Showing posts with label Joshua. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joshua. Show all posts

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

18 January 2015 - Visit to the Cinema to watch Exodus: Gods and Kings

18 January 2015 - Visit to the Cinema to watch Exodus: Gods and Kings







Exodus: Gods and Kings – Plot & Spoilers  
(Wikipedia)
In 1300 BCE, Moses, a general and member of the royal family, prepares to attack the Hittite army with Prince Ramses. Ramses' father Seti I tells the two men of a recent prophecy in which one (of Moses and Ramses) will save the other and become a leader. During the attack on the Hittites, Moses saves Ramses' life, leaving both men troubled.
Later, Moses is sent to the city of Pithom to meet with the Viceroy Hegep, who oversees the Hebrew slaves. Upon his arrival, he encounters the slave Joshua and is appalled by the horrific conditions of the slaves. Shortly afterwards, Moses meets Nun, who informs him of his true lineage; he is the child of Hebrew parents who was sent by his sister Miriam to be raised by Pharaoh's daughter. Moses is stunned at the revelation and leaves angrily. However, two Hebrews also overhear Nun's story and reports their discovery to Hegep.
Seti dies soon after Moses' return to Memphis, and Ramses becomes the new Pharaoh (Ramses II). Hegep arrives to reveal Moses' true identity, but Ramses is conflicted about whether to believe the story. At the urging of Queen Tuya, he interrogates the servant Miriam, who denies being Moses' sister. When Ramses threatens to cut off Miriam's arm, Moses comes to her defence, revealing he is a Hebrew.
Although Tuya wants Moses to be put to death, Ramses decides to send him into exile. Before leaving Egypt, Moses meets with his birth mother and Miriam, who refer to him by his birth name of Moishe. Following a journey into the desert, Moses comes to Midian where he meets Zipporah and her father, Jethro. Moses becomes a shepherd, marries Zipporah and has a son Gershom.
Nine years later, Moses gets injured during a rockslide. He comes face to face with a burning bush and a boy called Malak, who serves as a representation of God. While recovering, Moses confesses his past to Zipporah and reveals what God has asked him to do. This drives a wedge between the couple, because Zipporah fears he will leave their family.
After he arrives in Egypt, Moses reunites with Nun and Joshua, as well as meeting his brother Aaron for the first time. Using his military skills, he trains the slaves in the art of war. The Hebrews start attacking the Egyptians, prompting Ramses to execute slaves until Moses gives himself up.
Malak appears to Moses and explains that ten plagues will affect Egypt. All the water in the land turns to blood, and the Egyptians are further afflicted by the arrival of frogs, lice, and flies. Moses returns to confront Ramses, demanding the Hebrews be released from servitude. Ramses refuses to listen, insisting that to free the slaves would be economically impossible.
The plagues of the death of livestock, boils, hail and thunder, locusts, and darkness continue to affect the Egyptians. While conversing with Malak, Moses is horrified at learning the tenth plague will be the death of all firstborn children. The Hebrews protect themselves by covering their doors with the blood of lambs, as instructed to them by Moses. Ramses is devastated over his son's death and relents, telling Moses and the Hebrews to leave.
During the exodus from Egypt, the Hebrews follow Moses' original path through the desert and towards the Red Sea. Still grieving for his son, Ramses decides to go after the Hebrews with his army.
After making their way across the rocky mountains, Moses and the Hebrews arrive at the edge of the sea, uncertain about what to do. Moses flings his sword into the water, which begins to recede. Ramses and his army pursue the Hebrews, but Moses stays behind to confront them. The Red Sea reverts to its normal state, drowning the majority of the Egyptians (crossing the Red Sea).
Moses survives and makes his way back to the Hebrews. Ramses is revealed to have survived, but he is distraught over the destruction of his army. Moses leads the Hebrews back to Midian, where he reunites with Zipporah and Gershom.
At Mount Sinai, after seeing Malak's displeasure at the Hebrews' construction of the Golden Calf, Moses transcribes the Ten Commandments. Years later, an elderly Moses riding with the Ark of the Covenant sees Malak walking with the Hebrews through the desert.

Main inaccuracies from Islamic texts:

  • The film misses out the birth story except a short narration of it and misses the related miracle of the Nile.
  • We don’t see the staff of Moses (except a small scene where he gives it to his son)!
  • The (accidental) death of the Egyptian by Moses is wrongly portrayed
  • Moses flees Egypt on foot when he is a wanted terrorist but the film exiles him on horse
  • Moses spends 10 years in Madian before wanting to return to Egypt with his family. He encounters with the Burning Bush was whilst travelling with the family – all wrong in the film.
  • The whole Burning Bush is wrong with no staff-snake, taking off shoes and of course God appearing as a little boy and the boy later being a ‘messenger’
  • Joshua (Yusha) is portrayed as a contemporary of Moses in the film whereas he took over as leader of Bani Israel after the death of Musa
  • Moses had a speech impediment in Islamic texts
  • Moses asks Allah to appoint Harun as his helper not introduced accidentally as his brother when he arrives back in Egypt as in the film
  • Moses never trains his people to fight an insurgency against Pharaoh like the film suggests
  • The film sees Pharaoh hanging families of Bani Israel but our texts talk about him killing the children of Bani Israel as a punishment
  • There is no competition between Moses/Harun and the Pharaoh’s magicians at all.
  • The plagues / signs are in the wrong order and are not each time linked to a demand for freeing the slaves
  • Missing some signs and the implication that the signs also affected Bani Israel as much as the Egyptians in the film
  • The death of the first born is not explicit in the Islamic texts although marking the houses is mentioned
  • Moses and Bani Israel leave at night after Moses realises Pharaoh will never change or allow them to leave, not a parade as portrayed in the film
  • Parting of the sea was miraculous with the staff not a sword thrown to dry up the river. The ground of the river was dried in Islamic texts
  • Pharaoh died in the river as the water collapsed upon him and Moses was safely on the other side with all his people in our texts
  • Moses is seen making the Ten Commandments himself but Islam implies they were written by God
  • Most of the story of Moses and Bani Israel in the wilderness is missed out (doesn’t matter as the film was about the ‘Exodus’ more than the life of Moses)
  • Moses never doubted his mission and his purpose, nor his firm belief in God in Islamic texts


Cinematic issues
Much like some other Ridley Scott films, this is a rather bleak film and has a negative strand throughout the film. Even the victory doesn’t feel like a victory throughout the film! Nevertheless, well shot and the acting is decent, although not great. I’m not sure Bale (Moses) is quite clear of his Batman persona!! Also, Moses is portrayed as an imperfect / flawed hero (possibly charismatic but mad).
Also, written for a secular audience from a secular (non-religious) perspective with the implication that Moses was a mortal man and undertook the actions of himself without guidance from God. It could easily be interpreted that he suffered from hallucinations (following his fall) and was blinded in his vision and wrote the Ten Commandments himself by his own hand following further hallucinations (like a charismatic schizophrenic). Hence, the ‘plagues’ are given a ‘scientific’ interpretation!
Some have also objected to the portrayal of Egyptians and Bani Israel by white Europeans, but this is only partially true. Egyptian art depicts Egyptians as red, Nubians as brown, and Semites (like Jews) as yellow.
There is no foul language. There is no sex in the film but two scenes with kisses (after the marriage and at the end), although there are a number of scantily clad Egyptian women. It is not surprising that the story of the Exodus is violent, but the violence is graphic at times. Moses is engaged in several fights and battles which involve blood and even some gore, but the most graphic scenes involve the director’s envisioning of the plague of blood and other plagues.

Major inaccuracies from Biblical story (from Christian websites):
Set in 1300BCE, the pyramids were built before this and not thought that the Hebrews built the pyramids. Ramses was not the Pharaoh of the Exodus as one Biblical reference places the Exodus almost 150 years before Ramses. This is important because the archaeological evidence supports an Exodus in the 15th century before Christ, but offers no support for an Exodus under Ramses.
Theological points in the Biblical plagues have been removed for the film version, there are fewer than ten plagues in the film, the plagues themselves are of a different nature (alligators, for example), and the Israelites were afflicted by the plagues along with the Egyptians.
The film portrays only nine years between Moses’ exile and his return. Moses is shown killing the guard in self defense. Moses is around 40 years old when he leads the Exodus. Moses is thought to be a true Egyptian by all in the Egyptian court, and a host of others.
Although Moses argued with God in the Bible, the movie clearly portrays Moses’s wrestling with God on a more cynical level. He also tends to shout rather than stutter as Jewish tradition recounts.
Most intriguing is that he only meets Pharaoh twice face to face before the death of the first-born children. In the first encounter, Moses pulls a sword on Ramses and threatens him. He does not say “Let my people go,” but speaks of his own authority as a rebel leader. He spends much of the movie hiding from Pharaoh, and he even tries to lead a military revolt before God intervenes. The depiction of Moses leading a war of attrition against Egypt.
God is portrayed as a little boy. He first appears standing in front of the burning bush and appears at recurring points in the film.
The miracles are made to look more like natural phenomenon

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

11 January 2015 Prophet Yusha and Charlie Hebdo / Freedom of Speech

11 January 2015 Prophet Yusha and Charlie Hebdo / Freedom of Speech




Lives of the Prophets: Prophet Yusha (Joshua)

When Musa* passed away, the leadership of Bani Isra'il passed to Yusha ibn Nun.  Yusha ibn Nun is not mentioned directly in the Qur'an but he is the servant of Musa* who is referred to in the following verse of the Qur'an: "AND LO! [In the course of his wanderings,] Moses said to his servant (fata), 'I shall not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas, even if I [have to] spend untold years [in my quest]!'"[TMQ 18:60]
Being a servant of Musa* he was close to the Revelation, close to the teacher (Musa) and he was a righteous student of this teacher.  And so, when Musa* passed away, the leadership of Bani Isra'il was passed down to Yusha ibn Nun, and he became their Prophet.
Under the leadership of Yusha ibn Nun, Bani Isra'il is made victorious and returns to the Holy Land, an event which did not occur under Musa* or Harun* (who both passed away whilst Bani Isra'il was still in the wilderness). The Prophet* gives us a clue as to why this victory was delayed when he said: "None of the ones who worshipped the calf entered into Jerusalem.”
The Children of Isra'il who came out of Egypt were raised up in slavery and servitude so they were weak and were not fit for victory.  Allah made them stay in the wilderness for 40 years until all of that generation had passed away.  And they were replaced by a new generation raised in freedom and taught the guidance of the Taurah by Musa* and Harun*, and it was this generation that was given the victory.

Musa* is undoubtedly the greatest Prophet that was sent to Bani Isra'il and he strived eagerly to have this victory, yet we see that victory was not at his hands but rather at Yusha's.  What do we learn from this? That it is not enough to have an excellent leader alone – applying this to our times, it is not enough for us simply to wait for Al-Mahdi but rather we need to ensure we are a generation capable of victory and to be led to that victory by an excellent leader (be that Al-Mahdi or someone else).
And through the example of Yusha we see how Allah grants victory to those who have prepared for it.  Yusha ibn Nun led the Children of Isra'il against the Jababirah (the inhabitants of Jerusalem), who were a large giant-like people.  The fighting was furious and the sun was about to set. Yusha ibn Nun knew that he could not defeat these people except if the day was longer as, if night came, the Jababirah would be able to regroup. So Yusha pointed to the sun and said, "You are receiving orders and I am receiving orders from Allah, O Allah stop the sun!"  Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, caused the sun to stop for Yusha ibn Nun until he defeated the people of Jerusalem.  If you have Allah on your side, don't worry!  It's not a matter of numbers, or weapons, or artillery when Allah is on your side.

The full story of Yusha ibn Nun is told to us in a sahih hadith of the Prophet* recorded in Sahih Muslim.  The Prophet* said: "One of the Prophets made a holy war. He said to his followers: One who has married a woman and wants to consummate to his marriage but has not yet done so; another who has built a house but has not yet erected its roof; and another who has bought goats and pregnant she-camels and is waiting for their offspring-will not accompany me … "
This Prophet did not want any person to come with him whose heart may be attached to anything else.  This is a Prophet who is not looking for numbers but rather for ikhlas (sincerity).
The Prophet* continued: " ... So he marched on and approached a village at or about the time of the Asr prayers. He said to the sun: You are receiving orders and I am receiving orders from Allah, O Allah stop the sun! It was stopped for him until Allah granted him victory."
We know this Prophet was Yusha ibn Nun because of a separate narration recorded by Imam Ahmad in which the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "The sun has never stopped for any man besides Yusha when he wanted to conquer Bayt al-Muqaddis."





Main Topic: Freedom of Speech and the Charlie Hebdo Attacks

Salaam all
Please find below brief notes from Study Circle (a greater, more detailed explanation was given during the Circle). In addition, we had many many questions from the children about the attacks in Paris that were addressed.
These are the main points of the discussion are articulated.
I will also append a few articles that also discuss some of these points.
Jzk
Naveed


Paris Attacks: Islam is against Terrorism
We have to start off by stating that there is no justification from Islam for the Paris / Charlie Hebdo attacks. Islam condemns these actions and no reasonable Muslim would support the actions of the gunmen involved in the Charlie Hebdo or supermarket killings. There is no excuse for this terrorism.
Some people may try to justify this by misapplying certain rules from Islam but vigilante attacks are not allowed, terrorism is not allowed and targeting innocent civilians is not allowed. Some may point to the Prophet* having a blacklist of people for execution when he opened Mecca who were excluded from the general amnesty – and these people were to be killed on sight for their prolonged defamation/insults of the Prophet* and open disbelief. However, these were the orders of the Head of State of a proper Islamic Government and not an excuse for people to take the law into their own hands. Only the Prophet* had the ability to enact the law or forgive.

Islam is bigger than any insult
Also, it is important to restate that Islam is bigger than any cartoon, book, YouTube video or film. Allah will protect Islam and Islam will survive this crisis. One of the best ways to defend Islam is by our example and living the life as the Prophet* would want us. We should obey the Shariah, interact with the non-Muslims through dialogue and invite them to (study) Islam.

Tolerance
History has proven that Islam is the most tolerant of all ways of life / religions when for centuries Muslims would live peacefully with people of all other faiths without persecution. We find the opposite today where the liberal secular West will only tolerate Muslims if we abandon Islam and become secular. They talk about tolerance but do not know what it truly means.




Allah mentions this in the Qur’an when He says: “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah (Himself) is Guidance. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” [TMQ: 2:120]




Just because they say over and over again that they are tolerant does not make them tolerant: because they keep telling us what we can and can’t believe. They keep trying to define us into ‘moderate’ (agree with them) and ‘extremist’ (disagree with them) ! Hence, they only tolerate those who are themselves – this is not tolerance. Islam has always historically been more tolerant than other beliefs.

Saying Sorry
Islam and Muslims have condemned the Paris attacks. However, there is no need for us to collectively apologise for the actions of these criminals – as they are criminals and act in opposition to the laws of Allah.

Becoming a political hammer to beat others
However, this whole issue has been blown out of all proportion and become deliberately politicised in order to attack and weaken the Muslims community and alienate us even further. It has moved from an issue of criminal behaviour to a Political Issue to stoke up further Islamophobia and to criticise Muslims and Islam yet further. The speeches, the rally, the increased print circulation of the magazine, the leaders jumping on the bandwagon…all to turn the screw tighter on the Muslim community: physically and emotionally.

The response
The politicians have painted this in to a binary issue: either you support the magazine (Freedom of Speech) or you are supporting the terrorists (gunmen) - much like Bush did after 9/11. But this is a false choice as there are alternatives. We should, unfortunately, expect more of this in the run up to the May General Election in the UK.

The French Angle
A recent article by Robert Fisk and others highlighted that these events do not occur in a vacuum and the context of these attackers needs to be born in mind – being from Algeria / North Africa. France has a long tradition of demonising Muslims and being very racist towards the Muslims of North Africa and is still actively engaged in wars against the Muslims in Syria, Libya, Mali. Recent ‘Race Riots’ in Paris and other cities highlights the endemic racism / discrimination towards the Muslims of North Africa, not to mention the targeted laws against Muslims in France around the banning of the Niqab and girls with a headscarf cannot go to school or hospital!
There is also the brutal history of French colonialism in North Africa, their vicious support of dictators and the inhumane response to the Algerian Civil War – where even the CIA and Americans studied the French manuals of torture after 9/11! All these with high unemployment rates and systemic discrimination will inevitably have one reaction or another. Also, how they reacted post-independence when they were leaving the countries.

The European context
This brouhaha over Freedom of Speech traces back through modern European history and the struggle between the oppressive Church / Papal rule and the Free Thinkers post-Renaissance. The alternative to the corrupt Church rule gave rise to a new system of Man-made laws based upon a consolidated ‘Four Freedoms’:
- Freedom of Belief
- Freedom of ownership
- Personal Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech was sanctified early on because it helped society account governments, their rulers and helped push forward science and technology through challenge and the scientific method, and the ability to criticise the crazy beliefs in organised Christian religion. It served a purpose.
Now Freedom of Speech is used almost exclusively to demonise Muslims and the beliefs of Islam and the laws of Islam. The same approach is lost when accounting their own governments, their own Foreign Policy and double standards and the power dynamic of Freedom of Speech has shifted to criticise and silence the marginalised in society. It is used to criticise Muslims but not other groups! What about Edward Snowden and Julian Assange's right of 'freedom of speech', it is very obvious that freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere in the world if it doesn't suit the ruling paradigm or ideology (western governments).

Hypocrisy of French Freedom of Speech
This is highlighted more acutely in recent years when we see how France has selectively applied Freedom of Speech:
1. A French court injunction banned a Jesus based clothing advert mimicking the 'Last Supper'. The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by the French judge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm
2. In 2005 'Aides Haute-Garonne' organized an informative evening about the prevention of the HIV-AIDS. The prospectus contained a head-and-shoulders image of a woman wearing a nun's bonnet and two pink condoms. On the grounds that the prospectus insulted a religious, a court convicted Aides Haute-Garonne.
3. In 1994 Le quotidien de Paris published the article L'obscurité de l'erreur by journalist, sociologist, and historian Paul Giniewski. The article criticizes the Pope, and states that Catholic doctrine abetted the conception and the realization of Auschwitz. A court upheld proceedings on the ground that the article was an insult to a group because of its religion, and convicted the newspaper.
4. 'Charlie Hebdo Magazine'  itself censored, apologised and then fired long-time cartoonist Siné for a caricature insulting the son of former president Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, while staunchly standing on their 'right' to repeatedly troll Muslims, minorities & immigrants e.g. by showing Muhammad naked and bending over—which tells you something about the brand of satire they practice and that they’d rather be aiming downward towards minorities than upward. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/09/trolls-and-martyrdom-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie.html
5. Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala - a French comedian and satirist - was convicted and fined in France for describing Holocaust remembrance as "memorial pornography". http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/nicolas-anelka-anti-semitic-gesture-quenelle-2966787
6. The 'Quennele' hand sign has been described as anti-establishment and anti-zionist by French youth and famous football players (e.g. Anelka). It stoked serious controversy in France since first being used by anti-establishment comedian Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala in 2005.  M'Bala has been barred from many theatres and convicted many times for his 'freedom of speech.' www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/nicolas-anelka-anti-semitic-gesture-quenelle-2966787
7. As part of "internal security" enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment. Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", and include "insulting" anyone who serves the public.
8. French Rap Star Facing Prison - For Insulting the French State, insulting Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle. http://www.nme.com/news/Monsieur-R/23193 . Hence, it is illegal to insult the French state and it seems it's sacred historical characters like Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle?!
9. Nicolas Sarkozy, then-Interior Minister and former President of the Republic (until 2012), ordered the firing of the director of Paris Match  — because he had published photos of Cécilia Sarkozy (his wife) with another man in New York.
10. In 2006, rapper 'Joestarr' had his rap song against President Sarkozy censored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_France#List_of_censored_songs
11. The following films have been censored in France, (not for provoking violence): L'Essayeuse (1976)Romance (1999)Le Mur (2011)
12. Under France's "Public Health Code" passed on the 31 December 1970,  "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" comes with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Newspapers such as Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006688178&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072665
13. Muslim women are barred from education (it's not just the Taliban just restrict education for girls) in France, if they practise their religion by wearing a headscarf, despite French schools having no uniform policy, and crosses on necklaces are being allowed.
14. "France’s law against “religious symbols in public spaces” is specifically enforced to target Muslim women who choose to wear hijab—ironic considering we’re now touting Charlie Hebdo as a symbol of France’s staunch commitment to civil liberties." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/09/trolls-and-martyrdom-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie.html
15. It is illegal in France take the opinion of the Turkish side on the then civil war involving Armenians, i.e. illegal to deny that the killing of Amenians by Turkish troops was a deliberate genocide.
16. In 2007, a tribunal in Lyon sentenced Bruno Gollnisch and fined him €5,000 for the offence of contesting some of the information about the Holocaust and ordered him to pay €55,000 euros in damages to the plaintiffs and to pay for the judgment to be published in the newspapers that originally printed his remarks.
17. Last year France was the first country in the World that banned Pro-Palestinian Marches during the Gaza war.
18. And we have already mentioned the ridiculous niqab ban and ban on headscarves in official buildings (like schools and hospitals).

Charlie Hebdo
This was created out of a magazine that was banned (!) for criticising the former French Leader General De Gaulle. It used to satirise the ruling elite but lost its way and has become a forum for ‘petit white racism’ according to some writers and in order to boost its circulation it started to target Muslims through insults and is active in a process of dehumanising Muslims and undermining Islam through insult rather than critique. As stated, they will not criticise other groups now.

The Apologist
It is right to criticize the murders in Paris because they were wrong. A complete misapplication of Islam has occurred and Islam/Muslims  has been put in a negative light. Hence, many ‘Muslim leaders’ trot themselves out to line up and condemn these abhorrent acts. However, they are nearly always so silent when other wrongs are perpetrated. Where are these same leaders when Muslims are  drone bombed, or starving, or gassed or leaders are thinking of another bombing campaign against Muslims or increased surveillance and more anti-terror (anti-Muslim) laws?

The Fallacy of Freedom of Speech
The starting point in any discussion should not be Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right and that we should debate its limits (where we draw the ‘red lines’) – this is the Ideological Liberal / Secular position of modern Western political thought. No – the starting point should be basic human civility and respect for each other (not to insult others through whatever depravity they have) and the onus should be on the Freedom of Speech fundamentalists to explain why there is a need to insult.
Freedom of Speech is a completely flawed theory both in theory and how it is applied. It has NEVER EVER been implemented and can never be. Freedom of Speech always has limits and is in itself a self-contradiction:
In a Kingdom the monarch (King) is the source of Laws – the domain of the King. Freedom means that the source of Law is ‘being free’ – which means no laws. Hence the contradiction. You cannot have freedom! You can be free of things like slavery, debt etc but can never have freedom. It is a false slogan. Islam recognised this when the Prophet* stated that ‘This world is like a prison to the believers and like a paradise to the unbelievers’ and that Muslims are slaves to Allah and His Law.

Even the countries that falsely claim to have Freedom of Speech do not have it because there are laws that limit ‘Free Speech’ such as:
- defamation laws
- libel laws
- sedition laws
- public order laws
- holocaust denial laws
- the case of the British Muslim blogger who wrote something negative about British  soldiers on Facebook and was sent to jail
- the Australian Muslim who wrote letters to families of Australian soldiers was sent to jail
- the new laws proposed by the UK government monitoring the way Muslims think (thought police) by making it an obligation on nursery teachers, schools, universities, nurses and police to report Muslim ideas as being ‘radical’

Selective Outrage
Where was the Freedom of Speech outrage to Western civilisation when the above things happened? Or when Professors critical of Israel were sacked or denied jobs? Or the open ability to criticise Israel or the recent Gaza bombing? Or the use of illegal weapons by America in Falluja? Or the outrage as 10,000 children die each day through poverty and effects of war?

To speak freely or to insult freely
Can we all use the N-word, or shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded place, or can we teach our children to insult parents and teachers. If we teach children not to insult as basic human dignity why should we say it’s okay to insult other ‘just because you can’? It is right to account people but not to insult.
Modern secular liberal philosophy is implemented through its military and forced upon people and those that disagree are NOT TOLERATED!! Muslims are resisting because we hold on to the Qur’an and Sunnah and love our Prophet and do not like to accept military dictators etc!
Islam has always allowed critique and criticism if done with respect. However, pure insults are not tolerated easily. Insults are the last bastion of those that have lost the argument who resort to insult rather than dialogue. This happened with many of the Prophets and with the Quraish targeting our Prophet*. The Prophet dealt with these insults and they are even recorded in the Qur’an! People who insult have no intention to engage but merely project their own insecurities to others and only offer hate and divisiveness.
All beliefs have ‘Red Lines’ and we should not accept being insulted nor racist insults against our Prophet*. The reaction is not to rise up and kill people. We can demonstrate – but what is the sense in people dying in demonstrations – where the Prophet* said the life of a Believer is worth more than the Kaaba? Our response should be proportionate and legal – according to Islam (Qur’an and Sunnah).
The sense of ‘holy’ has now shifted from the Divine to secular gods like Freedom of Speech! Think about it!!
Freedom of Speech is an empty slogan not a universal basic right and we should base human interaction on civility / kindness and elevate our values. The best way to move forward is to implement Islam completely in how we live and how society is governed. Rather than shying away from society it is more important now to interact more positively with society and correct the injustices – through dialogue and interaction.