Another Islamophobic Movie: Please Ignore

After numerous deaths, burnings, protests, suicide attacks, website bans and religio-jingoism laced TV Talk Shows later, it seems like we are going back to square one.  Another Anti Islam ‘movie’ called, The Innocent Prophet - Life of Muhammad from the Point of View of an Ex-Muslim, is being released by an ‘Ex-Muslim’ and a Pakistani refugee in Spain, named Imran Firasat. The usual suspects Dr. Terry Jones and Islam Watch .Org are collaborating on the film project, which is supposed to be a documentary questioning whether the Prophet of Islam promoted peace and showing how Islam spreads violence. The tried and tested formula of spewing out amateurish and laughable Anti Islamic bilge in the name of Freedom of Expression is again being used.

Imran Firasat

The documentary was supposed to be released on 14th December 2012, but after a fierce back lash from Muslim groups, and most importantly, after warnings by the government of Spain that he might be deported back to Pakistan if he continues with the attempt, Imran Firasat has decided to temporarily delay the launch of his documentary which he says will be released online after he has shown the authorities that  there is “nothing in this movie which doesn´t fall under the right of freedom of expression” and which, “will not cause any kind of loss to humanity”. You are allowed to roll your eyes.

What is anticipated from this documentary is more Anti Islam rhetoric and what is also expected is the violent Muslim reaction which will certainly lead to a couple of deaths and after a few days, when all the hate from either side has been spilled out, when Muslim conservatives will have strengthened their positions in their respective societies, this incident will be forgotten. The perpetrators of anti Islamic speech will again prepare for a hate campaign, which as the trend shows are becoming more moronic with each attempt.

But, let us not give importance to an another kiddish attempt against Islam, it pains me when I see innocent lives lost over things that will be forgotten after a couple of days, what will not come back are the persons who will lose their lives.

But having said that it is worth noting that the amount of content vilifying Islam and Muslims has increased as of late, and thanks to the clerics from our side, the anti Islam hatemongers  are finding themselves publicized without any advertising overhead to worry about. Let’s face it; The Innocence of the Muslims would not have spread like a wildfire if the Egyptian clerics hadn’t showed the clips on national televisions. And it’s not that the Muslims are violent by nature, it’s just that if you keep playing the hateful images again and again in front of an already infuriated audience, you are bound to incense them further. This is what George W Bush and Co. did with the American public by stamping the images of burning Twin Towers on the minds of ordinary American citizens and created a war hysteria that would see Iraq and Afghanistan devastated and USA slumping into recession.

The solution to these issues lies not in more violence, but providing logical counter arguments to the detractors. In reacting violently against such rubbish attempts to malign the Muslim World , it would be a much better option if we made movies, documentaries and arranged interfaith conferences that reflect the Islam that our Prophet (PBUH) preached and not the Islam that Terry Jones and Imran Firasat want the world to believe.  It astonishes me to see that how easily we fall for the tricks of these hate mongers and forget the lessons of peace and patience that Islam has taught us. It pains me to see that we readily ignore the works of many Islamic organizations in western countries who strive day and night to promote the real Islam while Terry Jones and Co. get prime time space on our TV sets.  Yes, sooner or later, this hate-filled documentary is going to be released and yes, the Islamophobes will continue to indulge in their odium against Islam, but we have to show ourselves to be above such irrational, imprudent and comic attempts. There are better and more peaceful ways to protest. My request to religious leaders is to show responsibility and calm the masses should any attempt is made.

The last words belong to a homeopathy student Sabahat Siddiqui, who in response to this incident told me,

If the world desires any kind of peace, there must be laws to stop such hateful material to be made or published against any religion! All faiths are from the God and should be respected likewise.

Combining Wahhabism and Capitalism to Destroy Islamic Heritage

The current controversy of the potential Saudi demolition of Riyad-Al-Jannah and the graves of Islamic Caliphs Abu Bakar and Omar is one in a long line of projects that the world’s biggest exporter of crude oil has undertaken to erase Islamic Heritage sites. The Saudi obsession with everything concrete and steel is a cause of concern for Muslims around the world. The construction of enormous towers and skyscrapers including the ghastly Mecca Clock Tower tell us something about the future plans of the Saudis.

A 2011 report by The Independent  paper titled “Mecca for the rich: Islam's holiest site 'turning into Vegas” written by Jerome Taylor (who wrote the recent story about the planned Saudi destruction of Riyad-Al-Jannah etc), says that the Saudis are planning to turn Mecca into a playground for the rich, by building sky scrapers and luxury hotels that cater for the rich Muslims coming from all over the world. The same newspaper reported back in April 2006 about the Saudi construction rampage in Islam’s holiest sites.

Systematic destruction of the holy sites and building hotels and resorts is being backed by the blessings of its religious clerics, who endorse the destruction of the holy sites because of their (baseless) fear that idolatry might creep into Muslim ranks.  Wahhabism, which is an extreme and strict form of Islam that denounces the reverence of any holy site, is the official religion in Saudi Arabia. It is worth noting that the same brand of Islam is practiced by the Taliban who have been involved in the destruction of Bamyan Buddhas and the attack on the legendary Sufi Rehman Baba’s shrine  in Peshawar. However, the Wahabbi Kingdom seems to be on something more than destroying shrines, graves and imposing its own brand of Islam.

Even a cursory search reveals that the Saudis are embarking on a real estate and renewable energy projects as they plan for the future post 2030 when it is feared that the supply of oil, which generates 86% of the kingdom’s revenue, might start to dwindle thus forcing the Saudis to import additional oil from other countries. The Economist states that the rapid increase in demand for oil inside Saudi Arabia has increased by 37% and 65% of its electricity is generated by the oil that it produces. For now, increase in oil price has caused the wealth of Saudis to soar, quite literally, and their construction of the Kingdom Tower is a testament to the money flooding in.

But the increase in oil consumption, the increasing American reliance on Shale Gas , the expectation that Canada and Mexico might become the new middle east  and the awareness of  the fact that oil reserves would not last forever has led Saudi Arabia to consider alternate forms of revenue generation which include real estate, Hajj ( obviously),banking sector and other renewable forms of energy. Khalid Al Falih, the President and CEO of Saudi Aramco, reflects the future strategy of the Saudis when he says that Saudi Aramco wants to transform from an oil& gas company to a ‘global energy and chemicals enterprise’. Apart from energy sources, the real estate sector is booming thanks to the swelling population and the increase in tours by the increasingly affluent middle-class of the Muslim world.

So how does the new course of Saudi economy relate to destruction of Islam’s holy sites? In this regard, my hypothesis is that the Saudis under the valid pretext of real state expansion are destroying the holy sites by invoking the tenets of Wahhabism but on the other hand, in order to clear the way for capitalist expansion projects and to keep up with the rest of the world they are back tracking on the Wahabi doctrine which vehemently opposes all forms of modernization.  The real estate development and other modernization projects can be undertaken anywhere in the kingdom but it seems that the Wahabbi clerics are capitalizing on this opportunity to erase the early history of Islam and increase their hold on the religion. Few countries have dared to raise voice against this heinous crime of the destruction of Islamic holy sites, fearing diplomatic repercussions that might arise. Yet we Pakistanis Muslims scream over the depiction of the Prophet (PBHUH) in the western media, burn buildings, kill people and block websites in protests but do not raise a single voice when the house of Hazrat Khadija (R.A) is turned into a public toilet block and when the Saudi Islamic affairs ministry declares that “the green dome (of Masjid Nabwi) shall be demolished and the three graves flattened in the Prophet's Masjid".

The time to raise voice against this crime of titanic proportions is now!

Because man is much more sexual in nature than women!

In Reply to Bina Shah (Nudity and the Niqab: The Debate Continues) __________________________________________________________________________ First, I would start by partially agreeing with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Moreover, I wish that (to quote you) "One day, women will be free to make their own choices about their clothing, and men will simply have to get out of the way." Nevertheless, here is a question that arises when I read your blog; should there be a limit to what a woman chooses to wear? Should the women -and for that matter men as well-be allowed to wear literally anything that they want to wear? Can I as a man be allowed to walk into my office wearing nothing but white boxer shorts and a top hat? Will the office management allow me to wear that? If it doesn't, then should I brand my office management as myopic rigid and conservative shmucks?

The reason behind all this controversy on the niqabs, burkas, hijabs and abayas is the misunderstanding of the original message words of Quran. Hijab in the Quran is used to denote a modest dress. A sort of separation between men and women, it was not implied in the Quran as the covering of the whole female body as we see it today. In fact the word Hijab was misunderstood by the Islamic jurisprudents to mean 'satr' which implies covering up yourself, which if used in the context of Hijab, actually bars women from going outside and remain locked up inside their homes which of course is impractical. The basic premise of Quran is to place restrictions on both men and women in regards to their conduct outside their homes. But an important factor to consider here is that the verses were revealed back in the 7th century and were primarily meant to guide the Muslims in those formative years. However, the views that would have been perfectly sane and rational in those times cannot be held as practical in this era, that much we have to give to the Muslim liberals. If revisit the Quranic verses that order the women to remain covered and hidden in their houses, we find the following: “O wives of the Prophet! You are not as other women..." (33:32) "Remain in your houses." (33:33) Here we see that the restrictions that were reserved for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) were taken by the jurisprudents to mean as general instructions for all the women. These instructions in those days were the ancient equivalent of modern security procedures regarding the family members of high-ranking officials and public figures, which of course can’t simply be applied to the public. What the Quran actually says is, "Say to the believing men to cast down their glance and guard their private parts..." (24:30), thus, it imposes a restriction on Muslim men and women regarding their conduct. And (to the chagrin of the liberals) these restrictions are neither fantastic nor impractical. In all the civilized western countries there laws against nudity as well as sexual offences. Society, thus itself imposes laws on what we wear and how we choose to act, something, which -to its credit-Islam outlined back in the 7th century AD. Yes, the concept of Hijab is there in Quran, but the Hijab that we refer today to as THE Hijab, is more related to the Arab culture, which we like to idealize in the same way as the medieval western nations idealized the Vatican and later the Renaissance gripped Europe idealized the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Thus, I leave it upon you to decide which culture you would like to follow and how much promiscuity would you be willing to allow in the society. I really do agree with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose to wear but restrictions should be there, why? Because man is much more sexual in nature than women -Ref: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare It is this sexual nature of man that if suppressed or given a free ticket lead to sexual crimes. I again repeat that the extreme, suppression (in the case of Arab and South Asian cultures) and liberalization (in the case of Western nations) will only bring sexual harm to the women. Thus, restrictions on what women and men wear will I am afraid always be there but it depends whether we gravitate towards extreme conservatism or extreme liberalization or should we choose the middle way-the moderate way, which is neither liberal nor conservative. Miss Bina Shah's said blog can be accessed at http://binashah.blogspot.nl/2012/07/nudity-and-niqab-debate-continues.html