We, the ADL plan to do something similar in due course..but not yet.
In any examination of a religion or religious figure, it is imperitive to establish he public interest credentials of such an enquiry. We believe absolutely sincerely that examining and scrutinising Muhammad as a man of history is essential and valid, in the same way that an examination of Adolph Hitler and his personal story "Mein Kampf" is valid and in the public interest. No doubt, to expose the darker side of National Socialism as defined in Mein Kampf and in the acts and deeds of Adolph Hitler will be very offensive and insulting to any people who adhere to his views and celebrate his life.
The same goes for Muslims in Western societies. Nevertheless it cannot be argued that simply because something is offensive or insulting that it is out of the bounds of public debate. This is especially so in the State of Victoria which has the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.
Section 8 stipulates:
Religious vilification unlawful
8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief
or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in
conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for,
or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class
of persons. Note Engage in conduct includes use of the
internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other
material.
This means that if we vilify a follower of a religion (not the religion itself) or mock or ridicule the religion and it's followers, we are guilty of a civil offense. Clearly, criticism of National Socialism based on it's founder (Hitler) and his behavior and the story of the holocaust etc, would be in the public interest and not fall under the offense of section 8 above. The same must apply for Islam, Buddhism,Hinduism and even Christianity.
It would be useful to quote the exemptions from the Act here. (Section 11)
1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the persons conduct was
engaged in reasonably and in good faith.
a) Work of art
b) In the course of
i)any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held or any other conduct'
engaged in for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose
or
ii) Any purpose that is in the public interest or
c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.
As for us, we will examine the following issues: (among others)
Did Mohammad demonstrate a narcissistic and cruel attitude toward women?
Did he engage in spouse abuse/domestic violence?
Did he orchestrate the mutilation of living prisoners and their horrific torture and slow death?
Did he engage in torture of a Jewish chief to determine where they hid the gold?
Did he engage in child sexual abuse?
Did he carry out a bloody massacre by systematic beheadings of around 700 males of an already surrendered Jewish tribe? (with the women and children sold into slavery)
Did he encourage his followers to invade, fight and overthrow non Muslim societies until the 'worship Allah alone' ?
Did his followers actually carry out that command after Muhammad's death?
If found "guilty" of the above crimes, it rather begs the question "should the celebration of such a person be allowed in a civil society?" What does that also say about those who follow such a man?
Do they celebrate his life knowing these things? If yes, then are they not as guilty as he is? If they don't know these things, then their ignorance can be forgiven and they can be re-educated to know the true nature of this person. If an Italian fruitshop owner applauds and celebrates the activities of the Mafia, the killing of Donald Mackay, the murder of opponents and rivals..and does so publically... is this not an indication of that person being willing or at least possibly being willing to carry out the same type of acts?
If the followers of Muhammad continue to celebrate him after being fully informed of his behavior and alleged crimes.. then could they not be seen to be as 'guilty by association' with the man and his crimes? The reader can answer this question for themselves. Perhaps it can be said they are "accessories long after the fact", but accessories none the less? If people of Italian background, who come from Calabria, not only celebrate Mafia values and activities, but also give protection by silence or hospitality toward such individuals... is this not persuasive of their own nature and inclination?
If a Brahmin Hindu brings his caste/class beliefs to Australia, and in finding an Indian person of "untouchable" background in his neighbourhood..then treats this person with disdain, contempt and demands that this untouchable person weeds his garden, paints his house, and generally becomes his servant.. is he not manifesting values and behavior which are unspeakably offensive to Australian life? Even if he does not make such demands, the simple fact that he holds such beliefs and attitudes toward other human beings because of their birth status... does this not place him in the same category as those who actually make such demands?
Of course, it would be argued that the list of what we have described as Muhammad's "crimes against humanity" are not of that character, by followers of Muhammad and Islam. Those things will be (and are) rationlized and "explained".
Thus far, (and I've heard a lot) I find no such "explaination" in any way satisfactory or convincing.
The same was the case in regard to the Nazi's. "But the Jews are.. a, b, c. d. etc" Unfortunately for those surviving National Socialists and SS officers who were brought to trial at Nuremburg, the rest of the world did not see it that way. Nor will the informed world see the same viewpoint as Muslims on the issue of their founder unless they allow their minds to be dislocated and blinded by political or ideological prejudice.
As a foretaste, we believe each of the above allegations concerning Muhammad, will be proven in the affirmative, and that the guilty verdict is inevitable. More on this later,-evidence yet to be presented.
In connection with this and Pastor Terry Jones Quran Burning, we should observe with interest the following reaction from a Muslim in America:
Dr. Mir Mumtaz Ali "This has to be the work of Satan," Ali said of the Quran burning. "No good Christian, and for that matter any human being belonging to any faith, would do this shameful act.
But let's ask the more pertinent question about why Dr Ali celebrates a man who could soon to be found guilty of crimes against humanity,Crimes against women and children and promoting sedition and imperialism against non Muslims societies?
What we see in Dr Ali's viewpoint, is analoguous to that of a National Socialist apologist for their opinion and actions concerning Jews.
To highlight such aspects of Muhammad and Islam, may be said to 'incite hatred' against them. Sadly, this might be true in some cases. No different than to expose the darker side of National Socialism would also attract a strong degree of hate towards such people, specially from Jewish people.
But in this case we believe that the more important principle is that of public interest.
A recent example of what happened in Auburn Sydney will illustrate this:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gunshots-prompt-prayers-for-peace-20110402-1cs8h.html
In this case
On March 19, two men in balaclavas stood at the intersection of a nearby road, spraying the front of the prayer hall with eight rounds of bullets. The building was unoccupied at the time.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The busy Hindu temple opened in 1977. It is surrounded by a predominantly Muslim population and it is no secret among locals that tensions have been simmering in recent years, caused by concerns about noise and parking problems at Sri Mandir.
It would be absurd to suggest that the SMH report of those 2 facts "Temple shot up" and "Muslims in the area" is inciting hatred toward Muslims. At this stage the perpetrators are 'persons unknown'. But if they are found to be local Muslims, it cannot be argued (with a shred of credibility), that to report it as a 'fact' in either the mainstream media or a blog article is 'inciting hatred'. It could however be persuasively argued that IF the Media constructed the story along the lines of "See.. those Muslims are all the same" -they are inciting hatred based on religion.
One does wonder how Professor Jacobowicz would view this development and how it effects his confidence in "MultiCulturalism" ??
On a lighter note:
One does wonder how Professor Jacobowicz would view this development and how it effects his confidence in "MultiCulturalism" ??
On a lighter note:
No comments:
Post a Comment