About The Guardians blind handling of the extent of Muslim intolerance and totalitarianism
Already in 2011, the Guardian reported on a shocking crime in Pakistan.
Already in 2011, the Guardian reported on a shocking crime in Pakistan.
The governor of Punjab province, Salmaan Taseer, had “advocated a reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws” and taken up the cause of “Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman … sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.” Taseer was promptly machine-gunned to death by one of his own bodyguards, a devout Muslim called Mumtaz Qadri, who then submitted calmly to arrest and prosecution.
To a huge numbers of Pakistanis Qadri’s actions made him a hero. was Hailed as a worthy successor to Ghazi (“Hero”) Ilm-Deen, a widely venerated Muslim saint who stabbed a Hindu blasphemer to death in 1929. Sentenced to death with found guilty of murder this resulted in fleeing the country of the presiding judge. Devout Muslims were at it again a few months after Taseer’s assassination. Shahbaz Bhatti, the Christian minister for minority rights, had also advocated a reform of the blasphemy laws. He since then was ambushed by members of the Taliban and assassinated exactly as he himself had foreseen he would be.
By summarizing the situation in effect by 2011 the Guardian reported that Muslims in Pakistan had machine-gunned two politicians to defend the honour of the prophet Muhammad. But by 2015, the Guardian was then out of a sudden horrified to discover that Muslims in Paris were capable of such horrible actions by machine-gunning cartoonists for the same reason. Who could have foreseen that Muslims in Paris might behave like Muslims in Pakistan? It’s almost as though they don’t believe in free speech. Indications for the peril have been provided enough by the past.
This demonstrates the incapability of the Guardian handling its own contents and correlating this with already expressed journalism. But it is much worse than just that. When Mumtaz Qadri was finally executed earlier this year, the Guardian published this pious editorial:
The murder of Salman Taseer was in a literal sense a crime against humanity even if in a legal sense it was just another of the innumerable murders that have disfigured Pakistan in recent decades. He was the governor of the Punjab, who was killed by one of his own bodyguards, Mumtaz Qadri, because he had denounced the dreadful blasphemy laws that have been successively rewritten, widened, and made more stringent under Islamising governments since 1980 so that now people can be executed merely for “using derogatory words in respect of the Holy Prophet”.
On Monday 29th February 2016, Qadri was hanged in conditions of secrecy. On Tuesday, vast crowds attended his funeral to demonstrate their support for this murderer’s crime. Nor was this support confined to Pakistan. One of the largest mosques in Birmingham said special prayers for Qadri, describing him as “a martyr”, as did influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury. These have been strongly and rightly criticised by other British Muslims, and no doubt represent a minority view, but it is disappointing that there are still some imams who have learned little about mutual tolerance in the 25 years since the Rushdie affair, however much mainstream majority Muslim views have moved on. …
It is not just the terrifying levels of intimidation that operate in Pakistan that keeps the law in place, but widespread democratic support. This looks like a reversal of all the great hopes of the closing decades of the 20th century and it is, but it is not an irreversible trend. … We can do better, and we must. Human dignity demands the right to question, to be mistaken, and even sometimes laugh about beliefs. Only on the basis of that kind of equality extended to all can we make a more just world. (The Guardian view on religious intolerance: a sin against freedom, 3rd March 2016)
That is a typical piece of oportunistic posturing and dishonesty or at least hypocrisy. Who is this “we” who can and must do better? Presumably it’s the human race, so the Guardian is claiming the ability to reform humanity via its editorial column. Has the human race (or just the western part) already aquired all the abilities to just do that? But then we wouldnt discuss this case here. It’s posturing to feed its readers’ narcissism, nothing more. It’s also being dishonest about the true nature of Islam.
Indeed interessing is how it is noted that supporters of Qadri in Britain “no doubt represent a minority view,” but is “disappointed” that “some imams … have learned little about mutual tolerance,” despite the way “mainstream majority Muslim views have moved on” since the Salman Rushdie affair. How does the Guardian know that Qadri supporters are in a minority and that mainstream Muslim views have “moved on”?
The fact is seemingly for the journalist on Guardian: It doesn’t know. It merely has assumptions as it is not providing any evidence for the case. And is it really a call if very sizable minorities of Muslims have such beliefs? Like the 35% of young Muslims in Britain and 42% in France who are willing to tell pollsters that they support suicide bombings according to a Pew poll (presumably a low estimate). Another recent study (ICM Muslim Survey for Channel 4) finds alarming statements regarding the Mulims in UK and Europe too.
Trevor Phillips states in his Channel 4 documentary his belief, that there is “a chasm” opening between Muslims and people of other faiths, and therefore that Muslims are different and apart from the rest of society. He states that it reveals “the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future”. In his view, this means “we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism”.
Also the recent critic from the The Guardian to the study mentioned above is not holding stand for my arguments as the Guardian is failing to provide any real facts against the result of the poll and Trevor’s statements. As a result The Guardian summarises:
“This is not the first time polls have been used to paint a picture of Muslims as at variance with British culture.”
It appears that everytime a poll is not in favour of The Guardians political expression, it is “been used to paint a picture”. This is surely a true violation of good intentions and thereby we should ignore polls like this as it is not holding up to the real political goals of illusion. The Guardian can’t be serious. Naturally everything is being “used” and “to paint a picture.” The Guardian (and in case I myself here) is just doing the very same thing itself as by “painting a picture” for its very own opinion for which to disregard and to disqualify the above poll which does not cover its own political opinions. So it appears for the Guardian as a kind of bad morale to handle or use. What a great argument and logic from The Guardian. It just holds not stand.
Surely, we would expect too much from a well-staffed newspaper like the Guardian to do their own investigation of Muslim organizations and people to find out about their opinions? In this case it would likely be both time-consuming and apparently dangerous, because the Guardian might not get the answers it is expecting to get.
As taken in account the Guardian is seemingly wilfully blind about the extent of Muslim intolerance and totalitarianism. The Guardian reporting that the murderer Mumtaz Qadri has been acclaimed as a “martyr” by “one of the largest mosques in Birmingham” and by “influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury“ is raising big questions. If that is a “minority view,” where is the condemnation from the “mainstream”? Why are pro-Qadri mosques not being condemned and boycotted by anti-Qadri mosques? Why did the moderate Muslim majority not take to the streets to condemn both Qadri’s original crime and their misguided co-religionists who regard Qadri as a martyr? There is no evidence appearing for that critic.
Well, waiting for moderate Muslims to demonstrate in favour of free speech is a lot like waiting for Godot. Moderate Muslims are very relaxed about killing in Muhammad’s name. The death of Salmaan Taseer proved that in 2011 and so does the death of Asad Shah in 2016. He was a Muslim shopkeeper in Scotland who used his Facebook page to promote inter-faith harmony with the following message: “Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation.” For saying that, he was stabbed and stamped to death by a hate-filled bigot who had travelled hundreds of miles from England with no other purpose.
Also you may look at major European countries like Germany and the UK and you will see the neglected connection of Islam and the muslim life in European countries by mainstream media. All about everywhere you may find after light searching evidence for this and evidence for just making such a connection.
So as the Islam as a religion itself is NOT bad, it is in some of its practical use in everday life — and there you must do the connection to „lived“ cultural religion as with the handling of women in public with not tolerable results of harrassement — as the Islam is — which indeed is sincerly problematic.
“One possible explanation is that, on average, people from the Middle East have a vastly different view of women and sex than Scandinavians have.”
“And despite the attempts by the Swedish establishment to convince that everyone setting foot on Swedish soil becomes exactly like those who have lived here for dozens of generations, facts point in an altogether different direction.”
