The airing of a blasphemous anti Islam films has created ripples of protests all over the Muslim world. A hate documentary, perhaps precisely aimed and designed to hurt the religious feelings of countless Muslims around the globe. The reaction to come out on the streets to raise their voice against this heinous act was and is but obvious and natural.
Hillary Clington, while condemning the airing of the film, and very meekly asking Google to 'review' its decion to continue showing the film is just a gesture, as soon after condemning the film, she justifies its airing on account of freedom of speech law that allows Americans to express their sentiments 'freely' even if it contains hate content against religions and prophets. But we must also understand that there is a difference between freedom of speech and material that is cause of deliberate offensive provocation. And in this case, it is not freedom of speech, the film 'Innocence of Muslims' is a deliberate attempt to offensively provocate the Muslims' revered sentiments and attachment to their religion and the prophet of God and Islam, Muhammad (may peace be upon him).
When talking of hate content, why then the
holocaust has been made an exception? For Jews, the holocaust may be a tragedy, but for many around the world this may not be so, since the Jews have themselves embarked upon a policy of killing en mass of the Palestinians and choking their life lines the same way Hitler did. So if someone wants to make a speech or express its opinion about
holocaust, why it is blocked on media, specially in the USA?
And if talking against
holocaust is a crime, then how ridiculing a religion and prophets of God is not a crime?
In fact, except for Muslims, no other followers of religions take their religion seriously and even Christians are seen caricaturing their own religion as the so called freedom of speech allows them to do so. And in that 'spirit' they make fun and mockery of other religions as they are devoid of religous sentiments and think that others would be too. And caricaturing the Propeht of Islam, the relioin of Islam and making derogatory films about it is just normal in USA, thinking it would not hurt anyone.
Adding fuel to the already volatile mood in the Muslims countries, a a satirical magazine in France has published cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad. It is also reported that a German magazine too has followed the suit. It seems that there is a planned move across American and European countries to provoke the religious sentiments of the Muslims and then label them as fanatic and hardliners.
Adding fuel to the already volatile mood in the Muslims countries, a a satirical magazine in France has published cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad. It is also reported that a German magazine too has followed the suit. It seems that there is a planned move across American and European countries to provoke the religious sentiments of the Muslims and then label them as fanatic and hardliners.
I just came across a lot of comments about this film, and one proponent of free speech said that it was only a small group of radical Muslims which was making a hue and cry over this film. And I was amazed to read this comment. Perhaps the one who commented does not read newspapers or watches TV to have known how much hurt the Muslims are all over the world and how expressive they are in showing their disgust and strong reaction to this anti Islam movie, which ridicules their religion and the Prophet.
But then perhaps, the so called free media of the Western world has not protrayed the true feelings of the Muslims and have not published the strong Muslim reaction in their newspapers and media so as not let their readers know of the grievances of the Muslims. What is being projected in the West is the reaction of 'fanatic Muslims' against 'an ordinary film.' Talking of freedom of speech, I would say that the one who made this film is fanatic himself with a sinister intent to cause injury to the religious sentiments of Muslims. If a man defames prophets of God, it inadvertently means that he is defaming the God as whatever prophets do is ordained by God and the prophets never go beyond their given mandate. And Muslims, Jews and Christians follow the same God, it may be added.
While for the Muslims to react strongly is justified, burning properties and killing is not. I have seen processions going wild and putting cars and buses on fire - something owned by their fellow brethern or even by the state which buys these buses from taxes collected from the people.
So why destroy something that we own? Would this resolve the issue? The processions would die down sooner or later and things will cool. But to erupt once again when some other proponent of freedom of speech makes another such dirty move.
In my reckoneing, it is time that all Muslim countries to approach the UN and through a joint resolution force the countries which have freedom of speech law to amend their law so that haters do not take advantage of this law to ridicule other religions and prophets. This would be a prudent approach rather than street shouting which would never solve the issue and hate stuff being spewed against Islam and the Holy Prophet, so revered by each Muslim, and even by many from otehr religions as well.
It is time to think and act wisely and rationally, not emotionally.
0 comments:
Post a Comment