by Tarek Fatah
There is no prohibition on creating images of Prophet Mohammed in the Qur'an. Up until the 14th century; such depictions were common in the non-Arab Muslim world. -- Even if it were true that such depictions were prohibited, the prohibition would not be applicable to non-Muslims.
Originally published under the title, "Allah's Soldiers Are Ignorant of Islam."
The belief that Islam prohibits drawing Prophet Mohammed pervades public debate over what causes "cartoon" violence.
|
Thanks to a quick-thinking traffic police officer, both men, carrying assault rifles, were shot dead in a 15-second exchange of gunfire that left an unarmed security officer injured.
Islamic clerics in Texas denounced the terror attack, but also called on Muslims "not to be baited" into anger. The hint behind this message was that contest organizer Pamela Geller had provoked Muslims into acting violently.
At the root of Muslim protestations is the false belief that Islam prohibits the depiction of Prophet Mohammed. There is no prohibition on creating images of Prophet Mohammed in the Qur'an. Up until the 14th century; such depictions were common in the non-Arab Muslim world. On my website, www.tarekfatah.com, I have posted many depictions of Prophet Mohammed, drawn mostly by Muslim artists. Even if it were true that such depictions were prohibited, the prohibition would not be applicable to non-Muslims.
There is no prohibition on creating images of Prophet Mohammed in the Qur'an. |
On the contrary, many Muslims rejected Geller's right to freedom of expression, admitting that even as Americans they believe there should be limits to free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Here in Toronto, one well-known local Muslim tweeted: "This has nothing to do with free speech, don't kid yourself. Go do a 'Draw a Jew' event & see what I mean." I asked him to expand a bit on why he had inserted Jews into the discussion, but he did not respond.
Other Muslims produced conspiracy theories. Youssef Sayyed, a London-based journalist, claimed the "Texas Attack is a CIA stunt to take focus off Baltimore in the national media."
While American Muslims were issuing "explanations" about why the Texas terror attack could not be solely blamed on the terrorists, other Americans seemed to be providing excuses and rationalizations for the attackers. Rukmini Callimachi, a respected foreign correspondent for the New York Times who focuses on Islamic extremism, appeared to suggest the cartoon contest organizers were partly to blame for the attack. "Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a "Muhammad drawing contest"? she asked.
Even a PGA golfer tweeted that the terror attack was somehow understandable. Bob Estes, who is from Texas, tweeted: "If you feel the need to mock Muhammad in a cartoon, just realize that Muslims may decide to exercise their #2A (Second Amendment) rights on you."
By contrast, ISIS was unequivocal about the purpose of the attack. In a radio statement it said:
We say to the defenders of the cross, the U.S., that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse. The Islamic State soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of God. The future is just around the corner.Geller is no saint and is a polarizing figure when it comes to relations between Muslims and the West. But dismissing her as a hate-monger is not going to stop ISIS from attacking those of us who cherish free speech. It's time to choose sides; it's time to stand with Voltaire.
Tarek Fatah is a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a columnist at the Toronto Sun, and a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author of two award-winning books: Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and The Jew is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism.
Source: http://www.meforum.org/5222/islam-drawing-mohammed
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
4 comments:
This controversy about the cartoons has served to obscure the REAL THREAT to the West, which is the relentless Muslim invasion through regular immigrants and refugee seekers.
The freedom of speech issue will be moot once Muslims achieve that demographic tipping point that will allow THEM to decide for us what is acceptable speech and what is blasphemy. They don't have to be a majority of 51% to do that. Much lower percentages can have great sway with politicians.
Aside from their increasing numbers, Muslims are already exerting influence by means of donations to politicians, educational institutions, think tanks, and so on.
Qatar is a major donor to the Brookings Institution, which gives advice to Congress.
Saudi Arabia was cited as the third largest donor to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary Clinton had good chances to become president of the USA until details of the Foundation were exposed to the media.
A number of top Democrats - including John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore - have received substantial donations from Muslim sources. Republicans too are not averse to donations - whatever their source.
So if you consider Muslim demographics and financial influence, what is at stake is much bigger than limits to freedom to draw Mohammed.
It is very strange how the cartoons capture the headlines and activists' interest, while nothing is being said about Muslim immigration itself, and the possibility of placing a moratorium or some limits to Muslim immigration until the issue of compatibility between Islam with democracy and Western values is settled.
May 07, 2015
As a resident of Toronto, I am quite familiar with the oily verbal output of Tarek Fatah and his seemingly reasonable hand-ringing about Muslim behavioural patterns. No matter how persistent, frequent and destructive they are, Fatah always has a litany of excuses & explanations .Usually ending in the smoke & mirrors of denial-lite. For example, "There is no prohibition on creating images of "prophet" Muhammed in the Qu'ran". This is just another variation of his customary denial of the truth. His own hair- splitting interpretations about "what is written " or 'what is not [really ] written" cannot deny what is being done on a daily basis by a huge percentage of perfectly mainstream Muslims. Not to mention M. Fatah's total immersion into the fetid swamp-water of moral-equivalence. M. Fatah: Do you really think that Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are morally equivalent to your countless co-religionists who are proud to be genocide lovers, crucifiers, skin-flayers, practitioners of F.G.M., "honour" killers...the list is endless and practised by a significant percentage of Muslims on a daily basis. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of terms like "incidence" and "frequency" Mr. Fatah..
What is done is all that counts. Ask the victims. Especially the non Muslims. Perhaps Mr. Fatah should learn another adage that better explains the terminal mad-house rock of Islam: "What is bred in the bone will not quit the flesh". Here's another quote from Voltaire to help you out Mr. Fatah. "Those who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities".
What's your game Mr. Fatah ? We prefer our enemies up-front and unapologetic. So that they make clean targets. Like the majority of your co-religionists. You convince no one Mr. Fatah. Least of all yourself. "The Jew is not my enemy": That's sooo-so "nice" of you. Wish we could say the same thing about you folks.
Norman L. Roth, Toronto, Canada
Mr. Roth, I respectfully disagree with your negative response to this piece. You may be more familiar with Mr. Fatah's material in general than I am, but I find nothing "oily" or offensive in this particular piece. In fact, It seems that Mr. Fatah clearly supports the principle of free speech, even when it expresses things that many be extremely odious to others.
I think that his focus on whether or not the graphic depiction of the prophet is permissible according to Muslim law, only emphasizes the fairness of his position. It seems to me that he is accusing today's fanatical Muslim groups of inventing this prohibition to serve as a justification for murder. He is not defending them.
May 27, 2015
Dear Mme. {Sally } Zahav,
Thank you for your good-natured attitude to the likes of Tarek Fatah. He's just trying to blind-side US by his own manufactured "indignation" at the daily behavioural patterns exhibited by a significant percentage of his coreligionists: And supported either covertly or openly by a majority of them; world-wide: Regardless of his soothing words {great display of Taquiya" ?} about how the non-stop flow of slaughter and grande-guignole isn't what the "real Islam" is all about. It's just the 'extremist" behaviour of a small percentage of Muslims who
'are ignorant of their faith'. That's the full extent & "depth" of Fatah;s 'message' to US.
Unfortunately, the world at large has finally reached "the point of no return" with the pathology of Islam. Non -Muslims cannot live among THEM and remain literally in one piece, Nor can a Muslim presence among non-Muslim societies, both East & West, be regarded with equanimity. It's not "negative" or "extreme" to be realistic about who and what THEY are.
And, We don't need lectures about "free speech" from Mr. Fatah or THEIR dhimmis among US. We must be cool, coordinated,and strategically minded. And mobilize OUR considerable human talents & resources against them. Especially at the most local levels. The reality is that the terminal madhouse rock of Islam has turned the entire world into a battle zone. Wallowing in the self-destructive never-never land of dialogue, 'compromise' and moral equivalence, only makes us incurable victims in THEIR eyes. The struggle won't be easy. But it is THEY who insist on it. That which demands nothing is worth nothing.
Norman L. Roth, Toronto Canada.
Please GOOGLE {1}Norman Roth, Economist [2] Norman Roth, Economic theory, [3] Norman Roth, Economics of Technology {4} Norman L. Roth, Markets [5] Norman L. Roth, Current Conception of the Standard of Life
Post a Comment