Skip to content or view screen version

The Guardian must stop lying against Muslims and recognise the truth

Guardian_an_observer | 31.08.2006 11:30 | Analysis | Culture | Indymedia | World

The truth is, and here it is being said for the first time in this form, that Muslim people’s objection to Satan Rushdie was not about Rushdie's alleged freedom to write fiction. It was to Rushdie's satanic evil plot to distort the humanity of the entire Muslim peoples across the world. All Rushdie's apologists have suppressed the truth. They have covered it up with the lie that Muslims are against freedom of expression. Muslims are against the organised lying against human rights. There is no cause higher than this on earth. Uphold human rights. To deny Muslims the right to freedom to express opposition to the lies of Satan Rushdie or his likes is the greater violation of the allegedly western-only virtue of freedom of expression

The Guardian is notorious for pretending that it is liberal in the universally understood sense. But it is not. It is home to the most poisonous spreaders of racist lies against Muslims. Denis McShane is spouting on today [Thursday 31 August 2006] via the Guardian in a contribution that includes praise for Satan Rushdie and Monica Ali. The names are followed by an alleged attack on alleged clerical fascism. McShane should be careful about using fascism at the expense of those he targets for vilification. He would not be having a platform on the Guardian had his foreparents got crushed by the real fascists


McShane is probably the only sitting MP in the Hosue of Commons who in fact had to leave the BBC after he was caught lying. McShane impersonated a Tory politician and made a fake phone call.

This was traced and McShane was exposed.

McShane has come a long way since then. His espousal of every anti-democratic, racist measure by Blair stands in stark contrast with the claims he was making after he got caught lying about who he was.

In the past ten years, McShane has moved further to the neo-fascistic Right than any of his contemporaries in the British 'media'.

For someone who has only very recently made a detailed statement about his Eastern European ancestry – and there is still no separation why he stayed silent on that aspect of his identity for so long – McShane is not entitled to make this fake stand about how the people subjected to racism feel. He must show respect to the communities under attack. Then he must show he understands the details of daily suffering and hardship that people are forced to endure. Not because they have done anything wring but because there is a trend being fostered by the likes of him to show contempt and intolerance towards the locally numerical minorities.

Now McShane is posing as a friend of freedom of expression. There is a link between McShane's well-publicised affiliation with the racists' ideology in the recent years and his espousal of Satan Rushdie and Monica Ali.

It is strange that in none of their 'recognition' of 'Muslim writers', neither McShane nor his fellow travelling anti-Muslim 'liberators of Muslims' finds any room for the literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim thinkers, philosophers, human rights activists in the whole world.

They only find time and grace [!] to acknowledge the traitors whose crimes are not so much against Islam but against the human rights of the Muslims.

This is at the centre of the corruption of the freedom of expression that liars like McShane fail to understand.

It is not the act of attacking Islam by Satan Rushdie and any of his fellow travelling traitors that the Muslims object to, it is the unbridled brazenness to attack the humanity of the Muslim peoples that is astonishing and unacceptable.

No society must allow the organised distortion of the image or the facts about any group of people no matter how they are classified.

Only identify wring conduct.

Only condemn wrongful acts.


Spare the humanity and focus on the action.

That is the only way that truth will emerge and hopefully prevail.

How many more centuries will it take before the Crusading liars against Muslims get this right?

Stop attacking the humanity of Muslims.

Say what you want to say against Islam. Be careful how much you lie against Islam. But remember Muslims have the right to talk back.

If you choose to attack Islam because you feel that is a pastime your 'religion' or 'belief' encourages you to do that then do this in the knowledge that the earth is populated by many religions and faiths.

Muslims can understand that. And know that God will take appropriate action when God alone will.

Spare the Muslim the intolerance, the lies and the hostilities.

Learn to tolerate Muslims as human beings. Like everyone else.

Guardian_an_observer

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

Wow - people still read the Grauniad-Observer!

31.08.2006 12:36

Thanks for that - some of us stopped buying that filthy rag (and all the others) a long, long time ago. There is too much wrong with that paper, and the rants of Aaronowitch et al do not exactly 'lift the spirit'. They *are* pro-war evil, and have gotten mighty expensive since I stopped buying!
Well done for ploughing through all the car ads, faux terror stories and newswire cut 'n' pastes.
Don't let the b'stards get you down, keep reading joyful, happy Indymedias and personal blogs for all the real news!

Ignorance Is Bliss


Islam isn't a 'race'

31.08.2006 12:51

'Muslim' is not a racial characteristic - you cannot tell a person's religion from their DNA. Your arguments against free speech are already rather pathetic, don't make them sound even more ridiculous by adding spurious accusations of racism. Racism is a serious problem for many people, please don't cheapen and dilute the term by deliberately misusing it.

Phoomation


please delete the foul racist comment from 'phoomation'

31.08.2006 15:20

Islam isn't a race, but then again neither is anything else, because their is ONLY ONE HUMAN RACE. The pseudo science of differing Human races was invented by members of the so-called tribe of Israel in the US during the early 19th century to justify the slavery of 'black' people from Africa.

There is no such thing as a 'racial' characteristic, and even the phrase is racism of the vilest kind. There IS such a thing as visible GENETIC characteristics, like hair colour, skin colour, eye colour etc.

The modern meaning of the word 'racism' means targetting people as a group, rather than individuals, for reasons connected with the groups' appearance, or AUTOMATIC culture.

Thus, one would not be racist attacking individual SCIENTOLOGISTS strongly connected with pushing their faith, but one WOULD be racist attacking people simply because they came from a town with a scientology culture (provided that town wasn't using a master-race doctrine to bring holocaust to its non-scientology neighbours, as has been recently seen with the racist monsters of Israel).

During the build up to WW2, Hitler targetted 'jews', and he did NOT define these people by the adherance to the jewish faith. Blair does the same today with 'muslims', and when his agents (like the Guardian) push his agenda, we understand exactly the horrors they are hoping to bring into existence.

'Muslim' means people from 'muslim' nations (or communities), and this includes immigrants to non-muslim nations that have strong ties, cultural or family, to originated 'muslim' nations. The term, confusingly (if you think about it) also includes individuals that actively CHOOSE to follow the faith of Islam, but this is simply one word meaning two things, common in the english language.

Please can we eliminate evil racist comments from nazis like 'phoomation' as they are posted please.

AGAIN: THE ***MEANING*** OF THE WORD 'RACISM' HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIL PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF DIFFERING HUMAN RACES.

PS persecuting people because of their adult chosen active faith belief system cannot be described as racism, but it can be just as evil an act as racism depending on circumstances. On the other hand, it can be just as reasonable as punishing a murderer. It depends on what that system of faith consists of. "Love thy neighbour" is good. "We are a master race, and all non-believers are cattle" is evil to the extreme.

twilight


Utter rubbish again

31.08.2006 15:31


OK...

1) There isn't an article by Dennis McShane in today's Guardian. At least not in the copy I've got. Could you say what page number you are referring to? (Incidentally, the lead story in G2 was a quite funny piece by an, erm, young Muslim writer titled "Ten Things You Can No Longer Do If You're A British Muslim", parodying those who assume all Muslims are terrorists)

2) It's laughable to say that Salman Rushdie is stopping the Muslim community's freedom of speech. He's not been running around the country stopping books being published, demanding that people don't give speeches. Radicalised bigots have, however, burned copies of his books, killed people associated with their publication and placed a death sentence on his head forcing him to live in hiding. That is stopping freedom of speech. Your brain is in a topsy-turvy universe if you think the reverse is true.

3) Have you read The Satanic Verses? Seriously? It's not actually blasphemous if you bother to read it properly. Yes, it parodies sections of the Koran making a Mohammed-like character seem to misbehave badly - but the point (as the title of the book suggests, numb-nuts) is that the narrator is the devil, and that he is spreading disinformation. CS Lewis, the Christian writer, used a parallel device in his book The Screwtape letters, in which a devil gives advice to a younger devil, and it's widely seen as an excellent book by Christians who've read it. (I'm an atheist, anyway) If Rushdie had called his book "The Truth About Islam" you might have a point - but you don't.

4) You and other posters keep suggesting on here that Salman Rushdie is somehow in the employ of the Guardian when the only contribution of his I've spotted in recent months was a letter, erm, criticising the paper.

Norville B


Drivel

31.08.2006 16:30

No one objects to Rushdie being criticized, or Ali, but I seem to recall at fatwa (or death sentence) was imposed on Rushdie. How would you like it if Christians imposed a death sentence on Dan Brown?

And perhaps you should tell Muslims who write for the Guardian (of which there are a fair few on the comment pages) that the Guardian hates Muslims. Or you could send a letter to the Guardian.

Your article is a pile of arrogant drivel anyway. As far as I'm concerned, you're as hypocritcal and sheep-like as Blair. The only difference is you are not in power, and I hope you never are.

Militant


"Love thy Neighbour"

31.08.2006 18:08

To quote Tori Amos...

"We havent seen much 'love thy neighbour' in the last 2 thousand years of Christianity..

So who's to say who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'?

The point of racism & the false genetic basis of this term is true. We are, after all only 98% different genetically from Chimpanzes. We are all able (except due to infertility) to interbreed with any other human on this planet. We have only regional differences.
We are ONE people - the human race, why can't there be a lot more humanity on this planet? (& that is a rhetorical question as well as a vital one).

Dave
A human being
Planet Earth

Dave


who speaks for "islam?"

03.09.2006 10:17

people who claim to speak for islam only speak for a type of islam. Khooledar or teenage fundamentalist M Haque to not speak for all. ie/ what of someone from a muslim family who does not believe in God, but dislikes racism and the pointless war. such a person would have a problem with Bush but not with Rushdie, right? things are complex, and there are many positions one can have. Neither the guardian nor M Haque have the correct formulation but are both deluded.

ali


Newspeak with forked tongue

03.09.2006 11:44

While I agree that the word 'race' is rather obsolete, I was using the term 'racial characteristic' as shorthand to denote visible differences in populations who have adapted over the generations to their particular physical environment and climate, eg. skin colour, size of facial features, hair texture etc. However that's a bit of a mouthful, so I used the term I did in the interests of brevity.

If the modern meaning of the word 'racism' is whatever one wants it to mean at the time, then it and your accusations become meaningless. You seem to want to shield religion from doubt by hiding it behind the fig leaf of race. We're not going to let you just "eliminate evil racist comments" from "nazis like Phoomation", your religion is going to have to stand up for itself in the clear light of day.

My money is on the novelists, feminists, gays and atheists.

P.S. I think this is the article in question..
 http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_macshane/2006/08/denis_on_lorca.html

Foomatic


Pro Rushdie + anti bush!

04.09.2006 14:49

First: a question to whoever posted this article or people with a similar mindset? What if you are from a Muslim background like me or Rushdie and you simply do not believe in God at all, not the prophets or anything else? then Rushdie speaks many things which are true from this atheistic viewpoint. What is yr attitude to people like me who like their islamic heritage but really do not believe in God? we cannot fake it anymore. what if that same person is politically a left person, ie i am opposed to Imperialism in all its forms. is it not possible for someone to have this opinion. then, it becomes clear, the above article does not speak for everyone but only for a few 'fundamentalists' who are tied down to their provincial identity. this is the reason why the above article is distressing, as it makes the assumption that all moslems are anti Rushdie, without realising that Rushdie was himself from a muslim background and came to disbelieve in God from his experiences and reading of islamic tradition itself. ie.from an atheist standpoing - Mohammed is not a prophet, and there is no God. with that the whole tradition collapses, and we are left with the kind of questions that Rushdie asks in his excellent book 'the satanic verses".
secondly: those who wish to challenge and bring up the ghost of Rushdie: what are you looking to achieve with this issue? but most importantly, have you read the book??!!
thirdly: (anyone please answer): what is the position of the left on Rushdie? ( be it from a revolutionary marxist or anarchist position or whatever?)
Thank you, please answer me honestly.

rizwan