|
In the name of Allah most gracious most merciful
Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatuallahi wa barakatahu
Intellectual Terrorism
Yamin
Zakaria
The essence of intellectual terrorism is to:
demonise the enemy, and concurrently silence them, usually it is a
precursor to genocide or mass murder e.g. the Nazi’s in Germany.
Dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to commit such acts, as one can
wash the blood stained hands with previously issued excuses, but not the
stains from a guilty mind. Apart from hurling abuse, intellectual
terrorists also hide behind promoting ideals like, peace, human rights,
freedom etc. In the name of peace they initiate war; they lecture about
human rights while engaged in inhuman tortures; they crave for freedom
by taking the freedom of others, by bombing them to incineration.
Democracies project intellectual terrorism as an exercise of free
speech; many of the fanatical liberals go further to claim it as a
prerequisite of free speech. Therefore, the crux of their argument is:
if you cannot terrorise ethnic
communities like the Muslims, then you are not free; and you are unable
to exercise free speech! So Muslims, please line up to endure
further abuse, because the Western Liberals and their journalists need
to do this like a drug addict needs a fix, in order to maintain their
conviction that they are free souls capable of exercising free speech.
After all, what could be more important than the freedom of these
pen-pushers?
It goes further, Western democracies not only demonise and gag the
Muslims simultaneously in the name of free speech, but they even claim
to do it on their behalf. That is like telling the inmates at Camp-X-Ray
that their incarceration is in fact a gift from the benevolent US to
educate them about human rights! As Bush said and demonstrated in Iraq,
dead or alive it does not matter; they waved the victory flag of
‘freedom’ over the dead carcasses of people who have permanently lost
their freedom. But never mind, it was for their benefit! Now imagine,
while hurling abuse at a particular community, the mouth of all the
individuals are sealed with masking tape, then the community is lectured
about the sacred value of ‘free’ speech; this is the reality of free
speech espoused by the Western Liberals and secularists, as they are led
by their noses, like prize bulls, by their neo-con rulers.
Accordingly, from Salman Rushdie to the recent Danish cartoon episode,
again is made the point that Muslims are expected to endure their
demonisation, under the umbrella of free speech, but they are not at
liberty to respond according to their interpretation of free speech. A
vivid example of this double standard was the freedom of speech given to
the racist Nick Griffin, leader of the right wing British National Party
(BNP), but not for the opinions expressed by Sheikh Abu Hamza. Can
anyone doubt the mirror held up to show their own hypocrisy, as the
timing of the two trials coincided, and it became blatantly obvious they
were sitting on a pile of dung called “free speech,” which produced such
a positive verdict for the BNP leader and a 7 year sentence for the
Sheikh?
By free speech for Muslims, I do not mean just the right to issue fatwas
(Islamic edicts) but the right to subject other communities to similar
types and levels of abuse as the Muslims have been subjected to under
freedom of expression. For example, would the Muslims be allowed to
express anti-Jewish statements, including satirical cartoons of
holocaust? Clearly not, even non-Muslims like David Irving and the
London Mayor, Ken Livingston, found out recently. They were crucified
for merely holding or expressing an opinion (not insult or profanity);
this was supported by these same shameless-liberals and secularists who
are lecturing the Muslims about free speech.
At present intellectual terrorism is almost exclusively applied to Islam
and Muslims. Certainly, there are equal opportunities for those who wish
to demonise the Muslims. Anyone can write the next book, or find new
ways to hurl insults at Islam and Muslims. The Chairman of CRE
(Commission of Racial Equality) in the UK, Trevor Phillips is an ideal
position to demonstrate that equal opportunity. So he did numerous
times, and recently once again he criticised Muslims for aspiring to
live by Islamic laws instead of accepting the status-quo. No question of
free speech or freedom of expression for the Muslims, because they are
always the subject of free speech and not allowed to exercise it.
According to Trevor Phillips, those Muslims having such aspiration
should leave the country. This sort of superficial argument is usually
advocated by the racists, or those who are unable to intellectually
argue their case against the Muslims. Would Trevor Phillips
advocate similar proposition to those who advocate a Marxist style of
government? Clearly not, in any case where would he ask them to leave
to, as most of them are native British subjects. Now, I wonder why
Trevor Phillips is beginning to sound like the racist Nick Griffin or
the typical tabloid journalist. It is easy to taunt the Muslims to leave
the UK as majority of them are immigrants; by advocating such types of
argument, Trevor Phillips has fallen into the same trap of racism, which
he is allegedly combating!
Intellectual terrorism is also used to turn the victim into the
perpetrator. For example, Salman Rushdie [1] and most of the Western
Liberals view the protests from the Muslims over the Danish cartoon as a
manifestation of Islamic “totalitarianism”. Did the Muslims suddenly
decided to proactively demonstrate or did they RESPOND to reject secular
totalitarianism in the guise of cheap insults?
The logic behind blaming the Muslims instead
of the cartoonists is like saying; - unless I can punch you in the face,
I do not have the freedom and you should not restrict my freedom to
punch your face and not react. This implies that we as Muslims should
accept to be punched otherwise we are restricting the freedom of the
cartoonists, and imposing our values on them. I suppose a serial killer
could also make the same accusations against those who oppose his
activity!
Rushdie advocates the need to resist religious totalitarianism but would
he use that principle to fight the Hindu extremists in India or the
militant Jews in Israel and the US. Fat chance! We know it does not take
any courage or conviction to go with current fad of Muslim bashing in
the West, for personal gains. Attacking the Muslims or any group that
has been made voiceless is very easy. Like attacking a country after it
has been stripped of all its weapons (nudge, nudge, wink, wink Bush and
Blair). In reality, the so-called fight against religious
totalitarianism is nothing more than a fig leaf to impose secular
totalitarianism upon the Muslims. Such behaviour is the real form of
extremism and not the accusation levelled against the Muslims for
reacting to insult and injury. The true extremism enveloped in hypocrisy
being that which repeatedly attacks and insults and expects a passive
reception from a docile and subservient victim.
Even today, Americans feel that they were morally right to drop two
Atom-bombs and not one, killing 100,000 plus defenceless civilians;
against an enemy that had no weapons left to fight with, just like the
Iraqi army. This is just one episode in history from a lengthy list.
This shows that intellectual terrorists have succeeded to nullify the
guilty conscience of its masses. When it is difficult to suppress or
nullify the guilt, it is used as a political football. For example, the
West is using their holocaust guilt to get the Palestinians to pay for
their crimes.
These same hypocrites have just signed a nuclear deal with India which
is outside the NPT (no safeguards), 6 years after it illegally developed
and detonated Nuclear weapons it definitely has developed; whilst it
seeks to strangle, demonise and attack Iran for a nuclear program that
has produced NO weapons and is inside the NPT. They are terrorising Iran
whilst rewarding India because these are hypocrites, villains and Islam
haters of the worst kind. They are however consistent, as they continue
to attack and weaken the Muslims, whilst strengthening and arming the
enemies of Islam.
The intellectual terrorists are telling the wider Arab/Islamic world
that you are free to choose whatever system you like, as long as it is a
democracy, and then only if the winning party is not an Islamic party
and that must be approved by them. You can exercise free speech as long
you use it to abuse Islam and the Muslims and respect the Jews.
Similarly, the Western Liberals continue to scream at Muslims to abide
by free speech, while they hide under the umbrella of anti-Semitism,
refusing to comply with the notion of free speech. Free means free like
an apple means apple. Curtailing it in any way means it ceases to be
free but they appear dim witted on this point. Those intellectual
terrorists who demonise others using free speech are the ones trying to
limit free speech, because they are unable to cope, when they are on the
receiving end of someone else’s free speech.
source
|