A Christian Not Offended by Blasphemy Against Muhammad is Not a Christian

Previously, we discussed if YouTube should remove the anti-Islamic movie or not. Since then I have interacted with many Christian brothers and sisters concerning the anti-Islamic movie and the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) published by a French magazine. Many of the Christian brothers and sisters have told me that they are really upset with all this bigotry. Some them have even demanded that the anti-Islamic movie and the movie trailer should be removed from YouTube, while others upset with it have said that YouTube should not remove it because there is freedom of speech. While unfortunately some have even gone to the length of supporting all this bigotry. But anybody, who is not upset with this movie or supports this movie, can not be a follower of Jesus Christ. Wanna know why? Lets analyze.

Christians at Church Service

The Jews used to allege that a Roman soldier named Pandora had raped mother Mary (God Forbid) and thus Jesus had been born. That is why they called Jesus "Bin Pandora, the son of Pandora". But Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) put an end to this abuse against mother Mary and Jesus. Today about one and half billion Muslims believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus, that he was born without any male intervention. Suppose, if somebody's father has not been home to meet him and his mother for the last 5 years and suddenly one day his mother comes and tells him that somehow she dreamed about his father and she became pregnant. Would he believe his own mother? No, of course not! But today we, Muslims believe that Jesus was born miraculously without any male intervention. A son would not believe his own mother, but one and half billion Muslims believe that Mary was a virgin, when she gave birth to Jesus. We believe this on the solitary statement of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It is impossible for any Christian to logically prove the miraculous birth of Jesus and even many modern-day Christians even do not believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus. But we, one and a half billion Muslims believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus on the solitary statement of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).  The Christian World can never repay what obligation Muhammad (peace be upon him) had done upon Jesus and his Mother Mary by supporting the miraculous birth of Jesus and his miracles.

Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the final prophet and the spirit of truth, whose coming Jesus promised. As Jesus said in the Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 12-14: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me". Someone asked us that did Muhammad (peace be upon him) glorify Jesus? Yes, as it is clear from what we mentioned about Muslim belief in the miraculous birth of Jesus that Muhammad (peace be upon him) truly glorified Jesus by putting an end to the years of abusing.

Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus. A Muslim can not be a Muslim, unless he believes in Jesus Christ. We believe that he was a mighty Messenger of God. We believe that he was the Messiah, translated Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention. We believe that he gave life to the dead with God's permission and healed those born blind and lepers. Can any Christian in the World today logically prove that Jesus gave life to the dead? No! In fact, any sensible Christian would shy away from mentioning this in front of any atheist because the mockery that he would make of this belief can not be exaggerated. But one and half billion Muslims believe this, not that the Christians proved it to us, but only because Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said so.

Chapter 19 of the Glorious Qur'an is named after Mary, the mother of Jesus. Please note that there is no such book or chapter in the Bible, which is named after Jesus or his mother Mary.

So the Christians should respect Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and oppose all such bigotry, first because of the respect, love and reverence that Jesus and Mother Mary get from Muslims only because of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Second, because Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet and the spirit of truth prophesied by Jesus himself. Third, because Jesus said that you should even love your enemy and after all Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not even the enemy, but in fact the man whom Christianity is the most indebted to.

Even after all this if any Christian believes that abusing Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) should be allowed, he surely can not be a follower of Jesus Christ. But there are those, who are upset with the movie, but say that it should be allowed because there is freedom of speech. By saying this, they probably are believers in freedom of speech, but they surely are not believers in Jesus Christ.

Should YouTube Remove the Anti-Islamic Movie?

A trailer of an anti-Islamic movie uploaded on YouTube has unfortunately attracted a lot of attention and YouTube has refused to remove the video. It has raised a lot of question.  In this post, we will try to answer some of these questions, most importantly whether if YouTube should remove the video or not. Since YouTube is under Google, we have analyzed both of their actions as one.

Protest Against Anti Islamic Movie

It is being reported that an actress from the anti-Islamic movie has sued the producer of the movie and YouTube. She has accused the producer of fraud and unfair business practices and has asked YouTube to remove the video. She says that she and the crew had been lied to and tricked into doing the movie, thinking that it was about an ancient Egyptian adventure. But unfortunately has ruled against the actress.

Why do only Muslims react to such Movies?

People have been saying that why do only Muslims react to such content they consider blasphemous, while others do not react to such things about their religion? Especially Christian brothers and sisters have been saying that they do not react to anything about Jesus or Christianity. Well, it seems that they are seriously unaware of their recent history. For instance, lets look at the reaction to the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ". On 22nd October, 1988 a Christian fundamentalist group attacked the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater, when it was showing the movie and they threw Molotov cocktails, which injured 13 people, out of whom 4 were critically injured. There were similar other attacks on other theaters, which included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canister and stink bombs and assaulting filmgoers.

Killing of the US Ambassador to Libya

On September 11, 2012, the US ambassador to Libya was killed in an attack on the US Embassy there. Opinions are divided as to whether the attacks were in reaction to the movie or whether the attacks were pre-planned and the protests against the movie were only used as a cover for the attacks. But no matter, whether the attacks were pre-planned or in reaction to the movie, they are to be condemned because innocent people were killed and killing any innocent human being is against Islam. As the Qur'an says in Sura al Maidah Chapter 5 Verse 32, "If anybody kills any human being, lest it be for murder or spreading corruption in the land, it is as though he killed the whole humanity and if anybody saves any human being, it is as though he saved the whole humanity." Meaning that if anybody kills any innocent human being it is as though he killed the whole humanity and if anybody saves any innocent human being, it is as though he saved the whole humanity. So the attacks on the US Embassy and killing of the Ambassador are to be condemned.

Apart from that protests have reported in several other Muslim countries around the globe and by Muslims even in Non Muslim countries. Non Muslims have also condemned the movie and expressed their dismay. Different Governments and now even the Supreme Court of Pakistan have asked Google, the parent body of YouTube, to remove the video, but Google has refused to remove the video. Reasons for not removing the video have been the excuse of the First Amendment of the US constitution and YouTube's Terms of Service. Lets analyze both of them.

Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

Some people claim that since the first amendment gives the freedom of expression about religion, that is why YouTube should not remove the video. But does Google really follow the first amendment? The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. Government from punishing someone for the political views they express, even if those views include the advocacy of violence against the U.S. and its leaders. I am not saying this from myself, the first amendment says this. So the First Amendment permits free speech of political views, be it even advocacy of violence. On 31st July, 2012 Google and Apple removed Hezbollah's Lebanese based communication group Al-Manar's TV app from their respective app stores. In another case a certain man named Jubair Ahmed was arrested by FBI for uploading a video on YouTube containing "Jihad prayers". YouTube has removed his account. I am not talking about whether what Hezbollah or Jubair Ahmed did is right or wrong, I am simply referring to the fact that even such speech is included in free political speech in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. So when Google can not follow such parts of the Free Speech Clause, why should it use the same Free Speech Clause as an excuse for hosting the anti-Islamic video?

Terms of Service

Google and its products have removed content several times before. Just last month on request of the Indian gov't Google removed inflammatory content, including YouTube videos likely to incite violence, but has refused to remove the anti-Islamic video that has already incited and is still inciting violence. Google has been reported saying that the video is against Islam and not against Muslims, which is extremely stupid. It is the exact same rhetoric the most notorious anti-Islamic Facebook pages have been using for years to defend their propagation of bigotry against Islam and Muslims. It is like saying that if the mother is raped, the children are not harmed by any means because the children themselves have not been raped. Would such an answer be sufficient for the her children? No! It is stupid. You might be thinking that this anti-Islamic video is only defamation, but Google has even removed content simply because of defamation. For instance, according to Google Transparency Report, Google removed 180 items from Google Groups relating to a case of defamation against a man and his wife from January to June 2011 on the order of a French court. Google also removed 1,110 items from Google Groups relating to a case of continuous defamation against a man and his family from July to December 2010 on the orders of  US courts. So these stuff were removed on court orders, so has there been any court order for the removal of the anti-Islamic video? Yes, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Chaudhry Iftikhar Hussain has ordered a ban on YouTube and all sites hosting the video until they remove it.

Latest Example of Double Standards Concerning Free Speech Against Muslims

Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine, which published caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the name of freedom of speech, fired the cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for writing a column deemed anti-Semitic. If Charlie Hebdo really believes in Freedom of Speech, then they should reinstate Maurice Sinet. Why these Double Standards?
Did you hear about the topless pictures of Prince William's wife Catherine, formerly known as Kate Middleton being published by a French magazine? The UK Royal family sued the magazine and yesterday the court ruled in favor of the Royal family and all pictures have been given back to the family and all others removed off the internet. The magazine has also been fined and the photographer is being hunted down and faces jail. But when another French magazine published blasphemous caricatures against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the French Prime Minister comes up and says it is freedom of speech. A clear double standard. Plus, they never allowed the French Muslim women to wear Burqas, which is a freedom of choice. It is being reported that Pakistani hackers have taken down the official website of the magazine, which published these caricatures.

All these Double Standards towards Islam and Muslims only create a sense of alienation among Muslims. All such practices are harmful for the social fabric. YouTube should definitely remove this video because if any sane person watches the video he would realize that it is not free-speech, it is hate-speech. This video has only been created to incite the Muslims and then call Muslims violent people, who are always violent. The Newsweek just tried to the do the same and published an article by Ayaan Ali Harsi, an Islamophobic sympathizer of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer. The magazine also invited the tweeters to discuss their cover story using the hash-tag  #MuslimRage, but the Muslim tweeters got the better of them and all this turned into a comedy show. Here are a few tweets, I found funny concerning what things cause Muslim rage.

A Non Muslim brother, who had been touched by the action of a Muslim brother tweeted:
My personal #MuslimRage story is this:
Please let us know about your views about the video, the reaction to it and Google's/YouTube's behavior towards all this. All opinions are welcome, but abusive language will be deleted. Please take 5 seconds to share as well.

9 11 Conspiracy Theories: Should You Pay Any Attention?

We are nearing the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but still there has not been any proper investigation into the attacks. Several questions are yet to be answered and the government can easily answer them, but it has not answered them even after 11 years, which in itself raises more questions about the behavior of the people in the government. The mainstream media has not paid serious attention to these questions or would better say facts because of which even ordinary people do not know about these facts.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

First let us, as Muslims, make our stand about the 9/11 attacks clear to you. We, Muslims condemn the 9/11 attacks because the Holy Qur'an condemns the killing of any innocent human being and innocent people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The Holy Qur'an says in Sura al Maidah Chapter 5 Verse 32, "If anybody killed any human beings, lest it be for murder or spreading corruption in the land, it is as though he killed the whole humanity and if anybody saved any innocent human being, it is as though he saved the whole humanity." Which means that if anybody killed any innocent human being, it is as though he killed the whole humanity and if anybody saved any innocent human being, it is as though he saved the whole humanity.

In this post, we will look at the main reasons that the mainstream media puts forward for not looking at these facts.

Because they are Conspiracy Theories
A theory is either true or false. There is nothing such as a conspiracy theory. We have an official theory about the 9/11 attacks and an unofficial theory. We should examine both of these theories and analyze the facts that both sides put forward.

A Government would never kill or allow others to kills its own people
The resulting dust from the collapse of the buildings was toxic and the air was unfit to breath in, but the Government ordered EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to lie that air was fit to breath in. As a result many of the 40,000 people, including rescue and clean up workers, worked without using any protective gear. Many of them have permanent debilitative diseases and over a hundred have been affected by cancer and died. New York residents even sued EPA for lying after 9/11.

Such Government operations can not be kept secret especially with so many people involved
The Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb remained so secret, despite involving over one hundred thousand workers, that even the vice president Harry Truman only came to know about it after he became the president. So government operations can be kept secret, very secret.

Some people claim that the attacks have been investigated already and there is no need for any other investigation. Lets analyze the investigation reports published so far.

9/11 Commission Report
9/11 Commission was run by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the Bush administration; he was brought by his friend and co-author Condoleezza Rice to write the 2002 version of the National Security Strategy of USA, which used 9/11 as the basis for developing a new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. Even after completing the 9/11 commission report, Zelikow was given a job with Condoleezza Rice at the State Department. Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline of the commission's final report at the very start of the investigation. He had no credibility to head a commission as important as this and the families of the 9/11 victim's families called for his resignation.

NIST Report
NIST is an agency of the Commerce Department and therefore an agency of the Bush-Chenny administration. Some of NIST's tests were carried out by Underwriter's Labs and Kevin Ryan, an employee of the Underwriter's Labs, went public and challenged NIST's 9/11 report and he was fired from his job that very week.

Bush Administration Distorted Scientific Knowledge
Over 11,000 scientists including 52 Noble Prize Winners have endorsed a statement accusing the Bush Administration of "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."

Popular Mechanics 9/11 Report
Even the Popular Mechanics book report was semi-official as it is endorsed by Condoleezza Rice of the State Department as "excellent material debunking 9/11 theories". Just before the magazine started working on 9/11, the President of Hearst magazine Cathleen Black, who is married to a former employee of the CIA at the Department of Defense, replaced much of the staff including the long-time director and the editor-in-chief. Moreover one of the senior researcher for the magazine for the magazine for the 2005 article about the 9/11, on which its 2006 book is based, was Benjamin Chertoff. Do you know who is this Benjamin Chertoff? According to his own mother, he is the cousin of the Head of the Home Security Michael Chertoff. But the new editor of the magazine James Meigs denies this and says that they do not know anything as such. So this magazine claims that they know everything about 9/11, but know nothing about one of their own researchers. Their report also contains several errors, which we will look into in the upcoming articles this month.

So in short, there has not been any proper investigation in the attacks of 9/11 and the ones published can not be trusted and are erroneous.

The official story claims that the alleged hijackers were devout Muslims looking forward to meet their Lord as martyrs, but none of them were devout Muslims. They drank, ate pork, gambled, received lap dances and had sex with prostitutes and all this is strictly forbidden in Islam. Most importantly, as I stated above even killing any innocent human being is very, very, very strictly forbidden in Islam.

Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 Attacks
Do you know that FBI's own website does not describe the 9/11 attacks as one of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist acts? You can confirm it in these two 'Most Wanted' posters of Osama on the FBI website. First Poster & Second Poster. When FBI was asked that why weren't the 9/11 attacks mentioned in Osama Bin Laden's list of terrorist attacks on the Most Wanted Terrorist list on FBI's website. The FBI spokesman Rex Tomb said, " The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." But wait the story becomes even funnier because after Osama was allegedly killed, FBI published a report calling Osama Bin Laden "the Mastermind of the 9/11 attacks". It is funny because for years together they have kept calling Khalid Sheikh "the Mastermind of the 9/11 attacks". So one may wonder who is the Mastermind Osama Bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh?

Many months before the 9/11 Commission Report appeared, the Families Stirring Committee for 9/11 Commission, comprising the relatives of the victim's asked the 9/11 Commission to explain as to why "Bin Laden's profile on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives posters does not include 9/11 attacks?" The 9/11 Commission did not answer this and they even did not mention this in their report.

So no matter whether he is responsible for 9/11 or not, but when the evidence is not good enough to mention 9/11 even on a website page; then how come such weak evidence was used to kill thousands of innocent Afghans, including women and children?

So all these points make it clear that we should check all the theories about 9/11 and ask for a proper investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Because if we do not investigate 9/11 for yourselves and ask for another investigation, then it is very likely that even such other attacks may also take place in the future. So take action and save innocent lives. Don't forget visit us later, when we will look at several facts about the 9/11 attacks, InshaAllah! (If God wills!)