Blogger Note: This blog entitled MORE HARM THAN GOOD: Making Muhammad Ali The Face Of Islam began construction a few hours before the Orlando, FL shooting took place, where a young man, now being fashioned by the media as another "radical Islamic" terrorist, allegedly opened fire in a crowded gay club, and single-handedly killed as many as over 50 people, and injuring over 50 more. It is the sincere belief of the blogger that one should not try to deconstruct EVERY incident that is blamed on the Islamic Way of Life, because the accusations are plenty. Rather than spend precious amounts of energy trying to deconstruct ALL claims produced by the media and non-Muslim entities bent on propaganda, the blogger believes it is much better to create a premise to use as a reference point, so that the people can see for themselves, and make up their own minds. That is one of the primary intentions of this specific blog about Muhammad Ali. It is not just a commentary about an individual or an event, but also a statement and a premise regarding the Islamic Way of Life, as well as a critique and a reflection regarding the tactics and methods some people use to distort and besmirch another's way of life, and finally a reflection of those who try to placate and diffuse an already misinformed and/or bigoted audience. So for the sake of continuity, the blogger wishes not to dedicate an entire blog or blogs regarding the Orlando shootings, and the recently alleged attacks in France.
To continue: Answering Islam is a crystal clear case of people openly and intentionally misleading its readers with obvious distortions of Quranic verses and Islamic concepts, in an attempt to defile and defame the Islamic Way of Life. If one had the time and resources, it would be very easy to respond to such a vicious website, and clarify matters regarding its content, particularly 164 Jihad Verses in the Quran, but here one piece of clear evidence should be enough to destroy its credibility, and affirm its clear bigotry towards Islam.
But not to be outdone by the likes of Answering Islam is the so-called free online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Boasting free and robust content on almost any relevant issue, Wikipedia tries to symbolize democratization of information with free and accurate information regarding its discussed topics, and the supposed ability of anyone being able to edit its content. This in itself poses a serious problem, for what could be here today may be gone tomorrow, and what appears today may be totally inaccurate. What could be removed due to inaccuracies may not be reported and re-issued as a retraction and/or a correction. Looking through Wikipedia's content regarding Islam, one finds bountiful distortions and inaccuracies regarding Islam in need of re-editing.
Type the words "radical Islam" in the search box, and you're automatically linked to the topic of Islamic fundamentalism. This represents a subversive attempt of describing the basic fundamentals of Islam, encased in a construct known as Shariah, often translated as Islamic Law. In other words, one is automatically connecting Islamic law to radicalism. The problem with this is severalfold. For starters, when you add words to Islam, especially words like radical, extreme, militant, etc., it automatically becomes a descriptive noun. A descriptive noun serves to indicate a specific person, place, thing or idea in an evocative or descriptive manner, rather than general. (source WiseGEEK)
Descriptive nouns can fall under two main categories, objective and subjective, and those who refer to Islam as extreme, militant, intolerant, radical and such usually fall under holding subjective opinions of Islam. Examples such as the woman's form of dress when in the presence of men not closely related, gender roles of the sexes, the permissibility to fight back when attacked by opposing forces, the declaration of absolute truth, and others are usually lumped into these descriptive, opinionated forms of Islam by its detractors. Unless the reader is aware of what is going on, and does not study the information on their own, one may find oneself holding the same opinions expressed by the propagandist using such persuasive techniques.
This propaganda usually results in what you're witnessing today when you hear of Muslims being thrown off airplanes, although they've passed through more intensive security screening than the average non-Muslim flyer, the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident that occurred in Irving, Texas last year, the numerous states attempting to pass anti-Shariah laws, using radicalization as a false pretext, to the shooting of the Muslim students in Chapel Hill, NC by a confirmed atheist, to other sad conclusions affecting the Muslim community, psychologically, economically, and in some cases, spiritually.
Through the use of propaganda and modern technology, the word extremism has become so synonymous with Islam, it's as if you're saying the same thing. Sites like Wikipedia throw this word around very liberally when it comes to Islam, and the masses consume this with no regard to truth or validity.
For instance, the Khawarij is a sect that has its roots in early post-Prophethood history. They held some views contrary to the core beliefs outlined by the Qur'an and the Sunnah(the Prophetic Explanation of Revelation consisting of actions and statements made by Prophet Muhammad(S). In this article you will find the words radical and extreme, like other articles in describing the Khawarij views, but they, like other media outlets they have suspiciously refrained from using the one word that describes them best, as well as other groups who don't tread the straight and narrow Path of Islam. Deviants.
There's a simple explanation for that. If one is referred to as a deviant, it automatically denotes that one is off the established course, or Straight Path, and one is forced to research the true Islamic position of any issue. But when you classify something as extreme or radical, you're implying that there is something there that can be taken out of context.
(To Be Continued.)
Click here to go to Part One: