The identity attributed to an individual or a community by the media is often dictated by the underlying political motivation. It has its inherent biased, and value judgements based on certain principles that it upholds. Whilst the war rages on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, another war rages for the control of the intellect. As they say battle for the “hearts and the minds”. The media can incite the masses by the manner in which it portrays a certain event or placate the emotions by remaining silent. From the inception of the first Gulf war the Kurds have been described only as Kurds rather then Muslims or Kurdish Muslims. In contrast the recent killing by the Kurdish father (Abdalla Yones) of his young daughter was immediately identified as an act of a “Muslim” and later altered to “Kurdish Muslim”. Is it merely a coincidenc! e that after a decade the media suddenly adopted the label of “Muslim” instead of just “Kurdish” to associate with this unpleasant and isolated incident? Similarly in the case of the Oklahoma bombing the media ferociously painted a false picture built on prejudice and questionable evidences, which later proved to be an outright lie. It seems that the media has a deliberate policy of asserting Islam as an underlying factor whenever an unpleasant incidence occurs, even if the act was contrary to the teachings of Islam. No doubt many would simply dismiss the above notion as a form of conspiracy theory or paranoia but the examples are in abundance. In a recent TV documentary, it referred to the Turkish producers of porno films not as “Turkish pornographers” but as “Muslim Pornographers”. It is truly amazing that even the most non-practicing, westernised liberals who are engaged in the most un-Islamic acts are coloured with the Muslim brush. Whilst on the flip side when the ! dedicated practicing Muslims attempt to represent a united voice under the Islamic/Muslim banner, the media reverses its policy by dropping the label and rushes to highlight the differences, Arabs and Pakistanis, Turks and Kurds, Shia’s and Sunnis etc instead of just “Muslims”. Divide and conquer, the age-old colonial policy. The media’s demonisation and distortion is well known. They have turned the victim’s in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan into aggressors, whilst turning the real aggressors into victims. It is no surprise that the American media was recently targeted in Iraq. When and if the Fox or CNN is bombed, we might witness some level of celebrations on the streets, demonstrating their contempt for these propaganda organisations as well as a sense of retribution for the deliberate bombing of Al-Jazeerah in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Coming back to the issue of the killing of ones daughter, it was Islam that abolished the ancient Arab custom of burying their daughters alive. The Holy Quran clearly rebuked such abominable practices in the strongest terms. In a sense such practices are also prevalent today. A female foetus is terminated even after considerable growth, in some cases even after birth of a child. This phenomenon is prevalent within the Indian Hindu society, which is primarily caused by the burden of marriage dowry. Whilst in the West such practices are not motivated by the issue of gender but social inconvenience. A similar fate was suffered in China as a consequence of its one child policy. In some cases the child is simply abandoned after birth. This is rarely witnessed even in the animal kingdom. The killing of the daughter naturally brought universal condemnation on one hand, whilst equally has led to over shadowing the initial crime of the daughter, who was engaging in an illicit relationship. For sure Islam does not allow the father taking the daughters life even if she has committed murder or adultery. This is the duty of the judges in courts and in any case there is no capital punishment for fornication. In the mean time the usual debate goes on for whether it is cultural or religious factors that led to this crime. However, few have failed to fully appreciate as to what motivated the father to resort to such drastic measures. Every father dearly loves his child, often more so if it is a daughter.
The media says it is “Honour”, how does a society understand honour when it does not appreciate what is shameful. For one to appreciate honour, one must have a sense of shame. As an example, in the liberal West, uncovering the private part is considered to be an indecent act and shameful, by its laws. However, we see the West argue vigorously against the traditional modesty of Islamic garments for women and men. In recent times, France, Canada and Germany have begun to consider the issue of Islamic veil as a threat to their society. Amazing how a piece cloth worn by an individual can pose such a threat to t! he most advanced societies, perhaps they will issue similar verdicts on the Nuns, and Monks who also exhibit similar dress codes! The rationale seems to be that the less clothes that one wears the more liberated the person becomes. Well, in that case why draw a line? Surely as an example, if a woman is described as “progressive” for replacing the veil with the mini-skirt, then by the same reasoning if she were to move further in the same direction to complete nudity that should be seen as the apex of the “progression”. However the action is currently classified as an act of public indecency by law but the thought process of the society indicates such actions to be morally acceptable. Hence there is no sense of feeling shame in public exposure and nudity, so they cannot appreciate the dishonouring that arises out of this process. Therefore, Cherry Blair’s prediction that the honourable women of Afghanistan would abandon the (Burqa) veil for the bikini after the removal of! the Taliban has proven to be absolutely false, as she failed to comprehend the honour of wearing the veil. Similarly in the animal kingdom they have no concept of shame, hence they do not cover their private parts. The absence of shame within the animal Kingdom is also reflected by the fact that it does not regulate its sexual relationships by the notions of marriage, adultery, fornication, and incest.
Therefore they have no real concept of family ties other then the establishment of the temporary relationship with the newly born for reasons of survival. In their zeal to mimic the animal kingdom we are witnessing the rapid demise of the traditional family structure. Increasingly children are born without knowing the identity of their father and in some cases even their mother. Estimates of illegitimate children are 33% of the population in the US and similar numbers are in some of the European countries. Sexual abuse of children is rampant and in turn children disown the! ir parents in old age as a burden. Illicit relationships have become the norm. Uncontrolled lust is licensed under individual freedom. The act of adultery or fornication is viewed as fashionable, a sign of being “modern” and “liberated”. If these acts are glamorised, what hope is there of them appreciating the pain and anguish a family dishonour may bring? Mr Abdalla Yones clearly felt that anguish and pain. Just a cursory glance of the regular programs on TV (Sky Digital) about the parties held in Ibiza, Greece, Spain etc. shows the human species fornicating in public places in packs without reservation or shame, like a horde of dogs. Just as one dog barks the others follow without rationalisation and suspended intellect. It seems by abandoning the notion of honour and shame we would be moving closer to the species that roams on four legs.
Another by-product is the growth of the perversion of human nature. How is it that a disproportionate number of serial killer and paedophiles are found in Westerns societies? It is not chat rooms on the Internet that produce paedophiles but rather, this is the product of a society that constantly pushes the boundaries of freedom. In their obsession to create gender “equality”, encouragement of sexual exploitation of men has also begun in recent times. Male nudity must be matched with female nudity, how perverse. How can one wrong be rectified with another wrong? Under such a promiscuous environment, the dishonouring from rape has lost its real meaning. If! raped, the crime is the infringement of the personal freedom rather then the actual act of the sexual defilement of a mother or a wife or a daughter belonging to a certain family. The fact that she has been dishonoured carries little weight, reflected in the way that society tolerates rape by dispensing lenient punishments even after repeated convictions, and very rarely leads to a public outcry.
Apart from citing isolated cases the media repeatedly demonises Islam by raising the flag of women’s rights but how often does it ever look at its own abysmal track record. Where did the pornographic industry originate? Who are its largest producers and consumers? Who are the biggest consumers of the flesh trade? Despite attaining greater Women’s “liberation”, why have the Western orientated societies not become more tranquil, rather then being torn apart by the rise in single parent families, soaring divorce rates, increased dependencies on alcohol, drugs and anti depressants? Why is it that all societies that raise the flag of women’s rights end up only facilitating the selling of her flesh, be it in the form of lewd pop videos, the fashion industry, advertising or else where. The call to liberate women is basically to eradicate moral and ethical barriers so that on the one hand they may be legitimately exploited and sold as packages — on the other extreme it also facilitates the freedom create a more promiscuous society, and thereby suffering all its ills. The “liberation” in reality has failed to create the genuine respect and honour the person of womanhood deserves. The only form of respect that has been created for women is through the fear of the strong arm of the law enforcement agencies, rather then from a genuine conviction of the heart and the mind. Thus in reality the average person in the West evaluates the opposite sex as objects of lust and sexual gratification. Which is a natural outcome of an ideology that has abandoned the concept of honour and dignity. Hence Women’s rights cannot simply be equated with giving greater economic and political independence.
Despite the demonisation, “oppressive” Islam continues to gain women converts exceeding the conversion rate of their male counterparts. Happily embracing the “oppressive” veil. Islam came to regulate the relationship between men and women; as such matters have a societal implication and cannot be simply left for the individuals to decide. An illicit relationship outside the fold of marriage is a crime, no matter how fashionable it may be. The relationship is regulated on the basis of complementing and supplementing one another by honouring and respecting rather then getting embroiled in a futile and damaging competition to attain equality or superiority. It is high time for people of the world to question the values that are being enforced through the muscles of the Western controlled institutions (e.g. NGO, UN) under the pretext of promot! ing the so-called universal values and Human rights. Finally, hasn’t the time come for the world to stop apeing an ideology, which has failed to provide clear definitions of right and wrong, honour and dishonour. An ideology, whose proponents, are too willing to violate even its own definitions of human rights by imprisoning innocent people without trial.