As the financial crisis in the U.S. and Europe continues to worsen with no end in sight, the jingoism, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments are steadily on the rise. A study recently conducted (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1015/Why-13-percent-of-Germans-would-welcome-a-Fuehrer) revealed that 13% of Germans “would welcome a Fuhrer to run the country with a firm hand”. Additionally, around 60% of respondents said they would limit the way Islam was allowed to be practiced in the country. Furthermore, the respondents felt that measures needed to be taken to restrict immigration into Europe.
These viewpoints aren’t something coming from the extreme right or from some fringe group. The mainstream has seen this seeping in of overt racism and if it hasn’t become the norm of public discourse it’s coming very close to becoming so. Politicians on the left and right utilize the xenophobic feelings in their platforms and often times gain votes as a result; in fact the ones who don’t point a finger of accusation at immigrants and/or Muslims end up the losers in elections often times.
Meanwhile in the United States we see the same tactics happening. While politicians in Europe attack immigrants coming from North Africa, Turkey and Eastern Europe, their American counterparts are focusing on Mexicans at the border and Latinos from Central and South America. With an election looming, unemployment rising and jobs slashing away at benefits, constituents are listening to the only source that gives them hope; politicians running for office. Promises are made to increase jobs and pay, decrease taxes and unemployment. Undocumented immigrants are blamed for the country’s woes and the voters believing it fall into line with what they are told and the racism and xenophobia grows here similar to how it grew in Europe. As people suffer more they look for answers and those who give the answers are consistently rooting themselves around jingoism and thinly veiled hatred.
Economy is one side of the coin in this increasingly volatile environment. The other side is the fight to supposedly preserve rights and ways of life. This is where the anti-Islamic sentiments kick in strongly. Since 2001, Islam has been blamed and accused of taking away the “liberties” of societies, of making people subservient, of making people less intelligent and being incompatible with ideals of “freedom”. Post September 2001, things went downhill but as the economy hit the dumps and avalanched further and continues to avalanche, opportunists have used the pervasive air of uncertainty and fear to bring Islam further into a villainous light. After the controversy of the Islamic center being built in New York, the same group of people who used this for their personal gain jumped to another topic that, according to them, shows that Islam is trying to subvert people and turn them into slaves. The topic? Campbell’s soup. Yes, soup. In Canada, Campbell’s has started to label their vegetarian soups as halal. The certification of this comes from ISNA (Islamic Society of North America). Not willing to miss an opportunity to further their cause, Geller and her backroom masters decided to boycott the company and to publicize company “bowing down” to Islamic “radicalism” (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/activists-simmer-campbells-soup-capaign-target-muslims/story?id=11918568&page=2). According to them ISNA is some kind of front for “terrorists” and “radicals” and by associating with them, Campbell’s is condoning such concepts. It’s worthy to note that the boycott put against them has not had much of an effect on their sales.
With conditions growing out of control, demagogues are propping themselves into power by playing on people’s lack of information and feelings of losing control of the world around them. Immigrants and Muslims are fair game as has been demonstrated time and time again in recent years. Will this change? Not likely. The ones to blame for the economic woes of Western Europe and the United States are undoubtedly those who were engaged in the stock markets, those who fixed laws to benefit the few, in short those who were in power and were working at upholding the status quo. They won’t blame themselves though because they want their money, they want their bonuses, they want to remain in their positions of power. So, to allay the tension and anger that’s brewing in society, they’ve targeted groups in society that are a sore for the powers that be. Bring the Fuhrer back, there are too many immigrants and Muslims in the country. They’re changing our way of life, they’re even taking over our tomato soup!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Third Argument: Motive- Part I
It’s near midnight and she walks into the driveway of the home. Beneath the light she can see him and he notices her. He smiles at her, unspoken words hidden behind his eyes. She raises her hands showing a gun and takes aim. Four shots are fired into his chest before he falls to the ground remaining motionless, his shirt soaking in dark liquid…
One side says Islam is a terrorist religion (if it’s even a religion to begin with). Inherently it’s evil and murderous. They point to the events of 2001, the videos posted by certain groups, the angry protests where something will inevitably be burned in effigy. They point at these and more as proof that Islam creates in humans bestial, barbaric behavior bent on destructive impulses.
The other side says “Islam is a religion of peace”, it’s something that stresses humanity. They say that misunderstanding of Islamic texts has brought about the spike in the recent (last 60 years specifically) actions that have taken the lives of innocents around the world. The apologists (??) assert that Islam itself has been hijacked by villains who are giving the religion a bad name. The loud angry speeches, the goose-stepping, the talk of “self-determination”, indeed anything political, the angry talking, all of this is utterly outside of Islam they say.
There are these two clashing ideas of what Islam is and isn’t. Usually, the side of the apologists is taken by Muslims and those with an affinity to Muslims. The other side is taken by those who are antagonistic towards Islam. These can be non-Muslims, Muslims who have become disenchanted with the religion (why have they?), former Muslims who have left the religion and those who fall somewhere between that spectrum. When the subject of Islam makes its way into the media either one side or the other is given a platform; usually there’s more negative press given to the religion. However, with all the talk of whether Islam is a peaceful religion that’s mutated or if it’s a religion that’s inherently evil, rarely is a thorough analyses given. According to some, Islam is peaceful but why, what makes it a peaceful thing? Muslims feed the hungry and look after the poor and engage in interfaith meetings which makes it peaceful to some. According to others it’s the spawn of the devil but again we have to ask why, what makes that assertion a truism? Muslims attack innocent people and subjects women so that’s proof of its satanic inclination according to others.
With the good and bad, how often has the question been asked of why certain actions have been taken? What were the motivating factors that pushed a group of people to do things deemed inhumane? These types of questions are not asked and so we begin to look at situations in a huge void. Judgments made in the absence of information are bound to lead to inaccurate conclusions.
A woman has suffered at the hands of an abusive father for as long as she can remember. Even into her early childhood he’d slap her and punch her, beat her and yank her arm as if he were tugging at some kind of rope. These attacks were lightweight compared to the visits he’d pay her at night in her room. Repeatedly she was dehumanized losing any sense of self worth and this was increased more so because of the fact that people knew what was occurring. They knew the things that happened but said nothing, let alone did they take any action to prevent it from happening. The last shreds of her sanity were being torn away and if she wanted to survive as mentally intact human she’d have to take her life or his. Either she would end him or end herself but something had to give if she wanted to stay halfway sane. To kill herself would give him a victory, it would have said that he controlled her so much that after he exploited her, she would just go into a box and become a thing forgotten. No, that couldn’t happen, she would make him the thing forgotten. It’s near midnight and she walks into the driveway of the home…
Of course we can say there are other options, she shouldn’t have taken the law into her own hands. But, we say this from a perspective of a person who more likely has not gone through such trials and this amongst people who, like us, have been free from this kind of experience. Do we say the same to a person who’s been abused? Could we even dare to bring out this kind of argument directly to the face of this particular woman? “You shouldn’t have done this, someone would have helped you and taken you out of that situation”. Can that be said to the face of a person who’s had two decades of abuse in her life? Hardly could it be done, we speak so easily from the comfort of sheltered homes where it’s easy to easily throw judgments on people without anyone being able to challenge us or to give their side of the story.
One side says Islam is a terrorist religion (if it’s even a religion to begin with). Inherently it’s evil and murderous. They point to the events of 2001, the videos posted by certain groups, the angry protests where something will inevitably be burned in effigy. They point at these and more as proof that Islam creates in humans bestial, barbaric behavior bent on destructive impulses.
The other side says “Islam is a religion of peace”, it’s something that stresses humanity. They say that misunderstanding of Islamic texts has brought about the spike in the recent (last 60 years specifically) actions that have taken the lives of innocents around the world. The apologists (??) assert that Islam itself has been hijacked by villains who are giving the religion a bad name. The loud angry speeches, the goose-stepping, the talk of “self-determination”, indeed anything political, the angry talking, all of this is utterly outside of Islam they say.
There are these two clashing ideas of what Islam is and isn’t. Usually, the side of the apologists is taken by Muslims and those with an affinity to Muslims. The other side is taken by those who are antagonistic towards Islam. These can be non-Muslims, Muslims who have become disenchanted with the religion (why have they?), former Muslims who have left the religion and those who fall somewhere between that spectrum. When the subject of Islam makes its way into the media either one side or the other is given a platform; usually there’s more negative press given to the religion. However, with all the talk of whether Islam is a peaceful religion that’s mutated or if it’s a religion that’s inherently evil, rarely is a thorough analyses given. According to some, Islam is peaceful but why, what makes it a peaceful thing? Muslims feed the hungry and look after the poor and engage in interfaith meetings which makes it peaceful to some. According to others it’s the spawn of the devil but again we have to ask why, what makes that assertion a truism? Muslims attack innocent people and subjects women so that’s proof of its satanic inclination according to others.
With the good and bad, how often has the question been asked of why certain actions have been taken? What were the motivating factors that pushed a group of people to do things deemed inhumane? These types of questions are not asked and so we begin to look at situations in a huge void. Judgments made in the absence of information are bound to lead to inaccurate conclusions.
A woman has suffered at the hands of an abusive father for as long as she can remember. Even into her early childhood he’d slap her and punch her, beat her and yank her arm as if he were tugging at some kind of rope. These attacks were lightweight compared to the visits he’d pay her at night in her room. Repeatedly she was dehumanized losing any sense of self worth and this was increased more so because of the fact that people knew what was occurring. They knew the things that happened but said nothing, let alone did they take any action to prevent it from happening. The last shreds of her sanity were being torn away and if she wanted to survive as mentally intact human she’d have to take her life or his. Either she would end him or end herself but something had to give if she wanted to stay halfway sane. To kill herself would give him a victory, it would have said that he controlled her so much that after he exploited her, she would just go into a box and become a thing forgotten. No, that couldn’t happen, she would make him the thing forgotten. It’s near midnight and she walks into the driveway of the home…
Of course we can say there are other options, she shouldn’t have taken the law into her own hands. But, we say this from a perspective of a person who more likely has not gone through such trials and this amongst people who, like us, have been free from this kind of experience. Do we say the same to a person who’s been abused? Could we even dare to bring out this kind of argument directly to the face of this particular woman? “You shouldn’t have done this, someone would have helped you and taken you out of that situation”. Can that be said to the face of a person who’s had two decades of abuse in her life? Hardly could it be done, we speak so easily from the comfort of sheltered homes where it’s easy to easily throw judgments on people without anyone being able to challenge us or to give their side of the story.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Random thought at 2am
It’s the last week of Ramadhan and I’m sitting here in the masjid at almost 2am. There’s so much anti-Islamic sentiment going on and its increased in the last few months. Islamophobia they call it. I’m not surprised about it, I’m not shocked by it, there are plenty of people (people with power) who have an interest in seeing any forms of an undiluted Islam being entirely dismantled. If anything, it’s annoying. Sitting here, I’m reflecting on this deen and this month.
Often with things of depth, an idea is confined into one word and from that it loses its essence. The term “deen” is translated as “religion”, the term “salah” is translated as “prayer”, the practice of Ramadhan is related to “fasting”. Superficially, people see ramadhan as something so hard because of the lack of food that comes in the daytime hours. Really though, Ramadhan is a time of re-centering oneself, of gaining control of your body and your mind and ultimately your spirit; the pull of society is supposed to lessen.
For me, this month really helps me to check myself and I become more conscious of not only who and what I am but who and what I’d like to become. Everyday is a day of removing impurities from your being and become strengthened again and again and I appreciate this. Of course those on the outside who can’t stand Islam wouldn’t have you think this but, again their opinions are of no importance here. Ramadhan is one of those things that, if you remain attuned to it, you can see the effects it has on you over time and in the space of only a month, drastic changes can be born.
This morning, there’s a lot running through my mind and ironically, the mental congestion that is occurring is happening because I have an idea of direction and an idea of what I’d like to accomplish and how to go about achieving my goals. In due time, they’ll be elucidated. It goes without saying, this month is one of blessings in many varied areas of one’s life.
Often with things of depth, an idea is confined into one word and from that it loses its essence. The term “deen” is translated as “religion”, the term “salah” is translated as “prayer”, the practice of Ramadhan is related to “fasting”. Superficially, people see ramadhan as something so hard because of the lack of food that comes in the daytime hours. Really though, Ramadhan is a time of re-centering oneself, of gaining control of your body and your mind and ultimately your spirit; the pull of society is supposed to lessen.
For me, this month really helps me to check myself and I become more conscious of not only who and what I am but who and what I’d like to become. Everyday is a day of removing impurities from your being and become strengthened again and again and I appreciate this. Of course those on the outside who can’t stand Islam wouldn’t have you think this but, again their opinions are of no importance here. Ramadhan is one of those things that, if you remain attuned to it, you can see the effects it has on you over time and in the space of only a month, drastic changes can be born.
This morning, there’s a lot running through my mind and ironically, the mental congestion that is occurring is happening because I have an idea of direction and an idea of what I’d like to accomplish and how to go about achieving my goals. In due time, they’ll be elucidated. It goes without saying, this month is one of blessings in many varied areas of one’s life.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Women in Jama'at.
By now, many in the Muslim community have become aware of groups of women demanding their rights to make salah in full jama’ah in the masjid. While cultural tradition has women divided from men by use of a physical divider or even placing them in a separate room, they assert the belief that this is not part of the sunnah and is actually a form of bid’ah. Some have taken a distaste to their actions and the methods they utilize, others have lauded them and congratulated them on what is seen as a kind of bravery. They’ve not only taken an unpopular stance but they’ve also tried to revitalize a portion of Islam that’s been left behind. Though this in itself is has been worthwhile, there are other things in the actions taken by these groups that makes one wonder if their movement is purely Islamic or only partially so.
The first issue that comes to mind dealing with the Islamic legitimacy of this movement are the names that appear in the groups. Certain figures within the group have a history of being “cafeteria Muslims” using portions of Islam when it benefits them while leaving other parts of Islam out when it’s not so good a fit for their personal whims. On the issue of women, they say that Islam guarantees women’s rights, which is true, but they go further to try to stifle things Islamic claiming “Islam needs to be modernized” rather than “Muslims need to be modernized”. They see themselves as “progressive” but their form of “progress” is adapting themselves to what the status quo accepts whether it be right or wrong. These types are reminiscent of colonized subjects who saw progress and development as becoming closer in behavior to their colonizers while leaving their own native/cultural behavior in the texts of history. They are moved more from insecurity and with a desire to fit in rather than to be on firm and solid ground.
The second issue coming to mind deals with the reliance of the organizers on media to get their message spread out. There’s nothing wrong with using various sources of media, whether it be print, radio, tv, etc., to inform the public of what’s happening. The problems pop up when the media that’s being used is the same media that maligns the general Muslim public day after day. One has to wonder, if the media has been antagonistic towards Muslims repeatedly, what difference in approach would they take? Why would they lend a sympathetic ear to Muslim issues and spread it out to the public so the average person also has a sympathetic feeling? In reality, the same antagonistic media is going to use such a situation to benefit its own cause. So, as the media claims Islam is unjust to women and treats them as inferiors, these forms of media will use this movement as evidence of the unjust behavior towards women. A fair and as unbiased as possible hearing won’t be given and so relying on mainstream media outlets will serve more to denigrate Islam (as is continually being done) than to give a voice to the Muslimat who claim they want their rights.
As we are given rights in Islam, we ought to preserve them and if someone is taking them away from us, we have the right to have it returned back to us. However, we can’t claim that we’re preserving our Islamic rights when we’re least concerned about Islam and more concerned about the “rights” that fit our whims. It’s hypocritical to say that we support something or someone when we see great personal opportunities within it but then revoke our support of a thing when we don’t like it and it doesn’t allow us to do what our desires plead for. For the reasons outlined above, I’d greatly hesitate in supporting this movement because unfortunately, it seems like there’s more interest in doing the popular thing rather the Islamic thing.
The first issue that comes to mind dealing with the Islamic legitimacy of this movement are the names that appear in the groups. Certain figures within the group have a history of being “cafeteria Muslims” using portions of Islam when it benefits them while leaving other parts of Islam out when it’s not so good a fit for their personal whims. On the issue of women, they say that Islam guarantees women’s rights, which is true, but they go further to try to stifle things Islamic claiming “Islam needs to be modernized” rather than “Muslims need to be modernized”. They see themselves as “progressive” but their form of “progress” is adapting themselves to what the status quo accepts whether it be right or wrong. These types are reminiscent of colonized subjects who saw progress and development as becoming closer in behavior to their colonizers while leaving their own native/cultural behavior in the texts of history. They are moved more from insecurity and with a desire to fit in rather than to be on firm and solid ground.
The second issue coming to mind deals with the reliance of the organizers on media to get their message spread out. There’s nothing wrong with using various sources of media, whether it be print, radio, tv, etc., to inform the public of what’s happening. The problems pop up when the media that’s being used is the same media that maligns the general Muslim public day after day. One has to wonder, if the media has been antagonistic towards Muslims repeatedly, what difference in approach would they take? Why would they lend a sympathetic ear to Muslim issues and spread it out to the public so the average person also has a sympathetic feeling? In reality, the same antagonistic media is going to use such a situation to benefit its own cause. So, as the media claims Islam is unjust to women and treats them as inferiors, these forms of media will use this movement as evidence of the unjust behavior towards women. A fair and as unbiased as possible hearing won’t be given and so relying on mainstream media outlets will serve more to denigrate Islam (as is continually being done) than to give a voice to the Muslimat who claim they want their rights.
As we are given rights in Islam, we ought to preserve them and if someone is taking them away from us, we have the right to have it returned back to us. However, we can’t claim that we’re preserving our Islamic rights when we’re least concerned about Islam and more concerned about the “rights” that fit our whims. It’s hypocritical to say that we support something or someone when we see great personal opportunities within it but then revoke our support of a thing when we don’t like it and it doesn’t allow us to do what our desires plead for. For the reasons outlined above, I’d greatly hesitate in supporting this movement because unfortunately, it seems like there’s more interest in doing the popular thing rather the Islamic thing.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Revisiting History so the Guest of Future Doesn't Surprise You
"History is a race between education and catastrophe". -H.G. Well
Humans and most animals rely on prior experiences to give them an idea of what will happen if they commit an action in the future. A toddler who places his or her hand on a flame will, after that incident, more likely than not, stay away from touching a flame; the memory of what happened before will be enough to stop them. But what happens if the toddler touches the fire and doesn't remember the entire incident? The attraction of the fire draws him or her to it again and the baby will probably touch the flame again and feel the same pain once more. And each time they forget, they'll probably repeat it.
Individually, our memories of personal experiences shapes our decisions in the future. However, socially speaking, history (our collective memories) tends to be forgotten resulting in our (social) repeating of putting our hands on the flames and burning ourselves. As a collective society, we've become amnesiac when it comes to the experiences of history and it has led us to a condition where we are increasingly suffering on a day to day basis. We've lived this way for so long that we believe it's a normal thing to go through the things we face on the street, at work (slave jobs) and anywhere in between. Yet this way of suffering is not a normal thing and we need to revisit history to understand this.
Regardless of how scary it is, how much it makes us terrified, we need to see what's happened not so we can write homework assignments but so we can take the best of historical events and figures and bring them into this world and so we can see the worse of history and prevent it by all means from being repeated. There's truth and wisdom in Maya Angelou's words "History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again."
Monday, February 8, 2010
Aafia Siddiqui and the repeated precedent
For those of you who don't know about the case of Aafia Siddiqui, here's a link to an article about her and the resultant trial which ended in a guilty verdict on the charge of attempted murder. Article and Video Report on Aafia Verdict
Her case represents a consistent trend throughout the world where to be a Muslim on trial is an automatic guilty verdict. Regardless of what evidence is brought forth in favor of the defendant and what evidence is lacking that shows inconsistencies in governmental cases, the Muslim who is put on the stand by a western government will almost assuredly be found guilty.
One of the disheartening things about Aafia Siddiqui's case is the fact that though she was missing for some years, this was not looked into during her trial. The judge didn't bring it up, nor did the defense team, financed by the Pakistani government, delve into this crucial fact of the case. Essentially, Siddiqui was portrayed, as many Muslims are, as a lunatic bent on destroying the lives of Americans. On top of this, Siddiqui has three children who entered her native Pakistan with her before she was arrested, two of them were missing and are missing right to this day. Again, this held no weight in the trial at hand. Why was a full picture not painted around Aafia Siddiqui and instead only a biased one which portrayed her as yet another so-called "Islamist jihadist"?
Those who have it in their best interest to maintain the current status quo have made it their goal to vilify Muslims in the public eye. Though it has been done in the recent past with the propaganda against Muslims and places like Iran during the 80's (one need only look at characters in wrestling such as The Iron Sheik or album titles such as "Sheikh Yerbooti") it wasn't until nearly nine years ago that this went into full steam. While the Muslims represented a potential threat that existed in lands far, far away, the events in 2001 signaled a threat in people's back yards. From there, because of this fear engendered by those events, the Muslims became fair game at any and all points. Repeatedly the media pounded (and continues to pound) into the heads of the public "they're terrorists, they're terrorists, they're terrorists" or "they don't believe in women's rights, they want women to be subservient" and the list goes on for giving justifications for attacking Muslims and making them a disgusting site in the public eye. The unrelenting injections into the public's head has taken full effect to either make people loathe Muslims or fear Muslims intently.
Many proofs of this can be seen and the Aafia Siddiqui case is one such. Like the image of the depraved, sex-crazed black man that was fed to America between the time of the "emancipation" of "slaves" until the end of the civil rights era (roughly), the image of the crazed Muslim creates in the public a monster so huge, so threatening, so dark and deadly that the public, when forced to encounter it, would prefer to look away while the guillotine is let go. Do what you must, get rid of that ghastly beast, just keep it away from my sight, never let me anywhere close! And be sure to destroy it completely. In the past, people destroyed the black beast arresting him, insulting him, spitting on him, punching, kicking and attacking him, stringing a rope around his neck and lynching him, setting his dead, swinging body on fire and taking pictures in front of the monster as evidence that this beast was dead and gone, no longer a threat. Today, the process has been transferred to Muslims. The same excuses are used they're a threat, they are deadly, we're doing it for our safety otherwise we will be destroyed by their lunatic ways.
So deep is this fear and hatred that those who have the potential to change things don't even want to hear, they simply believe their big brother is out to protect them so they do what he tells them to do. Who asked during the trial about the missing years of Aafia? Who brought up the allegations of her being tortured and raped, the statements by prisoners who have sworn they heard her screaming and yelling? And what about her children? Who's made any statement about her children who've been missing? Perhaps they don't matter because they are the seed of the looming Muslim Monster that lurks under every bed and behind every bush on each corner of the street. The Monster must not be thought about, and if it is seen, it must be destroyed by the knights in armor 21 Shots to Kill the Muslim Monster.
Her case represents a consistent trend throughout the world where to be a Muslim on trial is an automatic guilty verdict. Regardless of what evidence is brought forth in favor of the defendant and what evidence is lacking that shows inconsistencies in governmental cases, the Muslim who is put on the stand by a western government will almost assuredly be found guilty.
One of the disheartening things about Aafia Siddiqui's case is the fact that though she was missing for some years, this was not looked into during her trial. The judge didn't bring it up, nor did the defense team, financed by the Pakistani government, delve into this crucial fact of the case. Essentially, Siddiqui was portrayed, as many Muslims are, as a lunatic bent on destroying the lives of Americans. On top of this, Siddiqui has three children who entered her native Pakistan with her before she was arrested, two of them were missing and are missing right to this day. Again, this held no weight in the trial at hand. Why was a full picture not painted around Aafia Siddiqui and instead only a biased one which portrayed her as yet another so-called "Islamist jihadist"?
Those who have it in their best interest to maintain the current status quo have made it their goal to vilify Muslims in the public eye. Though it has been done in the recent past with the propaganda against Muslims and places like Iran during the 80's (one need only look at characters in wrestling such as The Iron Sheik or album titles such as "Sheikh Yerbooti") it wasn't until nearly nine years ago that this went into full steam. While the Muslims represented a potential threat that existed in lands far, far away, the events in 2001 signaled a threat in people's back yards. From there, because of this fear engendered by those events, the Muslims became fair game at any and all points. Repeatedly the media pounded (and continues to pound) into the heads of the public "they're terrorists, they're terrorists, they're terrorists" or "they don't believe in women's rights, they want women to be subservient" and the list goes on for giving justifications for attacking Muslims and making them a disgusting site in the public eye. The unrelenting injections into the public's head has taken full effect to either make people loathe Muslims or fear Muslims intently.
Many proofs of this can be seen and the Aafia Siddiqui case is one such. Like the image of the depraved, sex-crazed black man that was fed to America between the time of the "emancipation" of "slaves" until the end of the civil rights era (roughly), the image of the crazed Muslim creates in the public a monster so huge, so threatening, so dark and deadly that the public, when forced to encounter it, would prefer to look away while the guillotine is let go. Do what you must, get rid of that ghastly beast, just keep it away from my sight, never let me anywhere close! And be sure to destroy it completely. In the past, people destroyed the black beast arresting him, insulting him, spitting on him, punching, kicking and attacking him, stringing a rope around his neck and lynching him, setting his dead, swinging body on fire and taking pictures in front of the monster as evidence that this beast was dead and gone, no longer a threat. Today, the process has been transferred to Muslims. The same excuses are used they're a threat, they are deadly, we're doing it for our safety otherwise we will be destroyed by their lunatic ways.
So deep is this fear and hatred that those who have the potential to change things don't even want to hear, they simply believe their big brother is out to protect them so they do what he tells them to do. Who asked during the trial about the missing years of Aafia? Who brought up the allegations of her being tortured and raped, the statements by prisoners who have sworn they heard her screaming and yelling? And what about her children? Who's made any statement about her children who've been missing? Perhaps they don't matter because they are the seed of the looming Muslim Monster that lurks under every bed and behind every bush on each corner of the street. The Monster must not be thought about, and if it is seen, it must be destroyed by the knights in armor 21 Shots to Kill the Muslim Monster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)