Muhammad

Muhammad, a Terrorist?

I was offended by the email written by the professor from Michigan and the circular mail campaign in support of the position of the professor. I was offended by the sheer hypocrisy and ignorance of both the professor the circular writer.

The professor claimed that he was soft-spoken, but the tone and content of his email was strident and provocative. In other words, he was a hypocrite. On top of that, he was an ignoramus, outside of his field of specialty which was mechanical engineering. Let me explain why I hold such dim view of this creature.

The Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Michigan State University (MSU) lodged a protest against the Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, as a terrorist. The MSA complained that the cartoons constituted “hate speech”. The professor didn’t find the cartoons offensive. Instead, he listed a litany of acts committed by the contemporary extremist elements of Islam and found them deeply abhorrent. Mind you, these acts were not committed or sanctioned or supported by the MSA, and had nothing to do with the subject of complaint by the MSA. Then incredibly the professor used the gutter language and described the students at MSA as “dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and slave-trading Moslems” and labeled their protests as “infantile”. He concluded his hate-filled email missive with the words “If you do not like the values of the West –see the 1st Amendment—you are free to leave. I hope for God’s sake (sic!) that most of you choose that option”. He then signed “Cordially” and added his name.

His email was not cordial. He should have signed as “Sincerely”. His English is somewhat deplorable. “First” in the First Amendment should be spelled out instead of being abbreviated. The students at the MSA might be dissatisfied and aggressive, but there were no evidence to support the allegation that they were “brutal and slave-trading Moslems”. Their protests were not “infantile”, but mature, responsible exercise of their right of free speech, unlike the manner chosen by the professor. The professor also imposed his own religious beliefs by invoking the phrase “God’s sake”.

Now any fair-minded individual would find any cartoons depicting the founder of a religion which has more than one billion adherents, as a terrorist offensive, but the professor would not think so and he stated clearly his view. That would lead us question the fairness of the professor. He never explained why he agreed with the cartoons. From the manner exhibited by the professor, the reader would infer that he is a Christian, not a fair, forgiving, charitable Christian as exhorted by the founder of his religion, but an unfair and uncharitable one. He joined many other like-minded Christian bigots in hurling venom at Muhammad who is loved and revered by all Muslims, regardless of the sects involved. In fact, Muhammad who learned about religions from Christian and Jewish preachers, recognized Jesus and other Jewish prophets and told his followers to respect these individuals and their followers. I have not heard of any instance that a Muslim newspaper publishing any article or cartoons denigrating Jesus or Moses or any prophets mentioned in the Bible.

Muhammad was a remarkable man. He even at one time asked his followers to head in the direction of Jerusalem when praying in homage of the intellectual debt that Islam owed to Judaism and Christianity. Only after he was betrayed by certain Jewish tribes that he commanded his followers to pray in the direction of Mecca. There are passages in the Koran which urge of tolerance of other faiths. There are also passages which ask for the defense of Islam, by force. The latter passages are there because Islam was almost snubbed out before it had a chance to flourish. Muhammad and his small group of believers were brutally attacked by Arabs who practiced polytheism and Jews alike. It was largely thanks to the sheer force of Muhammad personality and leadership that Islam survived.

We all know that Christianity and Muhammad were the offspring of Judaism. Unlike the woolly and wild claims taken by Christianity regarding the Immaculate Conception, birth, and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad’s religious claims were much more modest and not totally divergent from Judaism which, after leaving certain far-fetched exclusivity claims, is quite logical. Islam is gaining more adherents than any other religion and has many good things to offer: charity, no usury, no collection of interests, no elaborate hierarchy (unlike Catholicism), no consumption of alcohol, modesty, etc… It is the extreme elements of Islam which gives Islam a bad name. Islamic extremism is a reaction against Western imperialism and American unstinted support of Israel and Zionism.

The circular campaign spoke of the political correctness as old and injurious to the interests of the United States. It is the ignorance and lack of respect for Islam which hurts the interests of the United States. If ignorant bigots think that by taking on Islam straight on, they will win the war, they will be sadly mistaken. Islam was forged by fire, born in adversity, and their followers are imbued with a messianic and religious fervor and solidarity which is not shared by the followers of Christianity.

Roberto Wissai
October 2009