I’d like to spend a bit of time looking at a couple of examples of the lunatic fringe that is actively promoting a pro-violence stance. But first, let’s be totally clear, these individuals do not represent the majority of Muslims who are generally decent honourable people and are content to ignore all the fuss.
Petitioning I Protest Against Disrespect of our beloved Prophet Muhammad S.A.W I Protest Against Disrespect of our beloved Prophet Mohammad S.A.W: Remove Video From the You Tube and Web. We Muslims should NEVER EVER become like the people of the West and other faiths who are WILLING to tolerate the Insult to their Religion and see it as Free Expression, as Comedy, Drama and Entertainment. In Islam, we are taught to be Tolerate, Humble and Forgiving
OK, so far not really a big surprise and is the anticipated counter criticism, but sadly he later steps over the line …
Remove Video From the You Tube and Web and Punished (Hang Till Dead ) the Director and Actor of the this Movie.
Yes indeed … this follower of a “tolerant, Humble and Forgiving” belief, advocates that the nutty director of a crap movie that has criticised his belief should be hung. This was in a public forum with about 57,000 members, many of whom are Muslims. Has one Muslim spoken out against this? Sadly no, not yet.
There does appear to be a pro-violence strand of thought that is appearing within some of these on-line forums. For example a chap called Asad Ali (currently residing in Glasgow) has been actively condoning violence and its use … with stuff like this …
Violence = Inflict (physical and/or emotional) suffering in order to generate a desired behavior.
Violence is an individual’s choice.
It’s a chosen response to “a less than preferred circumstance”
It’s a response intended to transform a less desirable circumstance into a more desirable circumstance.”
I openly asked if any Muslims would openly condemn this pro-violence stance, but none were willing to do so.
This pattern, this refusal to openly condemn the lunatic fringe is a serious problem. I sometimes find that even those that do openly advocate for peace do so in a manner that has a sufficient degree of wiggle room to accommodate violence.
I said it before, I’m saying it now that attack on the innocent even on the face of insult to my beloved prophet, peace be on him, is incorrect, destruction of properties is also not acceptable.
That all sounds good … oh but wait, what’s with that turn of phrase, “attack on the innocent”. Ah yes, that’s the catch, you just declare those you are attacking as “guilty” and all bets are off, its open season.
“No no”, you might say, “you are reading things into what he is saying”. Well, I put that to the test, during our dialog I asked him a very simple question …
you ducked the question I actually asked and are giving answers that are actually very evasive.
Let us take one specific and very simple example you and I are familiar with. The case of the 13-year-old girl who was raped, and then when she complained to the then authorities, those who raped her walked away free, but she was sentenced to death and was stoned in front of a crowd of 1,000 in Somalia. The Sharia court that prevailed was the then authority, so by all your definitions, that would be just fine.
So the question is very simple: Was that stoning a morally wrong and an unacceptable act of violence, Yes or no?
And his answer …
On the 13 year old girl you referred to, my position has always been that A RAPE VICTIM CAN NOT BE SENTENCED TO DEATH IN ISLAAM.
In other words, he openly refused to condemn it and simply ducked by claiming that no true Muslim would have done it.
There in a nutshell is the deeply worrying issue … many of the moderates who do attempt to advocate for peace, refuse to condemn the violent extreme. That is not only a PR disaster for Islam, but also creates a safe haven, a shield, behind which the violent extremists can shelter.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. – Steven Weinberg, US physicist quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999