Reaction of the US war lords to the reports of the “civilized” world’s desecrating the Qur’an for adding a new dimension to torturing human beings shows the yawning gap between the perceptions and ideologies of Muslims and those who are pitted against Islam.
Imagine the depth of ideas when Suzanne Fields argues: “Toilets don’t kill people, fanatics do” (Washington Times, May 22, 2005).
Note Jeff Jacoby’s attempt at dehumanizing Muslims in his column titled, "Why Islam is disrespected." He tries to show that people of other faiths are not barbaric like Muslims. He writes: "Christians, Jews and Buddhists don’t lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don’t call for holy war and riot in the street. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain" (Boston Globe, May 19, 2005)
Or guess the crux of Thomas Friedman’s ideas when he writes: “-¦the Arab-Muslim world must also look in the mirror when it comes to how it has been behaving toward an even worse crime than the desecration of God’s words, and that is the desecration of God’s creations. In reaction to an unsubstantiated Newsweek story, Muslims killed 16 other Muslims in Afghanistan in rioting, and no one has raised a peep.” (NY Times, May 20, 2005)
Interestingly, their denial of the reports about extremely debased ways of torturing human beings comes before their so-what justification.
Suzanne Fields calls it “the inaccurate Newsweek item.” Jeff Jacoby considers it "the Newsweek affair: They never occurred," whereas to Friedman it is an “unsubstantiated story.” Friedman adds: “Newsweek may have violated journalistic rules,” which, in other words mean: Don’t tell the truth if it exposes the inner filth of modern day crusaders.
Here we see an example of how the war lords attempt to distort the candid facts. The protesters didn’t “kill each other” in a “frenzy of hatred against America” as these analysts would like the world to believe.
The truth as reported in the press is: “Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.”
The obvious killers in this case are Afghan security forces. Everyone knows who commands them: the US installed mayor of Kabul, Mr. Karzai. He believes: “Those people demonstrating is against the strategic partnership of Afghanistan with the international community, especially the United States."
For Karzai the desecration of the Qur’an was not the issue. Instead, he believes the protesters were “against the strengthening of the peace process." Hence the killing was justified. His justification is hardly any different from Karimov’s ruse that those who died in his bloodbath “wanted to establish Khilafah.”
The second most important factor is the kind of labels these analysts are using to blame the killing of 16 people on the protesters and Imams, ignoring the US butchery of more than 150,000 people which the US has butchered in Afghanistan and Iraq since October 7, 2001.
Death of 16 protestors is the “desecration of the God’s creations.” But the routine torture in many US-run Abu Ghraibs around the world is not. To them, starving 1.8 million to death, flattening entire villages and every other U.S. crime against the humanity is nothing but just “collateral damage.”
Lastly, the difference between Muslims’ reverence for the Qur’an and the Americans’ not killing “each other over burning the Bible” is an evidence of the very basic difference in the perceptions, beliefs, ideology and the way of life of Muslims and those who have pitted the US and its allies against them.
Such a colossal misunderstanding of Muslims is going to cost the war lords their little empire. It shows that despite being guilty of the worst spiritual desecration of the Qur’an, Muslims would never allow others to physically desecrate it and then get themselves off the hook with arguing, “toilets don’t kill people.”
It shows that although 99.9 per cent of Muslims are not living by Islam. But, when it comes to forcing them away from the Sunnah and asking them not to believe in the totality of the Qur’an, they will definitely react and do exactly the opposite.
Suzanne Fields argument that “toilets don’t kill” and Friedman’s twisted logic that killing is worse than desecrating the Qur’an shows their materialist mentality. Muslim’s global reaction on the other hand proves that despite being away from living by the Qur’an, Muslims still give preference to the rewards of their actions in the hereafter. Belief in the life after death dominates their subconscious mind and all major decisions.
The war lords could have won the war provided Friedman & Co. were not telling the world on weekly basis that the US and its allies must defeat “jihadists” in “the heart of the Muslims world.”
Regardless of Muslims running away from Islam, none of the Muslims appreciates the Islamophobes’ call for promoting “a war within Islam.” Most importantly, the war lords can hardly realize that their calls for defeating Muslims in the “war of ideas” amounts to a war on the ideas of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. These are the only two basic sources of Muslims’ ideology and ideas.
What confirms the impending embarrassing defeat of the war lords is their direct call to keeping Muslims away from the Qur’an and the Sunnah (e.g. Sam Harris, Washington Times, December 2, 2004 and Lawrence Auster, Front Page Magazine, January 28, 2005).
War lords are blinded to this factor despite the continuous protests on the Qur’an issue around the world. Even their most favored tyrant, General Musharraf has added his voice by calling it “reprehensible act.” This shows when push comes to shove, the war lords will find most Muslims as one.
The bottom line of the war lords’ ideas is: Muslims must set aside the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and live by “our way of life” as Bush calls it. Double speak and misnomer wars can hardly hide their objective of not allowing Muslims the right to self-determination and living by Islam without outside interference.
As a result, the war lords are facing a serious dilemma. In case they come out, talk straight and try to use violence to keep Muslims away from Islam, they not only get violence in return but also lose even the so-considered “moderate” allies because most of them are not so sure of the real objectives of their promoters.
In case the war lords continue to talk from both sides of their mouth, calling Islam a religion of peace publicly and privately working to deny Muslims the opportunity to live by it, they risk prolonging the conflict. Moreover, there is no guarantee that they will succeed in keeping people blind with their hypocrisy for too long.
In both cases, the war lords are destined to be big time losers. Their “war of ideas” will end with far more ignominious defeat than any people in history who launched wars to impose their ideas on others.
The more the war lords continue their present strategy, the more they dig a deep hole for themselves and many innocent people on both sides of the divide they are working to widen.
Notes:. Suzanne Fields, “More than the Koran,” Washington Times, May 22, 2005. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050522-110113-4604r.htm . Thomas L. Friedman, “The Best P.R.: Straight Talk ,” New York Times, May 20, 2005, Section A , Page 25 , Column 1 . Ibid Suzanne
. “Magazine erred in Quran story,” By Record Searchlight news services, May 16, 2005. http://www.redding.com/redd/nw_local/article/0,2232,REDD_