Hypocrisy Most Holy

(emphasis mine)

Hypocrisy Most Holy
Muslims should show some respect to others’ religions.

BY ALI AL-AHMED
Friday, May 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Muslims and their governments–including that of Saudi Arabia–reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government’s adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But even before the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part of the allegations.

As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia–where I come from–are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately.

Soon after Newsweek published an account, later retracted, of an American soldier flushing a copy of the Quran down the toilet, the Saudi government voiced its strenuous disapproval. More specifically, the Saudi Embassy in Washington expressed “great concern” and urged the U.S. to “conduct a quick investigation.”
Although considered as holy in Islam and mentioned in the Quran dozens of times, the Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia. This would seem curious to most people because of the fact that to most Muslims, the Bible is a holy book.

The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible.[ The State Department’s annual human rights reports detail the arrest and deportation of many Christian worshipers every year. Just days before Crown Prince Abdullah met President Bush last month, two Christian gatherings were stormed in Riyadh. Bibles and crosses were confiscated, and will be incinerated. (The Saudi government does not even spare the Quran from desecration. On Oct. 14, 2004, dozens of Saudi men and women carried copies of the Quran as they protested in support of reformers in the capital, Riyadh. Although they carried the Qurans in part to protect themselves from assault by police, they were charged by hundreds of riot police, who stepped on the books with their shoes, according to one of the protesters.)

As Muslims, we have not been as generous as our Christian and Jewish counterparts in respecting others’ holy books and religious symbols. Saudi Arabia bans the importation or the display of crosses, Stars of David or any other religious symbols not approved by the Wahhabi establishment. TV programs that show Christian clergymen, crosses or Stars of David are censored.

The desecration of religious texts and symbols and intolerance of varying religious viewpoints and beliefs have been issues of some controversy inside Saudi Arabia. Ruled by a Wahhabi theocracy, the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia have made it difficult for Christians, Jews, Hindus and others, as well as dissenting sects of Islam, to visibly coexist inside the kingdom.

Another way in which religious and cultural issues are becoming more divisive is the Saudi treatment of Americans who are living in that country: Around 30,000 live and work in various parts of Saudi Arabia. These people are not allowed to celebrate their religious or even secular holidays. These include Christmas and Easter, but also Thanksgiving. All other Gulf states allow non-Islamic holidays to be celebrated.

The Saudi Embassy and other Saudi organizations in Washington have distributed hundreds of thousands of Qurans and many more Muslim books, some that have libeled Christians, Jews and others as pigs and monkeys. In Saudi school curricula, Jews and Christians are considered deviants and eternal enemies. By contrast, Muslim communities in the West are the first to admit that Western countries–especially the U.S.–provide Muslims the strongest freedoms and protections that allow Islam to thrive in the West. Meanwhile Christianity and Judaism, both indigenous to the Middle East, are maligned through systematic hostility by Middle Eastern governments and their religious apparatuses.
The lesson here is simple: If Muslims wish other religions to respect their beliefs and their Holy book, they should lead by example.

Mr. al-Ahmed is director of the Saudi Institute in Washington.

(tick,tick,tick…)

BOOM!

Such well reasoned commentary. :roll:

The point is quite valid. The problem with the war on terrorism and so many other issues stemming from it is the barbarism of our opponent. Responding effectively without becoming barbarians ourselves is the thin line our leaders are trying to walk, with greater or lesser success depending on who you talk to.

Thanks so much! Weeks and I try very very hard to be reasonable commentators, and feedback is always appreciated! :slight_smile:

:laughing: I hope to see you on Larry King Live some time soon Cranberry.

Aw, c’mon Chang, you must know what I was waitin’ for! Cran gets it.

Ah, the Saudis… yet another lovely brutal tyranny that the US is “good friends” with. (Anyone else catch those TV commercials that ran not long after 9-11 declaring the Saudis as “Our good friends”?)

As far as the Newsweek story goes… the desecration of the Koran story was already well known. Blaming Newsweek for the Muslim world’s reaction was simply smoke and mirrors to deflect attention away from who’s really to blame for the riots – the US government. It also demonstrates how capable the government is at bullying the press into submission.


Disinformation USA: Newsweek accepts blame for reporting the truth

NewsTarget.com
Thursday, May 19, 2005

In the latest act of political oppression of the Free Press, the Bush Administration has now applied so much political pressure to Newsweek that the news magazine actually retracted parts of its story on the outrageous human rights abuses conducted by U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. The most politically charged of these include allegations that U.S. guards flushed copies of the Koran down the toilet as part of the interrogation process of Muslim prisoners.

The Newsweek retraction is, of course, highly suspect. By all accounts, it appears to be a retraction of political convenience rather than journalistic integrity. The acts reported by Newsweek have, of course, been widely reported elsewhere, and they are entirely consistent with the other outrageous acts perpetrated by U.S. interrogators (forcing prisoners to engage in sex acts, sodomizing prisoners with broomsticks, subjecting them to various forms of psychological torture, etc.).

By caving in to political pressure, Newsweek has indirectly taken on the responsibility for the riots and deaths that followed the original publication of the accusations. By admitting its original story was a mistake, it has shifted the entire responsibility for these events away from the soldiers who committed them and onto itself. This is, of course, precisely what the Pentagon wants: let’s blame Newsweek! There’s always another scapegoat, it seems.

Even worse, Newsweek has surrendered Freedom of the Press to the Bush Administration. In case you ever had any doubt of who was writing the stories and controlling the news in the United States, doubt no further: with sufficient political pressure, any news story can be censored, edited or entirely rewritten in a way that matches the revisionist history version of events preferred by the Pentagon.

According to the Pentagon, U.S. soldiers are the most upstanding citizens in the world. They’re protectors, not invaders. We don’t occupy enemy territory, we guard it for their own good. Our helicopters are never “shot down,” they merely crash. And above all, American soldiers never, never treat Iraqi prisoners inhumanely, and they certainly don’t deface the Koran. At least that’s the official version from the Pentagon.

Didn’t you know? The U.S. only engages in acts of war out of the goodness of the hearts of its leaders. The entire mission in Iraq is actually a humanitarian mission and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the trillions of dollars worth of oil buried under the sand occupied by U.S. troops.

And all those stories about soldiers acting inhumanely have just been made up. Those photos were all doctored. It’s a grand conspiracy to discredit the glowing reputation of the U.S. military machine which is working very, very hard to protect peace and ensure that no nation in the world must suffer under the dictatorial control of tyrants.

That’s the official line, and media companies who stick to it will do just fine in the post 9/11 world. Just look at the market success of one particular cable news network. Who says you can’t make a fortune telling lies?

Newsweek got into trouble for daring to report the truth. It had the audacity to actually conduct investigative reporting and put its findings in print. How dare they? Didn’t Newsweek get the memo? The only war news allowed in the U.S. is Pentagon-approved news. Gotta keep the people supporting the war effort, y’ know… can’t have those sheeple realizing that war is actually ugly. Bloody. Violent. Inhumane by its very nature.

Newsweek has learned what the rest of the mainstream media already knows: in the post 9/11 world of revisionist history and suppressed information, it’s much safer to report official lies than unpopular truths.

Soldiers are happy! War is peace! There’s power in pride! And if you disagree with any of that, you’re obviously a terrorist.

NewsTarget.com is a disinformation source. no better no worse than the rest.

It takes a huge amount of creed chauvinism, and a certain amount of barbarism to categorize an “opponent.”

In this issue the barbarism cut’s both ways - in fact, it cut’s in more ways than two. Anyone who stands up filled with judgement, self righteously defending their position, becomes both indictor and indictee.

From simple insult, to torture and murder - history is steeped in too many crimes against humanity springing from intolerance of spiritual belief.

What an amazing level of hypocrisy on display.

It must be tough keeping yourself from being in so many knots… after all, you’re against the USA (read that: Pres. Bush) for being friendly with the Israel, the number enemy of Islam, and yet here it you are bitching that the US is also friendly with the Saudis. Gosh, what a quandary, huh?

And now we’re ‘treated’ to some screed from something called “Newstarget.com” (whatever that is) that attempts (lamely) to blame Pres. Bush because of a royal screw-up by Newsweek - who retracted and “apologized” (did anyone ever hear them say, “We’re sorry, we’ll change our ways”?).

So on the one hand, bad journalism is President Bush’s fault.
And on the other hand, “reporting the truth” is not a credit to our 1st Amendment.

Truth, you say? Ha! Since when has truth mattered to “BashAmerica.com” ?

And what was censored?

Nothing.

“Freedom isn’t free” isn’t just a catchy slogan. Responsibilty matters.

Freedom does not release one of taking the responsibility of being ethical and honest. And it’s pretty clear that the Newsweek article was anything but that.

Your quotes are lovely, but they don’t prove anything about today’s situation. And forgive me for being a “creed chauvinist” if I think that rioting involving the death of 17 people over a ten-line article in a magazine is a bit barbaric. Killing people over minor religious slights is barbarism. If it’s “chauvanist” of me to say that, I guess I’m a chauvinist.

People like you I find incredibly difficult to fathom. You have a marginal grasp of history, and examples from hundreds of years ago, and you seem to think that the Inquisition somehow justifies Mohammed Atta and his ilk. Sure, Christians have killed people over religion. Show me where, exactly, I defended those actions. I didn’t, just to save you time. I have no problem with the administration of justice, which is precisely what hunting down and punishing those responsible for barbarous acts is. Before you paint me “barbarian” for insisting on justice, I’ll refer you to some readings on the social contract.

I don’t care if it is Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, or people who see Abraham Lincoln in potato chips perpetrating crimes, I want them hunted down and punished, plain and simple. That’s not barbarism, or chauvinism, it is the only way society can function as a self-regulatory entity. Labeling criminals as such, and barbarians as such, is part of the deal. Observe, from dictionary.com:

barbarian n.

  1. A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization.
  2. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.

We can disagree over whether definition one applies or should, but if you are disagreeing with the premise that definition #2 applies to all the hijackers on 9/11, or the bombers in Madrid, or those responsible for the deaths over the recent article on the Koran, then you are not really worth debating with, because you are refusing to apply common-sense to life.

Newsweek was bullied into apologizing by the White House while Lawrence Di Rita, chief Pentagon spokesman, was claiming that the Pentagon had never received any “credible allegations” about “the willful desecration of the Koran as a component of interrogations” at Guantanamo.

Subsequently:

    1. The International Committee for the Red Cross told the Pentagon “multiple” times in 2002 and early 2003 that prisoners at Guantanamo said U.S. officials showed “disrespect” for the Muslim holy book, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman.
  1. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The International Red Cross told the Pentagon as early as 2002 detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison had reported U.S. officials mishandled the Koran, Red Cross and Pentagon officials said on Thursday.

I’m waiting with bated breath to hear Lawrence Di Rita at the Pentagon say “We’re sorry, we’ll change our ways”.

I would love a brief time to be a fly on the wall in a Newsweek editorial meeting. After all, Isikoff went after Clinton pretty much, too. I am just curious if these folks see themselves as righteous giant slayers, lofty and abitrary dispensers of editorial violence (like Inquisitors), or just [posterior-led] newshounds in search of the big scoop.

Well then perhaps reading the article that was posted will be helpful.

The author - himself a Muslim - points out the hypocrisy of the treatment of the “sacred” Koran.

Newsweek was “bullied”? Hogwash.

Newsweek was wrong - and THEY SAID THEY WERE. Their ‘unnamed source’ was about as familiar with the report as I am familiar with the inner workings of the central nervous system.

Yeah, I am as well.

I’m waiting for the Pentagon to start saying, “You know what? These prisoners have never seen it so good. We’re going to start treating them like the savages they are.”

Of course, that’s not going to happen, but in the meantime, the double standard will carry on, and the USA will be considered to be “bullying” because we may have farted in the general direction of a terrorist.

Well you know, it was said by the Newsweek apologists that they only published what they hadn’t bothered to confirm because they were trying to boost sales (as if that’s now an acceptable reason for printing more BS than appears in the National Enquirer).

But that brings up the question : “Boost sales where? In Afghanistan, where they sell maybe 50 copies a month?”

Does that include your Brain?


Slan,
D. :roll:

He has a brain? :boggle:

:wink: