Media double standards: Isn’t killing Arabs a “massacre”?

[DaSangarTalib]

Despite the biased western media coverage of recent developments in Iraq that are tarnishing to the Bush administration’s image, including Haditha and Abu Sifa massacres, recent atrocities committed in Iraq indicate beyond doubt that the U.S. is adopting a new method of its menu of crimes against humanity, all with the aim of breaking the Iraqi resistance fighters and rebels, an editorial on Palestine Chronicle said.

We all saw the international silence over the recent scandals of the U.S. and Israeli occupying armies in Iraq and Palestine.

In Iraq, the latest release of Abu Ghraib photos uncovered the true inhuman extent of abuse and violations of human rights at the hands of the U.S. military personnel, charges that had been repeatedly rejected by the U.S. Army and Department of Defense as baseless.

Also the bloody U.S. massacre that took place in the Iraqi city of Haditha last November, where the American invaders killed 15 Iraqi civilians in their homes. Was this self-defense as the military claimed, or was it an accident or cold-blooded revenge?

And in Palestine, Israeli soldiers continue daily bloodshed and attacks claiming the lives of innocent civilians. On March 18, a 7-year old girl was murdered by Israeli soldiers in Al Yamun, a town in the northern West Bank. Akaber Abdul Rahman Zaid was killed by the Israeli murderers while on her way to a doctor's clinic to have stitches removed from her chin.

Instead of receiving the needed medical treatment, Akaber received a barrage of bullets to the head.

800 Palestinian children had been massacred since September 2000- Who shall take responsibility for those innocents’ death? Who shall be held accountable?

Among Western governments, silence prevails over those massacres’ victims are Arabs.

This should alarm people towards the horrifying spread of this phenomenon, while there’s a despicable aversion to calling it by its name.

But many in the West refuse to call those crimes by their true name, “massacre”, while they condemn the “massacre” of whales, dolphins or a few white men anywhere around the world.

“Modern” massacres like that which took place in Iraq in 2004, when the U.S. forces used phosphorus against Iraqi civilians in “unruly” cities like Fallujah and Qaim, have always been a standard U.S. and British tactic.

The language many Western media outlets use in describing such horrific acts leads to sanitizing such crimes, even to normalizing it as a nasty, yet unavoidable, part of “war,” the editorial adds.

The Guardian refused to call Haditha “event” a massacre, avoiding as well any terms usually used to describe similar “atrocities” particularly those involving white victims.



Also commenting on last month’s U.S. attack in Mustafa mosque in Iraq, which involved the killing of 37 people, The Guardian called the mosque massacre a “raid,” quoting U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson saying:

“In our observation of the place and the activities that were going on, it’s difficult for us to consider this a place of prayer,” adding, “It was not identified by us as a mosque... I think this is a matter of perception.”

Also the U.S. army concluded that “no mosques were entered or damaged.” Also the killing of humans was downplayed, for they were merely Iraqi who lost their lives.

Also The Independent, known for its relative courageous coverage of the Iraq war, reported the same incident as such: “U.S. forces killed 22 people and wounded eight at a mosque in east Baghdad.” Though it did call the mosque by its name, it failed to call the “incident” a massacre.

“The shooting,” “the killings,” but not a massacre.

A study conducted in 2003 and based on a series of seven U.S. polls conducted from January through September of the same year, revealed that before and after the Iraq war, the majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

According to the survey, carried out by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

The U.S. war in Iraq, the Israelis’ occupation in Palestine, how many Arab civilians must die for a massacre to be called by its real name in the hypocritical western media?

Al-Jazeera

[Genius]

Killing Arabs/Muslims and other coloured/different people is not murder. It's fighting terrorism/liberation.

[HeiGou]

Killing Arabs/Muslims and other coloured/different people is not murder. It's fighting terrorism/liberation.

I believe in Islamic law killing non-Muslims is never murder either. The most a non-Muslim can expect is blood-money. And of course invading foreign countries is not murder either - it is "opening".

By all means, let's fight double standards. You and me both.

[afriend]

By all means, let's fight double standards. You and me both.

That's more like it! Good on ya buddy.

I believe in Islamic law killing non-Muslims is never murder either. The most a non-Muslim can expect is blood-money

It's amazing what a lack of knowledge can do to all of us?

I know for a fact that murder is not allowed in Islam, and the penalty for murder is either blood money (on the request of the family/friends of the murdered person) or if the person's companions and family do not agree to taking blood money as a compensation, then a tooth for a tooth, an ear for an ear....In other words, the death penalty.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[HeiGou]

That's more like it! Good on ya buddy.

Well I try my best.

It's amazing what a lack of knowledge can do to all of us?

I know for a fact that murder is not allowed in Islam, and the penalty for murder is either blood money (on the request of the family/friends of the murdered person) or if the person's companions and family do not agree to taking blood money as a compensation, then a tooth for a tooth, an ear for an ear....In other words, the death penalty.

That's the law of murder as applied to Muslims. But ask what is the Islamic law of murder applied to non-Muslims? To the best of my knowledge, and I think me and Kadafi agreed in a thread in Refutations the other day, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslims, no matter what the circumstances, he may not be executed. At best the Muslim will pay blood money (and less blood money than he would pay for a Muslim). But if a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, no matter what the circumstances, the non-Muslim must die. Hence cases in North Africa in relatively recent times where a non-Muslim has shot dead a robber in his own home only to discover the deceased was a Muslim whereapon the non-Muslim was executed.

[afriend]

Hence cases in North Africa in relatively recent times where a non-Muslim has shot dead a robber in his own home only to discover the deceased was a Muslim whereapon the non-Muslim was executed.

Woah that's really harsh, but I'm sure if u wer playing for a football team, and a team mate terribly fouled the opposition player, I'm sure u wud like him to get punnished, but not so severely, like a yellow card instead of a red, or a red card instead of a fine or a ban etc.

But if the opposition player fowled one of ur fellow team mates, then I'm sure u wud press for the most hardest form of reprimanding, like a red card and not a yellow, a fine and not just a red card....

I hope u get what I'm sayin...altho not a very good analogy.....

Peace out.

:sl:

[HeiGou]

Woah that's really harsh, but I'm sure if u wer playing for a football team, and a team mate terribly fouled the opposition player, I'm sure u wud like him to get punnished, but not so severely, like a yellow card instead of a red, or a red card instead of a fine or a ban etc.

But if the opposition player fowled one of ur fellow team mates, then I'm sure u wud press for the most hardest form of reprimanding, like a red card and not a yellow, a fine and not just a red card....

I hope u get what I'm sayin...altho not a very good analogy.....

Sure. You have adopted a tribal system of morality and I am outside your tribe, so you do not care about justice as long as your tribal interests are served. I do get what you are saying. Unfortunately.

[afriend]

no no........But what that Muslims did to rob that guy's house was bad, cos now, he's probably getting his hands removed.......

And, it's not tribal, I'm saying that even u wud get that feeling that u don't want ur own team mate to get punnished....

I think u hav taken it wrong....very wrong......

:sl:

[HeiGou]

no no........But what that Muslims did to rob that guy's house was bad, cos now, he's probably getting his hands removed.......

Except he was dead because he got shot and so couldn't have his hands removed.

And, it's not tribal, I'm saying that even u wud get that feeling that u don't want ur own team mate to get punnished....

I think u hav taken it wrong....very wrong......

I want to be fair, but I don't see how I could take this right. I think everyone, even kafirs, have a right to defend their home and their family with deadly force if necessary. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that kafirs do not. How could I take that any other way? Justice, for me, is universal - the same rules have to apply to me as to you. But then I am not a Muslim.

[afriend]

Except he was dead because he got shot and so couldn't have his hands removed.

Duhh....Stupid, dumb me......It's my half asleep half awake mood....

I want to be fair, but I don't see how I could take this right. I think everyone, even kafirs, have a right to defend their home and their family with deadly force if necessary. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that kafirs do not. How could I take that any other way? Justice, for me, is universal - the same rules have to apply to me as to you. But then I am not a Muslim.

And what country is this?

Because they are just too extreme....

But I'm 100% sure that if it is to protect property or lives, then u don't get the death penalty, even if they are a kafir, it's only wen the murder was for a useless purpose, like personal gain.

[kadafi]

That's the law of murder as applied to Muslims. But ask what is the Islamic law of murder applied to non-Muslims? To the best of my knowledge, and I think me and Kadafi agreed in a thread in Refutations the other day, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslims, no matter what the circumstances, he may not be executed. At best the Muslim will pay blood money (and less blood money than he would pay for a Muslim). But if a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, no matter what the circumstances, the non-Muslim must die. Hence cases in North Africa in relatively recent times where a non-Muslim has shot dead a robber in his own home only to discover the deceased was a Muslim whereapon the non-Muslim was executed.

I am appalled at the gross distortion of what I have actually stated.

Let me re-post what I have stated in the post:

The hadeeth is referring to the qisaas (retribution). Islaam does not legislate capital punishment for the crime of murder.

Allaah (Exalted is He) says in Soorah al-Baqarah:

O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the law of equality there is (saving of) life for you, o people of understanding; that you may restrain yourselves.

Thus what Islaam does is let the victim's family decide what he shall receive. If they decide that he shall be killed in retribution, then it will be carried out. If not, then they have the option to demand blood-money or forgive the murderer.

However, the right of killing the murder (retribution) does not extend to the family of a non-Muslim. Whilst they are entitled to receive the blood money, they cannot command to the court that the murderer should be killed as retribution. Besides, murderers who are not killed (retribution) are subjected to the discretionary punishment called tazeer which is an harsh punishment. It would indicate that they would serve a lengthy prison sentence or any other harsh punishment that the court imposes.

Similiary non-Muslims were exempted from many things such as paying the alms, being drafted in military service, following the personal Muslim laws and amongst other things.

Moreover, since when did Qisaas demand that the murderer must be killed? The relatives have the jurisdiction of asking for capital punishment. Further, they have two other options for them, and that is forgiving the murderer (Islaam encourages this) or demand diyah (blood-money).

As for your example in North Africa, then the capital punishment was applied due the wish of the relatives and not so the court.

[afriend]

Jazakallah bro....

Cleared a great misconception.

May Allah reward you akhi!

:sl:

[HeiGou]

I am appalled at the gross distortion of what I have actually stated.

I am sorry about that. I try hard to follow exactly what you mean and not misrepresent it. But what is the distortion?

Let me re-post what I have stated in the post:

The hadeeth is referring to the qisaas (retribution). Islaam does not legislate capital punishment for the crime of murder.

So we are in agreement here. Islam allows capital punishment but does not demand it in all cases.

Allaah (Exalted is He) says in Soorah al-Baqarah:

O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the law of equality there is (saving of) life for you, o people of understanding; that you may restrain yourselves.

Thus what Islaam does is let the victim's family decide what he shall receive. If they decide that he shall be killed in retribution, then it will be carried out. If not, then they have the option to demand blood-money or forgive the murderer.

So no disagreement from me at all.

However, the right of killing the murder (retribution) does not extend to the family of a non-Muslim. Whilst they are entitled to receive the blood money, they cannot command to the court that the murderer should be killed as retribution.

No isn't this simply exactly what I said? There is a difference in the way that the murderers of non-Muslims and Muslims are treated in Islamic law. How did I distort your words when this is simply exactly what I said?

Besides, murderers who are not killed (retribution) are subjected to the discretionary punishment called tazeer which is an harsh punishment. It would indicate that they would serve a lengthy prison sentence or any other harsh punishment that the court imposes.

Except, isn't a tazeer punishment discretionary so it may be harsh, or it may not? It may be a light punishment? It depends on the judge?

Similiary non-Muslims were exempted from many things such as paying the alms, being drafted in military service, following the personal Muslim laws and amongst other things.

Indeed.

Moreover, since when did Qisaas demand that the murderer must be killed? The relatives have the jurisdiction of asking for capital punishment. Further, they have two other options for them, and that is forgiving the murderer (Islaam encourages this) or demand diyah (blood-money).

But is that true where the deceased is a Muslim? We have seen you agree with me that where the deceased in a non-Muslim, the only option is blood money - they cannot expect an execution. Was I also right to say that when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, the only option is capital punishment for the non-Muslim?

As for your example in North Africa, then the capital punishment was applied due the wish of the relatives and not so the court.

Whoever it was the wish of, the problem is, in my opinion, that a man could be executed for protecting his home and family from an intruder. But then it is not my problem. I do not live in a majority Muslim country.

[kadafi]

Except, isn't a tazeer punishment discretionary so it may be harsh, or it may not? It may be a light punishment? It depends on the judge?

Yes, the severity of this punishment varies, in the unanimous opinion of the jurists, according to the age, sex, and social standing of the criminal, and the seriousness of the offense. So thus, murder which is one of the abhorrible offense receives a harsh punishment.

But is that true where the deceased is a Muslim? We have seen you agree with me that where the deceased in a non-Muslim, the only option is blood money - they cannot expect an execution. Was I also right to say that when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, the only option is capital punishment for the non-Muslim?

This is where the distortion comes in. I never stated that the option is capital punishment for the non-Muslim, rather, what I stated is that they can forgive the murderer, demand blood-money or seek capital punishment. Islaam greatly emphasises forgiveness as Allaah (Exalted is He) says:

...and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your Lord.

Whoever it was the wish of, the problem is, in my opinion, that a man could be executed for protecting his home and family from an intruder. But then it is not my problem. I do not live in a majority Muslim country.

For the incident in North Africa, I have misinterpreted it wrongly. I assumed that the non-Muslim was the robber. However, the story seems a bit fishy as the qadi would take into account the motives. By executing the man is, he commited great injustice. Could you please cite where this has occured and perhaps give me source so I can look into it and see the reasons behind his execution.