Humanists disappointed with Imam's statement
The makers of an amateur video which has led to riots and several deaths in predominantly Muslim states managed to portray Muslims as uncivilised, uninformed and brutal, the Malta Humanist Association.
In a statement this evening, the association expressed its disappointment at the words of Imam Mohammed El Sadi, who blamed the producers of an amateur video for the deaths and violence.
“Blaming the makers of the video for the violence plays down the barbarity of the reaction. It's like blaming a woman wearing revealing attire if she gets molested,” it said.
The association noted that in the West there were books and films that, in the eyes of some people, insulted Jesus or Christianity. These included The Last Temptation, The Da Vinci Code and Life of Brian. But no embassy was stormed and nobody was killed over them.
The west valued the freedoms of expression and of religion.
Freedom of expression was to allow others to say things one disagreed with and found offensive, so as to be able to say things that person believed - even if others found this offensive.
Religious texts such as the Koran, the association said, often contained what was offensive to others and even the Islamic denial of Jesus’ divinity was blasphemous to Christians, while the Christian insistence that Jesus was a god was blasphemous to Muslims.
“Not only do we value freedom of expression, but we have also learned - especially in the internet age - that any attempt to ban or censor anything is not only futile but counter-productive.
“There were attempts by some to ban books like Harry Potter or the Da Vinci Code - and all they achieved was to give them enormous popularity.
“The same happened here. This amateur video was so puerile and poorly-made that no more than a handful would have bothered seeing it if it had not been for the extreme reaction it created,” the association said.
It said that the makers of that video wanted to portray Islam and Muslims as uncivilised, uninformed and brutal.
Because of the actions of violent Muslims, they succeeded.
Although many people insisted that these violent people did not represent Islam, and that Islam was a religion of peace, actions spoke louder than words.
“To most people, Islam is what Muslims do. If the rest of the world is to accept Islam as a religion of peace, then Muslims must act like it, and their religious leaders and other public figures must be exemplary in this regard. Some of them were, but others unfortunately were not.”
The association said one should not expect the West to throw away those freedoms and rights which took it centuries to achieve just to avoid hurting some people’s feelings.
“Saying that the Islamic culture did not accept insults of any prophet is the same as saying that Islamic culture does not belong in the west.
“This is the western way of life and we like it this way and will not move backwards.”
This, the association said, meant that there would be other material Muslims would find offensive.
“We suggest that you do what we do when we find things that are offensive - ignore them.”
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
38 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ms Doris Schembri
Sep 24th 2012, 17:11
I have watched the video in question on youtube and, although I am not a Muslim, I found it insulting and offensive. It was intentionally produced to provoke religious sentiments and violent reactions. The Imam did not justify the violent acts but condemned the film that provoked it. Provocation of this kind is highly dangerous and uncalled for. Respect and tolerance should be advocated towards all religious beliefs – this film is a direct insult towards the Islamic faith and it is liable for the horrific events that ensued. Had it not been produced, these violent acts would not have taken place. It was the spark that set off the string of horrific aggravations!
Colin Stanley
Sep 22nd 2012, 23:10
there are Muslims, and then there are other Muslims, we just had a visit from some Bosnian Muslim friends of ours whom we helped years ago when they escaped from Bosnia . they told us that they feel embarassed with what is happenning in some countries, in the name of their religion, they said it gives all Muslims a bad name. even the women they don't have to be covered up, it is the men who make them cover up, not the religion, apparently.
Martin Cassar
Sep 22nd 2012, 19:18
Quote:
Freedom of expression was to allow others to say things one disagreed with and found offensive, so as to be able to say things that person believed - even if others found this offensive.
------------------------------
How Malta Humanist Association would react had the Prophet of Muslims were Chinese?
I am asking this question because the more days goes by I become firm believe that all talks about freedom of expression, human rights are just political tools used by our politicians only against other smaller and oil-rich countries that the majority of them are wealthy and Muslims. In Brussels on Thursday (20 September) the EU received a King size smack on the face from the Chinese ambassador to EU who forced all EU authorities to respect his country’s customs and not to allow any question from any journalists. The guy however was generous and added that a question by just 1 journalist can only be allowed provided not to ask about freedom of press in China and Human right. Obviously the Mr. Lama cause is a no-question area.
Our politicians had no option but to keep their mouse shut. After all, how would almost bankrupted block argue with their banker?
To condense, the EU's slogan of human rights and freedom of expression will evaporate the minute an important business relations are put at risk.. Here I see money wins over values
http://euobserver.com/foreign/117602
http://euobserver.com/18/116135
Charles Grixti
Sep 22nd 2012, 23:44
Islam is a political movement as well as a religious one. The Chinese have transmorphed from a Communist sytem to a Capitalist dictatorship without anyone seeming to notice. Organisations such as Amnesty International have long spoken against Human Rights abuses and so have US Presidents in China. However, you will not find the Chinese burning embassies, killing people and calling for the murder of those that speak up against their system of government. Muslims will and do and they are always in the news with some new atrocity or another, in fact there have been close to 20,000 terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of innocent civilians sind 9/11 all in the name of the religion of peace.
Ramon Casha
Sep 23rd 2012, 06:50
"How Malta Humanist Association would react had the Prophet of Muslims were Chinese?"
What's relevant is not what nationality he was, but whether his followers would have reacted in the same way. If so, then the reaction would have been the same.
As for the example you gave, that involves the freedom of press which is related but not the same. Nobody is obliged to take questions from the press of course, and in any biltateral meeting, both sides have to agree on things. The press can pose questions to both sides separately from this event, and the voters across Europe can use their vote to put pressure on the parliament, who can then put pressure on the unfortunately-unelected commission to insist on China implementing rights, and/or always having a press event etc.
Ms.D. Galea
Sep 22nd 2012, 14:20
The statement made by Humanists did not mention the deliberate destruction by Islamists of the Banyan Buddhas either.
As far as I can remember, no Buddhist mob went on the rampage trying to hold at ransom basic freedom of speech world-wide.
Francis Sammut
Sep 22nd 2012, 13:28
The full name was The Last Temptation of Christ, directed by Martin Scorsese, who received an Academy Award nomination for his direction. The actor who played Jesus was Willem Defoe.
Victor Pulis
Sep 22nd 2012, 12:17
It seems that they (humanists) are quite happy to find fault with religion, in particular the Catholic Church in Malta, yet here they are collectively doing quite the opposite - accepting religion and religious freedom.
Finding fault with something is one thing. Forbidding people to do that thing is another. Humanists and atheists in Malta never kept believers in whatever deity from practicing theiir religion. Freedom is a double edged sword. Atheists are as free to criticise religions as religions are free to be practiced.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 22nd 2012, 11:36
If only the humanists who regularly comment in this paper bothered to follow the advice of their own association! It seems that they are quite happy to find fault with religion, in particular the Catholic Church in Malta, yet here they are collectively doing quite the opposite - accepting religion and religious freedom.
As for the nonsense over this film, it is all down to extremists who have other matters on their minds and have simply taken this film up as an excuse to kill and maim others apparently in the name of Allah! Having spoken to various muslim friends they all distance themselves from the violence as they choosem as their religion teaches them, the path of peace.
The days of feuding between the Church and Islam - which other various humanist commenters herein always like to refer back to in order to try to sully the name of the Church in th present day - are hundreds of years behind us and these days most people do indeed fight with words rather than fists and sometimes just ignore things.
So, humanists who comment here with such regularity, please read what your own association has said.
Ramon Casha
Sep 22nd 2012, 13:58
Again it seems you're commenting withouth having read a word of the press release above, but we've grown to expect that by now.
We have never opposed religious freedom, in fact we value it very highly. Yes, we find fault with religion. We also find fault with the video in question, but we would ban neither. We don't agree with your comments either but we wouldn't ban them for anything. After all, what's life without a bit of entertainment?
Charles Grixti
Sep 22nd 2012, 15:29
Humanists defend human rights against any religion. While most are atheists, it does not mean that they will not defend the right of freedom of worship. They would rather let people come to their own free and unencoumbered conclusions when it comes to religion and the best way to convince are logic, intelligence and scientific scrutiny.
And you are right, the days of feuding between the Church and Islam are long over, they are in fact now colluding with each other since they share many of the same sentiments and the call by the Pope to stop 'insulting' religion speaks volumes. After all, if religion, any religion is placed on a higher pedestal and beyond the reach of criticism, all religions will benefit. And that Gerry will takes us right back to the days of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
Mr Albert Borg
Sep 22nd 2012, 17:02
The thing with humanists - as opposed to religious fanatics - it that although we disagree with the religious ritual and beliefs at large, we won't try and force feed you the opposite and are just as glad to let anybody live the way they desire, obviously as long as this does not pose a threat or constraint to others.
Evarist Saliba
Sep 22nd 2012, 10:17
There is no defence or justification for violence being used against those holding a different opinon to yours, and expressing it.
However, reducing the production and dissemination of this video to a simple expression of freedom of speech is a distortion of reality.
It has been established that the producer of the video cheated the actors into believing that they were engaged in a low-budget film entitled "Desert Warrior", but the end product came out entitled "The Innocence of Muslims", and anti-Muslim rant was added later. The producer, who is in jail for fraud, and friends, went out of their way to drum-up interest in this video after several failures.
The consequences of such base insults, without any artistic or other merit, must have been clear, yet the perpetrator, safe in prison, did not bat an eyelid in putting the lives and property of others at risk.
Equating such behaviour with freedom of expression is a perversity.
As has been pointed out by others, our civilization provides for the protection of groups, like homsexuals and Jews, from such abuse. It seems that religion is the only fair game in the abuse of the right of freedom of speech.
Lino Maniscalco
Sep 22nd 2012, 09:16
Our western culture was built by our ancestors with hundreds or years of sacrifice and we should not be sacrificing it to infiltrating Muslims but we must protect it. Therefore it is time that all government in the western countries should legislate to protect our culture and freedom. All Muslims coming to our countries must keep in mind that they are guests and should respect our law and culture and they must learn to be tolerant. In case they do not feel comfortable, they do not have to make any kind of protest but they are free to go to any other country that suites them.
Cari A. M
Sep 22nd 2012, 16:12
Mr Lino now a days there are Maltese which are born Muslims so they are not infiltrating anyone's country as they are here by right!!
We need to accept one another for who we are and not see one another as entering in anyone's land as Earth was created for all human beings.
Secondly I do not know why people need to attack religions by targeting someone else's belief. If you do not believe in what I believe, fine, but don't target my religion being whatever it is.
When someone targets a religion that person is targeting the people who believe in it otherwise he/she wouldn't produce something which is insulting to that group of people.
I do not believe that justice can be done by violence.
I believe that ignoring anything that is said against me or against my religion, makes me a better person than the one attacking me.
Ida Camilleri
Sep 22nd 2012, 08:25
Most often in life it pays off not to trouble trouble...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle#The_offense_principle
John Portelli
Sep 22nd 2012, 07:33
Try denying the Holocaust in the west and then you'll see how much freedom of expression we have.
Joseph Mizzi
Sep 22nd 2012, 09:10
That's the whole point of the statement, John. No one has ever killed anybody for denying the Holocaust.
Sabrina Borda
Sep 22nd 2012, 07:17
Wouldn't it have been setting a better example for an Imam in his wisdom to have suggested to his brothers to calm down and stop their threatening, violent actions and then guide them to the peace he preaches, rather than congratulating their irrational behaviour ?
Mariella Caruana
Sep 22nd 2012, 07:00
Statements like these should be published in islamic states! To Westerners this is preaching to the converted.
Charles Caruana Carabez
Sep 22nd 2012, 06:29
What can one say about what these angry muslims profess to believe? By its fruit shall you know the tree.
J. Abela
Sep 22nd 2012, 02:47
Well said.
Warmer Libri
Sep 22nd 2012, 00:46
Is this the opinion of all humanists association? they choose ignore policy!! I think Ignore policy does not exist in any humanist over globe. The humanists are there to implement the rights in legal way but never to ignore any offensive act, either this offence is physically or psychologically.The comparison between this disgusting film and Da vinci code might indicate that these humanists did not see the film! the film has nothing to do with free expresssion, it is direct insult and citing of hatress which was clear from the producer at the begining of this disgusting movie!! all the religions (catholic, islam Judasim, etc) respect each other and absolutely refuse such disgusting act. This is the fact, so if the humanists association want to IGNORE the obvious fact , so !!!!! violence is not acceptable however, there must be regulations which can prevent these misuses of media and if they happen , the ones responsible should be account responsible for their misuses? God bless you all
V. Cauchi
Sep 22nd 2012, 08:58
Very well said. The latest film cannot be classified as anything but fiction and crass pornography. Pity that a judge failed to order its removal from YouTube at the request of one of the unknowing actresses on the grounds of human freedoms. I think we are stretching concepts too far and, as in the local Association's case, putting carts before horses. It is not Moslems who are violent, but people who are convinced of their faith who turn violent in cases of blasphemy. We do not do so in the West because of the erosion of values, faith and religion being one of them. We were actually violent in the West, at the time of the Crusades, when we still believed, and so we should be anthropologically questioning what a person or peoples can do when their beliefs are offended. And actually our Criminal Code still includes provisions against persons who offend faith in Malta.
Carmel Ellul
Sep 21st 2012, 23:02
Religions created civilizations, how civilised these civilisations were , depended on the priests that led the common people. The religious leaders in these countries will be recognised as the peacemakers or the trouble makers depending on what they sayi during their weekly prayer meetings.
The stupid video that created all the present trouble in the Islamic world , was never noticed for months , until a religiuos leader in one of the Islamic nations showed it to his faithful. The western world never new about this video and it had to be an Islamic relogious leader to show it . Who is the more guilty,?????
Is this on the same lines as the frame up of a mentally handicapped girl in Pakistan by the local religious leader to stir trouble against another religiuos group.
The real Imams of the world must stand up and be counted, if they follow their religion as it is written.
Martin Saliba
Sep 21st 2012, 21:09
In a statement this evening, the association expressed its disappointment at the words of Imam Mohammed El Sadi, who blamed the producers of an amateur video for the deaths and violence.
Of course they are . They , and others like the them , should be prosecuted and sent to prison for life for causing the deathes of inocent people. But it is these same people who shoud be hunted done and punished , even by death.
Jeff Zammit
Sep 21st 2012, 20:51
well said. Protesting peacefully against the film is acceptable. Killing people and blaming ALL Americans is not. Blaming all western society for this film is outrageous. I am sorry to say that Muslims managed to portray their violent character similar to the film on youtube. I cannot help to think that Muslims are very dangerous to society.
A Galea
Sep 21st 2012, 22:15
With all due respect, but, do you realise that you're contradicting yourself?
Labelling all Muslims as violent, isn't any better than blaming all Americans for a stupid movie.
Rest assured that many muslims who abhorred the movie against their prophet, abhorred the killings and violence against innocent people.
Try and be rational for once, and stop being ignorant.
V. Cauchi
Sep 21st 2012, 20:43
The epitome of fallacious thinking. Pity the Association if this philosophy of illogicality is at its heart.
Pippo De Marco
Sep 21st 2012, 21:55
Fallacious ? - I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, every word of this statement is absolutely right.
Which is more than can be said for the fallacious nonsense that religious people blindly accept as truth !
Charles Grixti
Sep 21st 2012, 22:49
So what is right thinking in your estimation? To kill those that you do not agree with or who you feel insulted you? Surely the world has gone mad if it tolerates the intolerant.
Simon Oosterman
Sep 21st 2012, 23:28
Would you please be so kind to point out the illogical parts of this statement. I have not been able to find anything illogical in it and I would like to be educated and learn.
Kevin Cassar
Sep 21st 2012, 23:31
Perhaps you would like to set us straight.......please do. It's futile and very childish to object to something and then fail to give the slightest hint of a reasonable explenation.
V. Cauchi
Sep 22nd 2012, 11:30
@ S Oosterman
@ K Cassar
The film is nothing but FICTIONAL CRASS PORNOGRAPHY. The primary cause of all these incidents is the irrational film criticizing a religious leader, whether of one's own faith or not. Were I to throw mud at a "humanist" leader I am sure I would get some mud thrown back at me if not also, depending on a person's culture, education, self-control, background, psychological response, what-have-you, some sort of physical violence. As the Association seems to be made up of intellectuals, it would be better for it to study the psychological and anthropological makeup of these peoples rather than rush to make homophobic statements when in other cases they utterly criticise homophobia. I think the Association should stop talking just for the sake of talking, looking pseudo-intellectual and to practise the sacrosanct right of freedom of speech, and instead delve deeply into primary causes and issue a learned statement which does not show crass bias and illogicality. If these are the intellectuals our educational system is producing, then I really do not know what we are up to next. Philosophy and Humanism my foot!
By the way, I wonder whether the Association has seen the film. In that case, by its statement, it is favouring crass pornography about a world religious leader. Freedom of expression, my other foot.
Pls also see my reply @ Warmer Libri
Ramon Casha
Sep 22nd 2012, 17:37
@V Cauchi: "The film is nothing but FICTIONAL CRASS PORNOGRAPHY."
Less than that. In fact the terminology I'd use to describe it probably wouldn't be printed by The Times.
"Were I to throw mud at a "humanist" leader I am sure I would get some mud thrown back at me"
Apples and oranges, but do feel free to make a film about, say, David Hume or some other highly respected humanist.
"if not also, depending on a person's culture, education, self-control, background, psychological response, what-have-you, some sort of physical violence."
And therein lies the problem. If these individuals lack the self-control etc., then the last thing they need is religious leaders telling them it's not their fault really.
"...rather than rush to make homophobic statements..."
Um... homophobic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
"In that case, by its statement, it is favouring crass pornography about a world religious leader. Freedom of expression, my other foot."
No, we are favouring the RIGHT to produce what you describe as crass pornography, and we are opposing the use of violence to achieve one's desired ends.
Eve Axiaq
Sep 21st 2012, 20:36
Punishing innocent people is noy called civilisation and is against the will oof God.
GL Calleja
Sep 21st 2012, 20:09
" Muslim states managed to portray Muslims as uncivilized." best description I have heard yet.
ALBERT FENECH
Sep 21st 2012, 19:50
To accept or ignore criticism, however vile and evil, is civilised maturity. To riot, destroy and kill innocent people in response to criticism is intolerant immaturity.
ALBERT FENECH
Please choose the reason of your report below: