The Egyptian masses are genuine but I am not into reading the hearts of people.

Blasphemy or freedom of speech

The sacrilegious film “Innocence of Muslims” that mocked Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and Islam has profoundly hurt the sensitivities of Muslims and sparked violent protests all over the world. It has renewed the debate about sanctity of religion and controversial approaches towards freedom of speech. What is freedom of speech and expression? Does it allow humiliation of any divine religion, its prophet, its faith, and values that are perceived sacred by the followers of that religion? If it does allow all such things then why freedom of expression has always been used against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? These are a few questions frequently raised by Muslims across the world. 
Muslims have been protesting against the movie, at some places protests are staged in a peaceful way while in most states these have turned violent, such as the killing of American diplomats in Libya and the burning of public and private property and loss of innocent lives in Pakistan. This is not the first time when blasphemous act has been committed against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there has been a chain of events, at first books were written to defame the Prophat Muhammad (PBUH), then caricatures were drawn in Denmark and other European newspapers and now a malicious attempt has been made to produce a sacrilegious movie. This movie has followed by publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Frenchmagazine Charlie Hebdo that have added fuel to anti-Western sentiments in Muslims.
In the post 9/11 era the wrong image of Islam has been portrayed in the Western societies and it is considered as a threat to Western civilization. New terminologies are being introduced that are being associated with Islam such as radicalization, extremism, fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia. People like Sam Bacile are representing the so-called Islamophobia, the filmmaker has deliberated focused on fermenting violence. Filmmakers should have anticipated that it will create unrest and violence in Muslim societies because for the Muslims, love for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been considered as part of the faith. Veneration of all prophets of Allah is a fundamental principle of faith in Islam. If we see what has been the reaction of Muslim states it becomes obvious that Muslim masses are protesting against blasphemy of their religion but their leaders are silent. They have not raised a collective voice. Unfortunately, there is lack of will on the part of Muslim leaders to project a common cause.
Criminalizing the defamation of religion has been on the agenda of OIC for some time but it could not get support from the western liberal democracies. At present, Turkey is heading the OIC, but it is not yet clear that organization has consulted with its members to bring a resolution to ban blasphemy. OIC member states must get agreed on a common agenda that UN should declare blasphemy as a criminal offence and should present their case from a unitary platform so that it could have a forceful effect. If denial of holocaust has been prohibited by law in majority of Western states to respect the sensitivities of 13 million Jewish population then why indifferent laws and practices against over 1.5 billion Muslim population?
It is our right to protest against such attacks on our religion but the protest should be staged in a peaceful manner. Our Prophet (PBUH) stood for peace in his whole life. If we resort to violent means and destruction of our own property then we may not be able to highlight the noble cause to which each one of us is duty bound to raise our voice. Western notion of freedom of speech and expression can not be accepted in its current form. There should be a clear distinction between what constitutes free speech and what will be considered as hate speech against any religion. Turkish Prime Minister has rightly said that free speech comes with boundaries, “Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others starts”.
UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon referring to anti-Islam movie has also made it clear that the right of freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs can not be protected, it can only be guaranteed and protected as a fundamental right when it is used for common justice, and common purpose. To promote interfaith harmony, it is the duty of Western governments to take this issue seriously and to come up with some proposals that could address the discriminatory law of freedom of expression and could differentiate between freedom of speech and blasphemy.

Insults, incitement and Islam

Across the Muslim World there is rightly outrage and hurt at the latest calculated attack on Islam, in the form of the film trailer Innocence of Muslims. All who hold human rights and moral decency close to their heart share their indignation.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right, protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. And 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Rights enshrined in law that are nevertheless denied to many, rights supposedly honoured in democratic countries.
Expressions of free speech that are little more than propaganda, that consciously incite hatred and spark acts of violence are rightly restricted under the very law that protects our freedom of expression. Article 20, paragraph 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Innocence of Muslims
The deliberately amateurish film with no real narrative portrays the Prophet Mohammed as a violent and lascivious fool. It is cheaply made, poorly acted and directed, and as a piece of filmmaking it is to be dismissed out of hand, but as The Guardian 17/09/2012 put it “the really sinister thing is that all this ham-fistedness and crassness is an important sense deliberate. It has to look like propaganda for the provocation to be effective.” The actors claim they did not know what the film was about, or it’s purpose and some speak of suing the producers. The BBC reports, “One actress featured in the film said she had no idea it would be used for anti-Islamic propaganda and condemned it.” Offensive dialogue that insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has been crudely added after filming.
The trailer was written and produced in the USA by Nakoula Basseley, a Coptic (Egyptian) Christian living in California, who drafted much of the script whilst serving a prison sentence for fraud. And directed, according to Gawker “by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts …. He’s the creative vision behind soft-core porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.” Whether a full film version exists is speculation, the trailer however has done its toxic, destructive work.
Basseley says his wife’s family paid for the film, but it is still unclear how it was funded or what the cost was. Whatever the amount, it is hard to justify any expense at all on a film rooted in such prejudice and hatred, which serves no purpose other than to hurt and insult Muslims throughout the World, reinforce negative stereotypes, incite violence and fuel division. The film is as The Guardian 17/09/2012 state “a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world…  it might be risible were it not for the ugly Islamophobia which it promotes and whose effects are now being seen around the world.”
Intended fury
The film has unsurprisingly prompted widespread protests throughout the World. On the 11^th September In Cairo protesters scaled the walls of the embassy, pulled down the US flag and called for the expulsion of the US ambassador to Cairo. In Libya the U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American staff members were killed in the American embassy in what appears to have been an unrelated pre-planned military style attack, as The Observer 16/09/2012 comments “The murder of US diplomats was not carried out spontaneously, but by a jihadist militia that wanted to kill Americans on the 9/11 anniversary.”
Protests directly triggered by the offensive, degrading film, have since taken place in countries with large Muslim populations, sadly causing as the BBC 14/09/2012 reports more loss of life. “Three people were killed when the US embassy in Khartoum was attacked, Sudanese state radio said. In Tunisia, two people were killed after crowds breached the US embassy compound in Tunis. There was one death in Egypt and one in Lebanon.” In Yemen hundreds of students demonstrated in the capital Sanaa and demanded the US ambassador be expelled, thousands waved flags on the streets of Beirut and chanted “America hear us – don’t insult our Prophet.” The Guardian 17/09/2012 reports that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah has “called for new demonstrations to express outrage at a film that denigrates Islam and the prophet Muhammad. “Prophet of God, we offer ourselves, our blood and our kin for the sake of your dignity and honour,” Nasrallah told supporters who chanted “death to Israel” and “death to America” at a rally in the southern Shia suburbs of Beirut.”
The Philippines Indonesia, usually calm Qatar, Afghanistan, London, Kashmir, all have witnessed demonstrations and in Pakistan access to You tube has been blocked by the government, the Prime Minister, rightly describing the film as “”blasphemous.” Such is the deep-seated feeling amongst the people of the Muslim community. An open wound has been deliberately inflamed and the people cry out in anger and frustration.
Free speech or incitement
The film and the reaction to it, has prompted much to be written and spoken about unrestricted free speech and the dangers of censorship. Writing in The Observer Nick Cohen argues that, “Nothing, however vile, justifies censorship. Even in the hardest of cases such as this anti-Islamic film, the old arguments against censorship remain the best.” The observation of basic human rights is the foundation for any democratic society and free speech is a fundamental requirement. Where it is absent totalitarian control of one kind of another becomes possible, perhaps inevitable.
There are though many methods of control and restriction of freedoms, both crude and subtle. Is for example the manufacturing of consent, a form of sociological coercion commonplace in America (and elsewhere) compatible with freedom and/or democratic principles of independent thinking and participation. Noam Chomsky, “the anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious, and for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.” The ‘Great Beast’ is of course us – the 99%.
The making and distribution of this film is not an expression of freedom of any kind, it contributes nothing of value to the political environment or social discourse and has no artistic merit. The Anna Lindh Foundation reinforces this view in their statement made on 16/09/12, asserting “Innocence of Muslims is an inflammatory pamphlet, the distribution of which – on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th – cannot be abridged to a manifestation of freedom of expression.”
International law, acting as a guide and aid to clarity of thinking, states there are limits to free speech. Where such expression is clearly based on racial or religious hatred and incites violence, then it is illegal and the perpetrators subject to prosecution. For where the law is infringed consequences follow – something Israel should be made aware of. What is crucial is the motive. If something is spoken, written, painted, drawn, filmed etc. with the premeditated intention of causing offense, because it is rooted in hatred of one kind or another it is outside the law.
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental human right, but it does not stand alone, or above other related rights, such as human dignity and mutual respect. All need to coexist and indeed all are indivisible.
Unless the filmmakers of Innocence of Muslims are completely naïve or plain stupid, they would have known that producing a film in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed, as a violent, promiscuous simpleton would inevitably cause offense and would probably result in violent demonstrations. Therefore the film breaches international guidelines on free speech, and should be banned, its makers charged and prosecuted.  Al Jazeera 14/09/2012 quote the filmmaker Danny Schechter, whose view on the film is clear: “It is very political from beginning to end. It’s not about free expression; it’s about propaganda. The film is incitement – it’s not information, it’s not filmmaking and it’s really intended as a technique of war-making.”
What good can possibly come from continuing to allow such a distasteful film to be circulated? It serves no purpose other than to provoke further potential violence. Enabling Muslims to be marginalized and demonized once more, constructing some perverse justification for continued American and Israeli intimidation, aggression and the spreading of paranoia. Allowing this film to be shown or not has little to do with censorship and/or free speech, and to reduce this issue to such notions is a convenient, distraction, fabricated in order to avoid discussing the filmmakers intention and the underlying causes of Islamists hurt and anger, which arise largely out of American foreign policy.
Simmering resentment “the safeguard of justice”
Opinion amongst large numbers of Islamists throughout the Muslim World towards America is overwhelmingly negative. The Pew Research Center found in a recent survey that “There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular.” In fact according to the Pew report only 15% of Muslims have confidence in President Obama, approve of his foreign policies and hold favorable views of America in general. Pew state, “In a number of strategically important Muslim nations, America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency.” In fact it has deteriorated, as US policies throughout the region continue to cause consternation amongst large numbers of Muslims, (and of course more widely).
American support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, which violates a host of international and indeed national laws and contravenes numerous UN resolutions, is perhaps top of the list. Followed by the Iraq war US involvement in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen, long running proxy wars in Somalia, and US support for what the BBC call ‘friendly dictators’. Add confinement without trial, abuse and torture in Guantanamo and Bagram prisons, the burning of the Qur’an by US soldiers in Afghanistan and Florida Pastor Terry Jones and disrespecting the dead bodies of Afghans. The list is indeed long and damning, and so it goes on.
The recent demonstrations were simply sparked by the film Innocence of Muslims; it was of course not the root cause of the protests. As the BBC 15/09/2012 state “we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism – with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a trigger.” Of course extremists were involved they never miss an opportunity, their violent actions distorting the events feeding prejudice and creating a convenient diversion from the issues.
US ideals of peace justifying conflict
All violence is to be condemned and the attacks that caused deaths and injuries resulting from these protests are no exception, they should not be allowed to take centre stage though, and it must be stated that the vast majority of actions undertaken have been peaceful and without incident. The Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF) says in relation to the protests that “the vast majority of Muslim public opinion has expressed its anger to the release of the film peacefully and individually, and the Arab governments of the region have reiterated their commitment with cultural inclusiveness while condemning the attacks to diplomatic delegations.”
To speak with solemnity and shock, calling for justice against the perpetrators of violence as US officials have, is expected and indeed right, albeit hypocritical and reactionary. In order to create peace however it is necessary to remove the causes of conflict, in this case those causes are complex and not confined to one poorly made deeply offensive film. Offensive let us add, not just to Muslims, who are understandably enraged, but to all right minded men and women respectful and tolerant of others beliefs and cultures.
American foreign policy is seen by many to be that which seeks to extend the influence and maximize the power of America, safeguard their interests at the expense of others and the natural environment and support criminality – Israel comes to mind. Such distasteful American foreign policies go back decades, as Noam Chomsky states in The Guardian “Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive regimes to take their oil.” A perception proved to be correct.
Ideologically driven, rooted in a desire to export worldwide an American version, or vision, of democracy, which they claim to be the highest ideal for all. The attitude is that when all follow America’s lead on matters relating to economics, politics, religion and social affairs, peace will inevitably follow, and not until. With this doctrine in mind America has sought to dominate the world, repeatedly making war in the name of peace.
Peace though is beyond ideology. For peace to envelop our world as men ad women everywhere hope, there must be tolerance, cooperation and understanding of others, not ideological imposition – of any kind. The equitable sharing of natural resources, of knowledge, ideas and experience will create justice. Dissipating mistrust and resentment leading to peace and a natural movement towards unity that encourages the greatest possible diversity enriching the lives of us all.

Occidental double standards

The recent outrage by the Muslim Ummah protesting against a low budget blasphemous movie produced in theUSAand the West’s condemnation of the remonstration of the Islamists depict occidental double standards.
The US State Department assures the Muslims that the sacrilegious film was not sponsored by it. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, during her meeting with her Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar, made it clear that the protests that had turned violent and, sadly, resulted in loss of life, cannot be tolerated. She admitted that there is provocation, and theUShad made clear that it does not in any way support provocation. She reiterated that theUSadministration found the video, which is at the core of this series of events, offensive, disgusting and reprehensible.
Unfortunately, the West displays double standards in its dealing. Terry Jones, a small time pastor of Dove World Outreach Centre, a small nondenominational Christian church inGainesville,Florida, had his 10 minutes of fame when he burnt copies of the Holy Quràn. His despicable act was condemned, but no legal action was taken against him. The Danish caricatures ridiculing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were in bad taste and violently protested by the Muslim Ummah, but no legal action was taken against the cartoonist, who caused mental agony to billions of Muslims all over the globe. Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses, was revered by the West although his blasphemous book was reviled by the Muslims all over the globe. Now similar revulsion has been caused by the profane film, which would have gone unnoticed if the producer had not taken pains to translate it in Arabic and post it on YouTube.
The sad aspect is that all these heinous acts causing mental anguish to Muslims for defaming their beloved Prophet (PBUH) are brushed aside by the West under the ‘Freedom of Speech Act’.
It is, indeed, doublespeak when the punishment for the denial of Holocaust ranges to imprisonment of one up to 10 years in a number of Western countries. Nudity is permissible but in some Western countries, Muslim women covering their heads with scarves can be punished or sacked from their jobs or expelled from educational institutions. InDenmark, the construction of magnificent palaces, citadels and mansions is permissible, but the domes of mosques are prohibited. Smoking at public places is prohibited as it is injurious to health, but the onslaught of venomous comments against a religious entity is permissible under freedom of speech. InGermany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is banned, but books preaching hate and odium against Islam are tolerable. It is high time that the Occident reviews its laws against blasphemy and the reviling of other religions.
On the other hand, Muslims, and especially Pakistanis, need to rein in our anger.September 21, 2012, was declared as the day of ‘Love for the Holy Prophet (PBUH)’, but it turned into a day of expressing extreme hatred, violence and aggression. The same Holy Prophet (PBUH), whom we revere and whose Sunnah (teaching and practices) we are ordained to follow, were conveniently forgotten. The Prophet (PBUH) was a paragon of love and virtue. He decried violent behaviour and forgave even those who caused him physical harm.
Against this backdrop, Pakistanis, who attacked and burned a church, cinema houses, looted ATMs, torched cars and petrol pumps, only caused damage to their own country. They lost an ideal opportunity to display to the world that their sentiments had been hurt. By giving vent to their emotions through violent acts, they only revealed their barbaric nature and brought Islam a bad name. No wonder, an Indian student has taunted that India does not need to build Pakistan-specific Agni and Prithvi missiles —- “just produce a blasphemous movie, post it on YouTube and in retaliation, Pakistanis will destroy their own country.”

Brazil moves against Google over videos

A Brazilian court has ordered YouTube to remove an anti-Islam video that prompted violent protests across the Muslim world, while an elections court has ordered the arrest of a Google executive after the popular video-sharing service failed to remove a video attacking a mayoral candidate.
Tuesday’s decision by a state court in Sao Paulo, home to a large Middle Eastern immigrant community, came just hours after Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff criticised “Islamophobia” in Western countries in a speech at the UN.
In a statement, the court said Judge Gilson Delgado Miranda gave the video-sharing site ten days to remove videos of the film, “Innocence of Muslims”.
After that, it will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil.
The case against the controversial film was brought by a Brazilian Muslim group, the National Islamic Union, against Google Inc, the owner of YouTube, for posting on the internet a film it said was offensive and a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Miranda said the case juxtaposed freedom of expression and the need to protect individuals or groups of people from action that might incite religious discrimination.
Miranda concluded that banning something illegal should not “offend” freedom of thought and expression, according to the ruling posted online by Estado de S. Paulo newspaper.
It was not the only Brazilian court ruling against Google on Tuesday. Earlier, an elections court ordered the arrest of Google’s most senior executive in Brazil after the company failed to take down YouTube videos attacking a local mayoral candidate.
Google is appealing the order, which follows a similar decision by another Brazilian election judge. In that case, a judge found another senior executive responsible for violating local election law. That decision was overturned last week.
The legal challenges underline broader questions about Google’s responsibility for content uploaded by third parties to its websites.
Fifteen people were killed in Pakistan during demonstrations over the video on Friday.
People involved in the film, an amateurish 13-minute clip of which was posted on YouTube, have said it was made by a 55-year-old California man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

Muslim leaders condemn Islamophobia at UN General Assembly

Muslim leaders have called on the Western countries to stop spreading Islamophobia and blasphemy in their communities, challenging US President Barack Obama’s defense of freedom of expression.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama condemned the “violence and intolerance” which has erupted across the world over a blasphemous anti-Islam film produced in the United States.
He also stated that the removal of such sacrilegious videos or offensive publications from the Internet would be a violation of the US constitution, which “protects the right to practice free speech.”
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono challenged Obama’s speech, saying the insulting movie was another example of religious defamation.

Yudhoyono stressed that freedom of expression is “not absolute” as according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “everyone must observe morality and public order.”

He also called for the establishment of an international “instrument to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs.”
In addition to Yudhoyono, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari asked the UN to take actions against the “incitement of hate” against Muslims.
“Although we can never condone violence, the international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” Zardari said during his speech at the General Assembly.
Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced the anti-Islam movie and said, “The menace of Islamophobia is a worrying phenomenon that threatens peace and co-existence.”
The Muslim world has been boiling with anti-Western sentiments over a blasphemous film named Innocence of Muslims, which insults Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Muslim protesters across the globe demand the US government apologize to the Muslims and punish those behind the blasphemous act.