Muslims’ point of view was ignored and deliberately vilified during the discussion on last night’s Hannity & Colmes (a U.S. political debate TV program on the Fox News Channel) about the controversy over the Pope’s anti-Islamic remarks, according to the New Hounds.
Shutting out Muslim perspective was apparently planned because the program, which features conservative host Sean Hannity and the liberal Alan Colmes, interviewed Tony Blankley, author of “The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win The Clash Of Civilizations?”, a book that claims that Islam poses a threat “higher than that of the Nazis’ during World War II”, according to Wikipedia.
Other guests were Raymond Arroyo, news director for the Catholic television network EWTN and conservative FOX News contributor Father Jonathan Morris.
The cliché “Clash of Civilizations?” appeared on screen during most of the discussion. The program also included some images showing angry Muslims protesting against the Pope’s remarks. Moreover, Alan Colmes didn’t even attempt to explain to viewers why Muslims are upset with the Pope. He only said that the Pope has been misunderstood.
This certainly gave Blankley, Hannity and Morris the opportunity to attack Muslims and Islam.
According to the New Hounds, Hannity & Colmes’ approach suggests that Fox News allowed the lack of balance and enabled the guests to express their anti-Islamic sentiments.
If this is true, they must have welcomed the final part of the program in which Hannity asked Father Morris: “We are at war with those people that use religion as a means of justifying their violence. Are we talking about the same people here, Father, that are looking for any instance to sort of radicalize more people? That’s my interpretation of this. Yours?”
Father Morris, who is also a member of a wealthy, ultra-secret religious order, said: “I think you’re on to something there, Sean… The institutions of the Muslim faith that are coming out of the Middle East and saying ‘we condemn the pope’ but never daring, never daring to step in and say ‘but we are also going to answer the central thesis of this pope and that is religion and violence don’t mix.’ And that’s the problem. It’s coming from the institutions.”
Hannity then turned to Blankley, asking: “You warned that the problem of Islamic fascism may be far worse than people are willing to admit. Do you see that in this instance?”
Blankey replied: “Yes, of course. We’re seeing it all the time that it’s not just a tiny fraction. We don’t know what percentage of the fifth of mankind, the over billion human souls that are Islam, but it’s not a fraction. It’s a substantial piece. These passions touch more than just the killers. They touch an awful lot of grassroots Muslims in the same way that it touches the killers out there. So that is the broader population is a supportive base for the killers.”
The program ended with this hostile and offensive comment. And the viewers didn’t understand why Muslims were angered by the Pope’s remarks or why they didn’t welcome his apology.
“Old cliché”
Over a billion Muslims all over the world have been hurt by the recent remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI, who quoted a text in which the Byzantine emperor referred to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) as being 'only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
The Pope has stopped short of apologizing to the Muslim world for his radical comments. He regretted the way Muslims reacted but not the fact that he made offensive remarks against Islam and Muslims. That’s why his apology wasn’t welcomed by Muslims.
Many Muslim leaders said that the Pope’s remarks weren’t conducive to interfaith dialogue and the respect of other religions, arguing that he should recognize Muslims’ condemnation of violence in the name of their noble religion.
"To claim that Islam had spread by the sword is a hoary old cliché," said the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi.
“The Islamic history is hard evidence that Islam has not spread by the sword,” he added.
Islam, the fastest growing religion in the world today, has been embraced by billions throughout history because of its tolerant nature and peaceful essence. Allah (SWT) ordered his followers in the Qur’an to fight those who attack them, but not to transgress, and to remain fair even during the battle. “Fight against those who fight against you in the way of God, but do not transgress, for God does not love transgressors.” (Qur’an 2.190)
The word “Islam” itself, which means “surrender or submit” to Allah (SWT) in Arabic, is originally derived from the word “Selm”, or peace. Therefore, it’s no wonder that the traditional Islamic greeting is "As-Salamu 'alaikum," or "peace be with you."
Moreover, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the peace maker of his time. He endured torture, hunger and the killing of his loved ones by his enemies, but remained a merciful, tolerant person. In his 23 years of struggle for peace and justice, the total number of people who lost their lives from all sides was less than 2,000 in wars that were imposed on him and the Muslim community, according to soundvision.com.
Perhaps there would have been more interest why Muslims were offended if the reaction to any supposed offense against Islam isn't riots and violence. I can understand the outrage to a certain extent, since most Muslims seem to only know one line from the speech, the line quoted in the article. The problem is that the context of the speech, which was about human reason and the folly of justifying violence as the will of God, has been ignored. Unfortunately, the only reason Muslims even know about this speech at all is because of the sensationalist nature of anything deemed remotely "offensive" to Muslims. I apologize to anyone this offends, but I'm quickly growing tired of this subject.
there are two parties in this world, the party of Allah and the party of shaitan.
now i cannot for certain say i am from the party of Allah but i can for certain say that muroch, bush, blair and the rest are from the party of shaitan, calling towards kufr and calling towards evil.
there are two parties in this world, the party of Allah and the party of shaitan.
now i cannot for certain say i am from the party of Allah but i can for certain say that muroch, bush, blair and the rest are from the party of shaitan, calling towards kufr and calling towards evil.
there are two parties in this world, the party of Allah and the party of shaitan.
now i cannot for certain say i am from the party of Allah but i can for certain say that muroch, bush, blair and the rest are from the party of shaitan, calling towards kufr and calling towards evil.
Abu Abdullah
I am with the party of Jesus Christ and God Almighty. I also consider myself conservative, and find myself thinking the same things that those men in the above article said, does this mean I am in the same class as muroch, bush and blair to you?
This fascination some people have with blaming FOX news for "bad reporting" is nothing short of a paranoid psychosis. The majority of the news articles published by FOX news come directly from the AP, and what doesn't come from the AP is usually opinion or editorial talk shows. That is what seems to be the problem for most people, they don't like the opinions expressed on FOX news shows. I can relate, I don't like many of the opinions expressed on MSNBC or CNN, but I don't carry that over to accusing the entire news organization of bad reporting, because I wasn't watching a "report", I was watching an editorial. Some people can't seem to grasp the concept that there is a difference.
Which one is the Party of Allah - Taleban, Hammas, Hezballah, Hizbut Tahrir etc?
It’s not a party which u can recognize by name I believe.
Those who follow and give no1 priority to the Quran and the Sunna are belonging to the party of Allaah.
Surah Al-Mu'minun (23:52-53):
"And verily this Ummah of yours is a single Ummah and I am your Lord, so keep your duty unto Me. But they have broken their religion among them into sects, each sect rejoicing in its tenets."
Imam Abu Dawood (ra) has quoted the well known Hadith concerning the division of the Muslim Ummah (3/4580, English ed'n):
Abu Amir al-Hawdhani said, "Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) stood among us and said, 'Beware! The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood among us and said': 'Beware! The People of the Book before (you) were split up into 72 sects, and this community will be split up into 73, seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group (Jama'ah).'
Another version of the above Hadith has been reported by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (ra) in The signs before the day of Judgement (pg. 14):
"Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, 'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone asked, 'O Messenger ofAllah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).' Awf ibn Malik is the only one who reported this Hadith, and its isnad is acceptable." And in another version of this Hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes onto say that the saved sect, "...Are those who follow my and my Sahaba's path" (Tirmidhi, vol. 2, pg. 89)
note one thing
accroding to my knowledge the word 70 used against countless in arabic
Allaahu Alim
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks