Intellectual Terrorism

This article was published by Yamin Zakaria, Axis of Logic 

London, Mar 8, 2006 It explains how it is easy today to demonise others thorough massmedia.  Read it also on http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=21353&s2=09 The essence of intellectual terrorism is to: demonise the enemy, and concurrently silence them, usually it is a precursor to genocide or mass murder e.g. the Nazi’s in Germany . Dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to commit such acts, as one can wash the blood stained hands with previously issued excuses, but not the stains from a guilty mind. Apart from hurling abuse, intellectual terrorists also hide behind promoting ideals like, peace, human rights, freedom etc. In the name of peace they initiate war; they lecture about human rights while engaged in inhuman tortures; they crave for freedom by taking the freedom of others, by bombing them to incineration. Democracies project intellectual terrorism as an exercise of free speech; many of the fanatical liberals go further to claim it as a prerequisite of free speech. Therefore, the crux of their argument is: if you cannot terrorise ethnic communities like the Muslims, then you are not free; and you are unable to exercise free speech! So Muslims, please line up to endure further abuse, because the Western Liberals and their journalists need to do this like a drug addict needs a fix, in order to maintain their conviction that they are free souls capable of exercising free speech. After all, what could be more important than the freedom of these pen-pushers? It goes further, Western democracies not only demonise and gag the Muslims simultaneously in the name of free speech, but they even claim to do it on their behalf. That is like telling the inmates at Camp-X-Ray that their incarceration is in fact a gift from the benevolent US to educate them about human rights! As Bush said and demonstrated in Iraq, dead or alive it does not matter; they waved the victory flag of 'freedom’ over the dead carcasses of people who have permanently lost their freedom. But never mind, it was for their benefit! Now imagine, while hurling abuse at a particular community, the mouth of all the individuals are sealed with masking tape, then the community is lectured about the sacred value of 'free’ speech; this is the reality of free speech espoused by the Western Liberals and secularists, as they are led by their noses, like prize bulls, by their neo-con rulers. Accordingly, from Salman Rushdie to the recent Danish cartoon episode, again is made the point that Muslims are expected to endure their demonisation, under the umbrella of free speech, but they are not at liberty to respond according to their interpretation of free speech. A vivid example of this double standard was the freedom of speech given to the racist Nick Griffin, leader of the right wing British National Party (BNP), but not for the opinions expressed by Sheikh Abu Hamza. Can anyone doubt the mirror held up to show their own hypocrisy, as the timing of the two trials coincided, and it became blatantly obvious they were sitting on a pile of smelly dung called "free speech," which produced such a positive verdict for the BNP leader and a 7 year sentence for the Sheikh? By free speech for Muslims, I do not mean just the right to issue fatwas (Islamic edicts) but the right to subject other communities to similar types and levels of abuse as the Muslims have been subjected to under freedom of expression. For example, would the Muslims be allowed to express anti-Jewish statements, including satirical cartoons of holocaust? Clearly not, even non-Muslims like David Irving and the London Mayor, Ken Livingston, found out recently. They were crucified for merely holding or expressing an opinion (not insult or profanity); this was supported by these same shameless-liberals and secularists who are lecturing the Muslims about free speech. At present intellectual terrorism is almost exclusively applied to Islam and Muslims. Certainly, there are equal opportunities for those who wish to demonise the Muslims. Anyone can write the next book, or find new ways to hurl insults at Islam and Muslims. The Chairman of CRE (Commission of Racial Equality) in the UK, Trevor Phillips is an ideal position to demonstrate that equal opportunity. So he did numerous times, and recently once again he criticised Muslims for aspiring to live by Islamic laws instead of accepting the status-quo. No question of free speech or freedom of expression for the Muslims, because they are always the subject of free speech and not allowed to exercise it. According to Trevor Phillips, those Muslims having such aspiration should leave the country. This sort of superficial argument is usually advocated by the racists, or those who are unable to intellectually argue their case against the Muslims. Would Trevor Phillips advocate similar proposition to those who advocate a Marxist style of government? Clearly not, in any case where would he ask them to leave to, as most of them are native British subjects. Now, I wonder why Trevor Phillips is beginning to sound like the racist Nick Griffin or the typical tabloid journalist. It is easy to taunt the Muslims to leave the UK as majority of them are immigrants; by advocating such types of argument, Trevor Phillips has fallen into the same trap of racism, which he is allegedly combating! Intellectual terrorism is also used to turn the victim into the perpetrator. For example, Salman Rushdie [1] and most of the Western Liberals view the protests from the Muslims over the Danish cartoon as a manifestation of Islamic "totalitarianism". Did the Muslims suddenly decided to proactively demonstrate or did they RESPOND to reject secular totalitarianism in the guise of cheap insults? The logic behind blaming the Muslims instead of the cartoonists is like saying; - unless I can punch you in the face, I do not have the freedom and you should not restrict my freedom to punch your face and not react. This implies that we as Muslims should accept to be punched otherwise we are restricting the freedom of the cartoonists, and imposing our values on them. I suppose a serial killer could also make the same accusations against those who oppose his activity! Rushdie advocates the need to resist religious totalitarianism but would he use that principle to fight the Hindu extremists in India or the militant Jews in Israel and the US. Fat chance! We know it does not take any courage or conviction to go with current fad of Muslim bashing in the West, for personal gains. Attacking the Muslims or any group that has been made voiceless is very easy. Like attacking a country after it has been stripped of all its weapons (nudge, nudge, wink, wink Bush and Blair). In reality, the so-called fight against religious totalitarianism is nothing more than a fig leaf to impose secular totalitarianism upon the Muslims. Such behaviour is the real form of extremism and not the accusation levelled against the Muslims for reacting to insult and injury. The true extremism enveloped in hypocrisy being that which repeatedly attacks and insults and expects a passive reception from a docile and subservient victim. Even today, Americans feel that they were morally right to drop two Atom-bombs and not one, killing 200,000 (+) defenceless civilians; against an enemy that had no weapons left to fight with, just like the Iraqi army. This is just one episode in history from a lengthy list. This shows that intellectual terrorists have succeeded to nullify the guilty conscience of its masses. When it is difficult to suppress or nullify the guilt, it is used as a political football. For example, the West is using their holocaust guilt to get the Palestinians to pay for their - the West's - crimes. These same hypocrites have just signed a nuclear deal with India which is outside the NPT (no safeguards), more than 20 years after it "illegally" developed and detonated Nuclear weapons and 7 years after it again "illegally" tested and detonated more Nuclear weapons it definitely has developed; whilst it seeks to strangle, demonise and attack Iran for a nuclear program that has produced NO weapons and is inside the NPT. They are terrorising Iran whilst rewarding India because these are hypocrites, villains and Islam haters of the worst kind. They are however consistent, as they continue to attack and weaken the Muslims, whilst strengthening and arming the enemies of Islam. The intellectual terrorists are telling the wider Arab/Islamic world that you are free to choose whatever system you like, as long as it is a democracy, and then only if the winning party is not an Islamic party and that must be approved by them. You can exercise free speech as long you use it to abuse Islam and the Muslims and respect the Jews. Similarly, the Western Liberals continue to scream at Muslims to abide by free speech, while they hide under the umbrella of anti-Semitism, refusing to comply with the notion of free speech. Free means free like an apple means apple. Curtailing it in any way means it ceases to be free but they appear dim witted on this point. Those intellectual terrorists who demonise others using free speech are the ones trying to limit free speech, because they are unable to cope, when they are on the receiving end of someone else’s free speech.