Press Association
The Guardian
Wednesday November 14 2007

A “torrent” of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media, according to a report published yesterday.

Research into one week’s news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a “damning indictment” of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.

“The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west,” he said. “There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right.” Only 4% of the 352 articles studied were positive, he said.

Livingstone said the findings showed a “hostile and scaremongering attitude” towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s. “The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed,” he said. “I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims.”

Among examples in the study was a report which claimed that Christmas was being banned in one area because it offended Muslims, which researchers said was “inaccurate and alarmist”. The report said that Muslims in Britain were sometimes depicted as a threat to traditional British values, and the coverage weakened government attempts to reduce extremism. The report is an amalgam of research projects individually prepared by members of a panel. Some research, examining published newspaper articles and reporting the experiences of Muslim journalists, involved Hugh Muir, of the Guardian.

By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
P-I COLUMNIST
Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com

Their campaign of terror keeps spreading.They want to wipe out those who don’t agree with their way of life.

They’ve spilled blood across the planet for eons, finding justification for the evil they do in holy texts.

What do we call them?

What else? Christian-o-fascists!

While we’re at it, let’s give them a calendar slot — “Christian-o-Fascism Awareness Week” — to be celebrated on college campuses everywhere.

Yes, I drummed up this term this week to show extreme ideas aren’t confined to one religion. Zealots who wrap themselves in Christianity have blown up abortion clinics as well as claimed the lives of non-believers since antiquity. Jewish extremists whack Palestinians. Muslim nutcases bastardize Islam to justify suicide bombings that kill innocents.

Yet, it seems only the radical fringe of Islam gets slapped with a silly but dangerous label, designed to fan fears and taint a whole faith.

This brings me to — drum roll, please — “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” celebrated at more than 100 campuses across the country, including the University of Washington.

Last week’s nationwide event was aimed at fostering awareness of the terror threat posed by a fraction of those in the Islamic faith. Organizers also wanted to blast the “silence of feminists” over the oppression of women of Islam.

Their effort would have been better served by looking at how extremists everywhere, across the spectrum of beliefs, crap up the world.

That actually could foster constructive dialogue about the perils of ultra-radicals.

Earnest dialogue, though, wasn’t on the agenda for the UW College Republicans, the local lackeys for the big week. They’re more about fanning flames of ignorance — and garnering attention — than kindling wisdom. They give wiser GOP minds a bad name.

I can’t say I’m shocked. In 2003, the College Republicans held an anti-affirmative action bake sale on the UW campus to spark “dialogue.” White students paid $1 for a cookie, for example, while minorities paid anywhere from a quarter to 95 cents.

Don’t get me wrong: The group had every right to exercise its free, if stupid, speech back then, as it does now. But what’s troubling about “Islamo-Fascism” week is the lack of voices from high places on campus countering the madness.

At least during the bake-sale shenanigans, the president of the UW Board of Regents wrote a letter saying the stunt was “tasteless, divisive and hurtful — learning is not advanced when the dialogue is demeaning and disrespectful.”

This time, a UW assistant provost wrote human rights activists — to reassure them there was “no indication” conservative pundit Michael Medved would speak on campus as part of a “terrorism awareness” tie-in. But, “it turns out that did happen,” Assistant Provost Patricia Huling said of Medved’s campus chitchat.

The university says Muslim and Arab students did pass out literature and set up a table on campus to offer counterpoints to the demeaning, disrespectful and narrow presentation of Islam.

But that was like talking into a hurricane. True learning, a thought-provoking dialogue, wasn’t advanced.

Maybe the stunt was fun and games for the publicity-seeking Republican college group. But it’s serious business for the folks behind last week’s national event, sponsored by David Horowitz of the Los Angeles-based Freedom Center, a conservative think tank. These right-wingers want to grab power by creating campaigns that spread fear and invoke made-up, hot-button words.

As Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times puts it: “There isn’t actually any such thing as Islamo-Fascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination.”

The term, he adds, became a fashionable way for Iraq hawks “to gloss over” the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked us, to Saddam Hussein, who did not.

But hey, the conservative kids on campus don’t sweat such pesky details.

They know sometimes it’s best to gloss over truths, exploit fear and be only as aware as you want to be.

The esteemed and late Shaikh Muhammad bin Salih al-’Uthaimin of Saudi Arabia stated, during a tele-link in the evening of Friday, 28th July 2000:

…Likewise I invite you to have respect for those people who have the right that they should be respected, those between whom there is an agreement (of protection) for you. For the land in which you are living is such that there is an agreement between you and them. If this were not the case they would have killed you or expelled you. So preserve this agreement, and do not prove treacherous to it, since treachery is a sign of the hypocrites, and it is not from the way of the Believers. And know that it is authentically reported from the Prophet that he said, “Whoever kills one who is under and agreement of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.”

Do not be fooled by those sayings of the foolish people, those who say ‘Those people are Non-Muslims, so their wealth is lawful for us (to misappropriate or take by way of murder and killing).’ For by Allaah - this is a lie. A lie about Allaah’s Religion, and a lie about Islamic societies.

So we may not say that it is lawful to be treacherous towards people whom we have an agreement with.

O my brothers. O youth. O Muslims. Be truthful in your buying and selling, and renting, and leasing, and in all mutual transactions. Because truthfulness is from the characteristics of the Believers, and Allaah - the Most High - has commanded truthfulness - in the saying of Allaah - the Most High -

“O you who believe - fear and keep you duty to Allaah and be with the truthful”

And the Prophet encouraged truthfulness and said, “Adhere to truthfulness, because truthfulness leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise; and a person will continue to be truthful, and strive to be truthful until he will be written down with Allaah as a truthful person“.

And he warned against falsehood, and said, “Beware of falsehood, because falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. And a person will continue lying, and striving to lie until he is written down with Allaah as a great liar.”

O my brother Muslims. O youth. Be true in your sayings with your brothers, and with those Non-Muslims whom you live along with - so that you will be inviters to the Religion of Islaam, by your actions and in reality. So how many people there are who first entered into Islaam because of the behaviour and manners of the Muslims, and their truthfulness, and their being true in their dealings.

The Qur’an has outlined the base rule concerning the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims who do not fight the Muslims on account of their religion or expel Muslims from their homes or lands.

Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity. (Al-Mumtahinah 60:8)

The classical commentator Ibn Kathir stated in his exegesis of this verse:

“… meaning that you are benevolent towards them and deal justly with them.”

This verse was revealed during the truce between the Muslims and the Quraish of Mecca. The mother of Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr came to Medina and brought with her some presents. Asma sought recourse to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) on the matter.

Ibn Kathir brings a number of narrations from Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr (radiallahu anhu), whose pagan mother came to visit her in Medina, explaining that this was the reason for the revelation of this particular verse. Asma said:

My mother who was a pagan approached (Madinah) during the truce with (the tribe of) Quraish, so I came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and said, “O Messenger of Allah, my mother has come and she desires to see me, shall I keep ties with her?” He said, “Yes, keep the ties of kinship with your mother”.

Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, another classical commentator explains in his exegesis that there were a number of opinions regarding this particular verse, and mentions amongst them:

• That this verse was particular only to those Muslims who were residing in Mecca but had not yet emigrated.
• That this vere relates to people outside of Mecca who had not emigrated to Medina
• That this verse was regarding the pagans of Mecca who did not fight the Muslims nor expel them from their homes, but that it was later abrogated with the command to fight the pagans (on account of their breaking the truce)

Then at-Tabari explains the correct viewpoint:

The most correct of these sayings is the statement of the one who said that what is meant by, “Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion…” (is that it pertains to) all of the factions from the varying beliefs and religions. That you behave good towards them, and that you are just regarding them, because Allah, the Mighty and Majestic generalised with His saying, “…those who fought not against you on account of your religion and did not drive you out of your homes…” So this applies to everyone who is characterised by this. He did not specify some as opposed to others in this regard.

And then at-Tabari goes on to discredit the view of those who said this injunction was abrogated.

The esteemed Scholar from the last century Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqiti (rahimahullah) has a lengthy discussion in his exegesis, “Adwaa ul-Bayaan”. Ash-Shanqiti mentions the various views, including the viewpoint that this verse was abrogated with the command to fight the pagans. He then goes on to provide historical and textual evidences to discredit this view bringing:

• The statements of at-Tabari, ash-Shafi’i,after which he said:
  

  This (view) that has been deemed correct by Ibn Jarir (at-Tabari) and which was authenticated by as-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy upon him, is that which is necessitated by spirit of the Islamic legislation.

• The benevolence of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) towards specific non-Muslims, such as Thumama who had come to assassinate the Prophet but was captured by the Muslims. He was treated well, eventually released and he voluntarily became a Muslim.
• The various delegations that came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) in the 9^th year after the hijra. Such as the Christians of Najran, and the delegation of Tamim, and others. With all of them, the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) was gentle and kind, he was benevolent towards them.
• The treatment of the Jews of Khaibar who despite being treacherous - scheming a variety of intrigues, instigating the Bani Quraiza, and plotting against the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) on numerous occasions - were spared. After being forced to surrender they were allowed to live off their land whilst giving a share of the produce to the Muslims.
• The verse in the Qur’an regarding the treatment of non-Muslim parents who force a person to worship others besides Allaah. Ash-Shanqiti said:
  

  And in closing, that which makes this clear very strongly, and about which no one has claimed abrogation is the saying of (Allah), the Exalted, “And if they both strive to make you associate with Me (in worship) that of which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them. But accompany them in this life with goodness.” (Luqman 31:15). This good behaviour and benevolence is towards the one who strove to make a Muslim associate others with Allah (in worship) but did not actually fight against the Muslims. Hence, the right of the parents are to be given precedence, even if they are upon disbelief, and strive to lead one to associationism (Shirk).

With these and other evidences ash-Shanqiti invalidates the view of those who spoke with abrogation of this verse. Ash-Shanqiti covered this issue in some depth in his Adwa ul-Bayan, explaining:

And we have lengthened the speech regarding this matter due to its importance and the dire need for it today.

Hence, it is established that the normal relation between Muslims and non-Muslims who do not show aggression or expel Muslims from their lands, as established in the Islamic texts, is one of benevolence and good behaviour.

Contemporary Islamophobes attempt to portray Islam and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) as a violent, aggressive, murderous entity - and often distort, and outright lie, concerning historical occurrences and realities. Perhaps their distortions will be covered in later posts.