was a direct insult to Muslims.

No limits?

The papers such as Die Welt in Germany and France-Soir that reprinted the cartoons last week justified this on the grounds that free speech is an “absolute”. This is complete rubbish.

If there are no limits to free speech, would it be okay for newspapers to publish child pornography on their front pages? And is the only reason why they don’t do this that they would be prosecuted? The answer to both these questions is of course no.

Freedom of speech is an important value in a democratic society, but everyone acknowledges that there are limits to it.

The US supreme court has developed the doctrine of “fighting words”, “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite a breach of the peace” and therefore are not covered by the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment to the constitution of the US.

Socialists argue that fascists like Griffin shouldn’t be given a platform because their racist propaganda isn’t just the expression of an opinion.

It is a means of developing a mass movement that attacks members of racial minorities and anti-fascists. It aims to seize power and repeat Hitler’s barbarities.

Many commentators have compared the Danish cartoons row with the furore provoked by Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel The Satanic Verses. In it Rushdie presented a fictional, alternative history of the origins of Islam.

The book caused great offence among Muslims, including many in Britain, and led to the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a judgment (fatwa) condemning Rushdie to death.

There is no comparison between The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons. The latter are crude attempts to insult Muslims, while Rushdie’s novel was a complex work of art by an author of Indian Muslim origins who was trying explore the roots of the faith into which he was born.

Socialist Worker defended Rushdie’s right to publish The Satanic Verses. But we also recognised the real anger and hurt the novel caused among Muslims in Britain and other Western societies.

The book, rightly or wrongly, came to symbolise the humiliation and discrimination Muslims suffered, and indeed continue to suffer.

The Rushdie affair marked the beginning of a campaign by many Western liberal intellectuals to portray Islam as a uniquely dark, barbaric religion incompatible with modern democratic and scientific practices. This paved the way for contemporary Islamophobia.

Many of these intellectuals claim to take pride in the way in which the Enlightenment of the 18th century liberated Europe from the domination of Christianity.

For example, Joan Smith writes in the Independent on Sunday that “the conflict isn’t between civilisations but between pre and post-Enlightenment notions about the place of religion”.

But such an argument essentially reproduces longstanding stereotypes of Islam that ignore its complexity and the cultural richness of many of the societies where it has been the dominant religion.

These images derive from the era when Europe called itself “Christendom” and saw the advanced Islamic states as dangerous rivals.

There has also been much invocation these last few days of Voltaire, the leading figure in the French Enlightenment, and his campaign against the Catholic church. But once again there is no comparison.

In the 18th century different Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, were the official religions of the various European monarchies.

They enjoyed an ideological monopoly and viciously persecuted, with state support, members of other Christian cults. Taking the church on, as Voltaire did, took real courage.

Islam in Europe today is the religion of a poor, stigmatised minority that suffers from systematic discrimination.

In Britain, for example, Muslims come at the bottom of every social and economic indicator. Anti-Muslim campaigners like the Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali aren’t brave heroes but advocates of state bullying of the weak.

Particularly since 11 September 2001, European governments have adopted strategies towards their Muslim populations that combine repression and incorporation. Repression – and ideological intimidation – predominate in much of northern Europe.

Intimidate

Denmark and the Netherlands offer leading examples of this policy, as does France’s law banning Muslim school girls from wearing headscarves.

In Germany, according to last Sunday’s Observer, “the Christian Democrat run state of Baden-Württemburg introduced a ‘Muslim’ test, where Muslim applicants for German citizenship are questioned about their views on 9-11, gay relationships and whether their daughters should be allowed to join swimming lessons.” So much for liberal values!

But there is another strategy that is being pursued by the British government, which was quick to condemn the republication of the Danish cartoons.

Since last July’s bombings New Labour has been trying simultaneously to seduce and intimidate Muslim leaders. The intimidation takes the form of more attacks on civil liberties plus the demands that the Muslim community should “denounce terrorism”, where “terrorism” is extended to cover all forms of resistance in Palestine and Iraq.

But Muslim leaders are also being offered a deal by the government. If they become less strident in their criticism of the “war on terrorism”, their reward will be greater official consultation and recognition.

The controversial Muslim theologian Tariq Ramadan has been widely denounced on the continent as an ideologue of Islamist extremism. But here he is a government adviser who argues that British Muslims should “engage” with the wider society.

Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, is also playing an important role in the government’s efforts to draw British Muslim leaders into line.

Though he rejoined the Labour Party two years ago, Livingstone enjoys great credibility in the Muslim community because of his anti-racist record, his support for the Palestinian people and his opposition to the war in Iraq.

The media hue and cry over protests by small radical Islamist groups outside the Danish embassy in London will no doubt be used to put yet more pressure on Muslim leaders to dissociate themselves from the suicide bombers, and any opposition to the government.

This puts a huge onus on the left in Britain and the rest of Europe. It is up to us to show that there is an alternative to the main options presented to Muslims by the establishment – silence, repression, or the dead end of Islamist terrorism.

This means among other things that we must reject Islamophobia and not allow ourselves to be fooled by the phoney arguments about free speech currently doing the rounds.

Any socialist worth the name will stand by the real victims of oppression and exploitation and fight side by side with them for a better world.

Jyllands-Posten Mohammed Cartoon Continues to Stir Controvery

2006-02-07T15:18:00.000-08:00

"Jyllands-Posten Mohammed" is currently the top searched keyword on Technorati and I find that some "bloggers" are spewing from their behind. Everywhere there seems to be one thing: hate Muslims and Islam. Some are going as far as to just take advantage of the moment and spew as much filth as they can on Islam.

On a side note, Iran is not right in calling for a competition to create Holocaust cartoons. This just saddens me. Islam by no means favors revenge. And Islam tells us to respect the people of the book.

A student newspaper published the controversial Prophet Mohammed cartoon.

I found this blog that is currently ranking number one for [Jyllands-Posten Mohammed]. It had the following to say:

These cartoons may be offensive not only to muslim’s beliefs, but also continue the stereotype of muslim=terrorist. It also attributes to Mohammed things that he never may have stated. My understanding is that he never advocated covering women head to toe, and that of the terrorist justifications for killing people cannot be attributed to his statements, but are distorted to suit the terrorists’ aims.

What is the benefit of going out and deliberately attack people’s religious beliefs? I would say the same if we are talking about Jesus, or Buddha. Attack the institutions that these religions have built in the centuries by all means, dispute whether Jesus was really the son of God or whether Mary was a virgin at Jesus birth. But I can’t see any benefit in gratuitously attacking religious figures just to offend. In Australia the media is very sensitive in not portraying a deceased Aboriginal person or dome sacred images to avoid offending their beliefs, why then this can be done at will with other religions?

While there is no justification for these cartoons, I believe it's wrong for countries to call their diplomats. Muslims need to set a better example than anyone else. After all isn't this what Islam teaches?

It is very wrong of Wikipedia to be promoting the extremely offensive Jyllands-Posten Cartoon. Seems like they have no respect for Islam or Muslims and would rather add to the controversy than stop it.

Frank

Jyllands-Posten Mohammed - Wikipedia Promoting the Offensive Cartoon

2006-02-07T14:48:00.000-08:00

While searching for "Jyllands-Posten Mohammed" on Wikipedia, I was shocked to see Wikipedia promoting the cartoon in such a manner. I will write more about this later as I would like to inform the authorities of the existence of this cartoon so it can be taken offline from Wikipedia.

This is what I said on the talk page for Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons controversy

-----

Please either remove the cartoon or move it down. This cartoon is very offensive to Muslims and Islam worldwide and your polls are obviously biased. By publishing the cartoon you are putting more fuel over the fire already created by this cartoon.

By publishing the cartoon, Wikipedia is acknowledging that it is not offensive to publish this cartoon. There are many Muslims in the world and we need to be more considerate about this issue.

If ever highly controversial cartoons about other religions are published, will you publish them like this? I don't think so.

If the cartoon is not removed, I will be contacting the appropriate authorities to have this cartoon removed.

BY publishing this cartoon, Wikipedia is openly insulting Islam and letting a few people control how Wikipedia is run.

Muslims need to raise the awareness about how Wikipedia is letting some ill-intent users harm the feelings of Muslims. If the cartoon is not taken offline, people need to contact their attorneys to have it taken offline.

Following are some of the resources which you should contact to raise awareness about this issue:

Islamic Society of North America
aelhattab at isna.net

Embassy of Pakistan in Washington DC
info at pakistan-embassy.org

The Council on American Islamic Relations
cair at cair-net.org

CONTACT: Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org; Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed@cair-net.org.

Please feel free to send me more contacts. Thanks for those who contributed the above contacts.

Frank

Technorati Tag: Jyllands-Posten Mohammed

Mohammed Cartoon: How far do you push someone? Racist Cartoons

2006-02-07T13:30:00.000-08:00

I just came across this article and wanted to share it. It goes into detail about why the issue of Prophet Mohammed Cartoon is more than freedom of speech:

Cartoon row: the issue is racism

This is not about “freedom of speech”. It’s not about a “war of civilisations”. It’s about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious anti-Muslim cartoons last September.

It would have us believe it was all for a noble principle of “freedom of speech”. Oh, really? This is the same paper, Jyllands-Posten, which:

* Campaigned in 1984 to censor an artist who produced an erotic image of Jesus.
* Refused three years ago to print a cartoon because the editors said it would provoke an outcry among Christians.

No brave commitment to freedom of speech there. That was only invoked, cynically, when the editors chose to target Muslims, not for debate about religious views, but with bigoted caricatures that imply every Muslim is a terrorist.

One rule for the majority, another for Arab, Asian and African immigrants. There’s a word for that – it’s called racism.

And the same scapegoating, masked by the same hypocrisy about freedom, is oozing from the other right wing papers in Europe that have leapt to give these racist images a wider circulation.

The French paper France-Soir claims it is committed to freedom of expression. But not, it seems, for Muslims.

The same paper supports the French government’s ban on young Muslim women wearing headscarves in school. What’s “tolerant” or “liberal” about that?

As for those who claim it is impossible to be racist against Muslims because Islam is a religion “not a race”, consider the followers of the Jewish faith.

If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and anti-racists for being outraged.

None would say it was merely a question of debating religious views rather than being about spreading racism.

Yet in Britain, while no paper has republished the cartoons, we have not had furious editorials in the millionaire-owned press exposing the racist demonisation of Muslims.

Instead, the media is further demonising Muslims by suggesting that they don’t understand “Western democracy” and press freedom.

These well paid editors could do with learning a thing or two themselves about standing up to censorship.

The lot of them, with the exception of Socialist Worker and the Morning Star, have gone along with government censorship in refusing to name Nicholas Langman, an MI6 agent implicated in the illegal seizure of Pakistani immigrants in Greece.

What kind of fearless media is this that refuses to stand up to powerful secret government agencies, but berates some of the most powerless people in society?

And make no mistake, Muslim immigrants in Europe are among the most downtrodden across the continent.

In Britain they fall behind the average on every social indicator – housing, earnings, employment, education. The same is true in France, Germany, Demark and the rest of the European Union.

And since 11 September 2001 they have been systematically targeted. Anti-Muslim racism, Islamophobia, is the ideological cover for George Bush’s endless “war on terror”.

The US and British military refuse to even count the number of dead in Iraq. That would not be the case if they, their governments and the bulk of the media considered the lives of brown skinned Muslims in the Middle East every bit as valuable as those who have been killed in New York, Madrid and London.

They don’t. “Our” names honoured, “theirs” not even recorded – racism.

The British government cannot admit that the war on Iraq and decades of Western intervention in the Middle East are the reason why Britain and the US are so hated in the region and beyond.

Instead, we are told it is something to do with Muslims themselves. And in order to prove you are a “good Muslim”, not an “evil extremist”, you have to sign up to Bush and Blair’s campaign. Hence there are the endless loyalty tests.

Liberal

Supposedly liberal commentators feel no restriction, show no signs of “self censorship”, when they routinely abuse people who were born here (and who happen to be Muslim) of being insufficiently British – racism.

Government ministers sense no shame in telling one group of people what language they should speak in their own home, as if every British resident on the Costa del Sol spoke Spanish round the kitchen table.

This “respectable” Islamophobia fuels the violent racist attacks of the Nazi British National Party (BNP), which exploits the general anti-Muslim climate and whose leader, a Holocaust denier, walks away from a court case over incitement to racial hatred.

And when those on the receiving end of all this speak out and protest, they are demonised again.

Stereotypes

The cameras seek out those images that will confirm the provocative stereotypes that people are objecting to in the first place.

It’s like kicking someone repeatedly and then, when they hit back, saying, “Look, I told you they were violent.”

And the overall effect goes beyond Muslim people who are targeted. For if those responsible for wars, exploitation here and across the globe, and the destruction of our civil liberties succeed in scapegoating Muslims, we will all suffer – Muslim or not.

Racism has always meant divide and rule. It has always been undermined by unity of working people against the common enemy we all face.

Today, for everyone who was genuinely sickened by the sight of the BNP’s gloating last week, that starts with standing up against this anti?Muslim hatred.

The following should be read alongside this article:
» ‘Racism against Muslims has rocketed since 9/11’
» Freedom to spread hate?
» Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend

© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

I totally agree with the writer of this article. The cartoons are all about divide and conquer.

Muslim Cartoon Mohammed Cartoon Islam Bush

Danish Cartoon Portraying Muhammad as a terrorist is Just Wrong

2006-02-03T13:42:00.000-08:00

The following are the comments I made on faeriebell's blog post about "Muhammad's cartoon and why it's wrong":

Spikes,
It's the ignorant people like you who fail to research and understand what Islam stands for.

True, there are a few bad apples in every religion (like Eric Robert Rudolph) but that doesn't make the entire religion and it's followers bad.

Islam says that killing a soul is like killing the whole humanity.

Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) showed Muslims how they should live with peace. People who are terrorizing the world are using Islam's name in the most heinous way.

Garry, unlike Christianity, Islam forbids the depiction of the Prophet. Non-Muslims have therefore no right to depict something which is expressly forbidden in Islam.

Calling for "the death" of the Danish cartoonists isn't Islamic either. Islam is a peaceful religion with only one message: peace. People who seem to not get this fundamental message, whether Muslim or not, don't really get the essence of Islam.

Let me draw your attention to a few historical events.

Before Islam spread in the world, a woman used to throw trash on the Prophet (PBUH) every day as he used to walk by her window. Every time she will throw trash, the Prophet will look up, give a smile and walk on without saying a word. One day the Prophet noticed that no one threw trash on him. Worried what might have happened to the woman, he went to her door and found her very sick. He took care of her, cleaned her house and fed her for several days, until she got better. She did convert to Islam later due to the behavior shown by the Prophet PBUH.

In a Gazwah (a war in which Prophet PBUH) participated, a pagan woman martyred Prophet's beloved uncle and chewed on his body parts. After Prophet PBUH came into power, the woman was brought in front of him for sentencing. Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) forgave the woman and let her go.

Muslims all around the world are supposed to follow the excellent examples of forgiveness set forth not only by Prophet PBUH, but by Jesus, Ibraham, Isaac, Moses and the prophets before him.

In addition, Muslims are forbidden to attack first. A better Muslim, according to Islam, is the one who forgives, not the one who opts for revenge.

Sadly, some extremists bring a bad name to Islam. Islam is all about forgiveness and peace, and there is no other truth about Islam.

Frank

And here's another comment for Grumpyyoungman and folks like him:

Grumpyyoungman,

Your comment shows that obviously you have no idea of what Islam represents and you are one of those people who just believe anything and everything on its face value.

Islam gives more rights, respect and freedom to women than any other religion.

Islam was the first religion in the world to give property rights to women.

Islam gives women more respect that anyother religion.

If someone tries to achieve their own objective in the name of Islam, they are not following Islam.

Islam is all about forgiveness, respect and equality.

And BTW, if you ever get a chance to read and understand Koran, you will see that Islam is by no way stuck in the 8th century. Koran is full of scientific knowledge and information.

Rape is NOT accepted in Islam by any means and is a crime punishable by death.

Prophet Muhammed PBUH said that the better amongst us is the one who is good to his wife and family.

If you study the Sunnah (the life of the Prophet), you will find out that he was the most tolerant man and never preached what you are wrongfully accusing him of preaching.

Islam put more importance on knowledge and learning that anyother religion in the world.

And Islam isn't called the religion of Muhammed, it's called the religion of Ibrahim.

Once Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) found a cat sleeping on his sleeve. He preferred to cut his sleeve rather than wake up the cat. Talk about caring for others.

I agree that there are some bad apples in Muslims and that some Muslims have deviated from their path but its important to remember that is not what Islam preaches.

No one is trying to convert anyone. What happened was just wrong.

One of the reasons portrayal of Muhammed and Allah is forbidden in Islam is to prevent the images from becoming the object of worship. This is something Muslims live by and take very seriously.

In case you didn't hear, US has officially sided with Muslims in the cartoon dispute, according to Reuters.

According to the story:

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added.

Those who know the background and have done their homework know why this is just plain wrong.

People worldwide have forgotten the message of Islam. They follow what they want to follow and name it Islam, forgetting that is not what Islam is about.

Ever since the message of Islam started spreading, nonbelievers have been trying to do whatever they can to defame Islam. No matter how low you go, I won't go equally low because I am a proud Muslim and will always forgive you for your ignorance as that is what my religion teaches me.

Your comment is full of ignorance and you are just spewing made up things from nowhere. I encourage you to spend some time doing research, not by reading false material about Islam, but research the source of all the information: Koran.

I will finish my comment by saying that before opening your mouth, learn a little about this religion. Going low is just going to make you look bad.

May your eyes open soon to the truth.

Frank (Farhan)
A proud Muslim in America

Tags: Muhammad Islam Danish Cartoon Muslim Cartoon Mohammad