West?s religious bigotry of Islam is a matter of policy

By Abid Mustafa

Irrespective of whether Newsweek?s story on the desecration of the Quran is
true or false, America cannot escape the undeniable reality that her
religious bigotry towards the Muslim world is inseparable from her foreign
policy.

In Muslims eyes, the Bush administration is notorious for the humiliation
and torture of Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, responsible for the
destruction and defilement of Iraq?s mosques, the debaser of Muslim women
and the slayer of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims.

Testimonies from human rights organisations, journalists, lawyers, US
officials, former prisoners, rape victims, tell the true horror of America?s
war on Islam. In this war, western ideals of ‘religious freedom? and
?religious tolerance? have given way to religious intolerance and
anti-Muslim demagoguery.

Since September 11, vilification of Islam has become an integral component
of the America?s war on Islam. President Bush started the war by describing
it as a crusade. A chorus of US government officials, US army generals and
other employees soon joined him in making derogatory remarks about Islam and
Muslims.

Away from Washington, the US media, esteemed think tanks and leaders of the
religious right who are counted among President Bush’s closest allies
continued to vilify Islam. Rev. Franklin Graham, described Islam as a “very
evil and wicked religion”. Evangelist Pat Robertson, called Prophet Muhammad
“an absolute wild-eyed fanatic . . . a robber and brigand . . . a killer”.
Jerry Falwell called the prophet of Islam a terrorist.

On the international front the Bush administration was quick to sacrifice
religious freedom in preference for forging alliances with despotic regimes
across the Muslim world. The regimes of prince Abdullah, Musharraf and
Karimov who routinely torture, imprison and kill Muslims for expressing
their Islamic beliefs became the main players in America?s crusade against
Islam.

The notion of religious freedom swiftly vanished from the agenda of the Bush
administration when it embraced Israel and India as part of America?s
coalition against Islam. America gave both countries the green light to
declare open season on Muslims. Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians
and India?s massacre of the Muslims of Gujarat clearly violated the norms of
religious tolerance and human rights Instead of taking tough action against
Israel and India, America openly sided with them.

The situation of Muslims in Europe fairs no better. There is strong vitriol
directed against Muslims and their beliefs. France and Germany have imposed
a ban on the wearing of hijabs. European security forces routinely harass,
arrest and torture Muslims for simply being Muslims. Writers and journalists
are free to insult Islam and their right to do so is passionately defended
by politicians.

Take Oriana Fallaci, the Italian war correspondent wrote a book entitled
‘Anger and Pride’ in which she described Muslims as ‘vile creatures who
urinate in baptisteries’ and ‘multiply like rats’. To the horror of Muslims,
Italy’s Defence Minister, Antonio Martino, praised Fallaci for having the
courage to write the book.

The West claims that individuals are free to worship whatever deity they
choose. But in practice this leads to perpetual conflicts amongst people, as
religious beliefs and practices professed by some can be interpreted as
offensive and insulting to others. Hence, western governments are constantly
intervening in the disputes and resort to legislation to protect the
religious rights of some people by depriving others. Often, the real
benefactors of freedom of religion are those individuals or groups whose
beliefs coincide with the interests of the government or those who possess
the ability to exert influence over the government.

That is why the religious right in America is allowed to attack Islam
because their fiery rhetoric is in full harmony with President Bush’s war on
Islam. However, if the same conservative Christians were to insult Jews or
the Zionist state of Israel the US government would adopt stern measures to
restrict their insults.

Likewise western governments use religious freedom to pry open societies
closed to western values or totally ignore religious freedom when it does
not concur with their interests. In the case of Karimov?s massacre of
Muslims in Andijon, the west has chosen to water down its response, as the
protestors are avid supporters of Islam and not democracy.

Such hypocrisy only serves to underscore the perception amongst Muslims that
the America and Europe are solely interested in the utter destruction of
Islamic values and practices.

Islam does not believe in the fanciful idea of freedom of religion, where a
handful of men decide which beliefs are legally beyond reproach and which
beliefs and practices are subject to unfettered criticism and legislation.
Islam stipulates that life, honour, blood, property, belief, race and the
mind are to be protected by the Islamic State.

All the citizens of the Caliphate are guaranteed these rights, irrespective
of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.  Islam also protects the rights
of non-muslims to worship without any fear of retribution or vilification of
their beliefs. The messenger (saw) of Allah said:

“One who hurts a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Caliphate), he hurts me
and the one who hurts me, hurts Allah”

Therefore it is prohibited for a Muslim to insult the beliefs of a
non-Muslim or to damage their places of worship. The Islamic history is
unrivalled in its ability to guarantee the religious rights of non-Muslims
under the shade of the Caliphate.

Muslims living under the tyrannical rule of regimes supported by the west
need to realise that holding demonstration against the discretion of the
Quran will not prevent the west from carrying out further acts of aggression
against them. The only way to prevent the west and her surrogates from
vilifying Islam and humiliating Muslims is to re-establish the Caliphate.

The rights of the Muslims were protected, until the very last days of the
Caliphate. During the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, Britain decided to
stage a play, which depicted the life of the messenger (saw) of Allah in a
derogatory manner. On hearing this Sultan Abdul Hamid complained to the
British government to put an immediate end to the play. The British
government defended its decision to hold the play by citing free speech.
When Sultan Abdul Hamid threatened Britain with military action only then
did Britain relent.

May 20, 2005

Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specialises in Muslim affairs