I expected readers to criticise my statement that featured under the irritating title Imam – YouTube Video Responsible For Deaths (September 18) in response to the provocative and anti-Islamic film and also to the negative, non-Islamic violent reactions of some Muslims in certain countries. However, it did not cross my mind that among those critics would be a humanist association. Here I am referring to the article Humanists Disappointed With Imam’s Statement (September 21).

It is high time to discipline the extremely abused freedom of expression!- Imam Mohammad El Sadi

I did not expect humanists to approve of such an insulting and irrational film like Innocence Of Muslims, which goes against the welfare and dignity of the human being as well as against historical facts.

What kind of humanism promotes lies, disrespect and hatred? What kind of humanism is this that defends works that offend the sentiments of hundreds of millions of people and endangers the peaceful coexistence of religions?

Please teach me what kind of humanism or noble purpose exists in the vulgar caricatures of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which portray the prophet Muhammad naked showing his backside to the journalist and saying: “And my buttocks, you like them, my buttocks?”

Please enlighten my narrow mind and inform me: what is the message behind portraying Mohammad naked, showing his backside on which there is a star with the caption: “Mohammad: a star is born!”?

This is not freedom of expression but abuse of such freedom, an evil and immoral act.

We, like all other people, love freedom of expression, but a constructive, not a destructive freedom, the moral, not the permissive type, the peace promoter, not the war inciter.

Some of those who are behind the provocative and disgraceful works are not Christians, nor Jews, nor Muslims. They are atheists whose aim is to demolish all religions by degrading their great symbols and their role models.

What kind of example do such disgusting works offer our children? How will we dare to invite them to follow any religion while we are mocking and ridiculing all their prophets and great ideals?

Of course, those who were behind the shameful and insulting works are the instigators of the riots and the crimes committed by some extremist Muslims, which led to the killing of the praiseworthy US Ambassador to Libya and many of the innocent Americans and Muslims in several countries around the world.

This is because they inflamed tension that caused the violence. That was their goal because they know how some Muslims would react to their provocation.

I do not in any way hold the US or any Western country responsible for the provocative actions. I know they have no control over such works and no legal authority to stop them.

Mainstream Muslims, who are not familiar with Western laws and whose Islamic governments can censor anything, believe that the Western governments are purposely permitting these provocative works to tarnish Islam.

I do not in any way justify violence and I strongly condemn the attacks against the US embassies and diplomats. In fact, I was asked by many Muslims in Malta to organise a demonstration to protest against the provocative film but I chose not to do so fearing that it may get out of hand and send the wrong message and because there are other ways to protest and convey our message.

Unfortunately, The Times, which reported my statement, opted for a half truth, a headline that read Imam: You Tube Video Responsible For Deaths. Besides this, it turned my statement the other way round by quoting my condemnation of the film in the beginning and the condemnation of the violence at the end of the article.

Due to this mispresentation, and because the readers usually concentrate on the headlines and the introduction, and, in many cases, do not read the whole article, I was misunderstood by the majority of the readers. They thought that I condemned the producers of the infamous film only and held them responsible for the tragic events. In fact, I condemned both the producers of the film and the violent Muslims and held them responsible.

I do not know how to explain to readers how highly offended we feel when our prophet is depicted in such a disrespectful way. We hold him dear to us as he is our last prophet and the greatest model for us. He is our saviour after God. He is dearer to us than ourselves and our parents. How would one react if someone so dear is insulted and falsely accused of by shameful deeds?

Some people say Muslims are uncivilised, uninformed and brutal, as we were described in the statement by the Malta Humanist Association. If we are so, then why don’t they please be so kind as to teach us using wise and correct methods to help us get rid of this ignorance and backwardness? Why does one resort to provocative and offensive ways that would only provoke madness and wrongdoing? If you cannot restrain the mad extremist among you, we also cannot restrain the mad extremist among us!

It is high time to discipline the extremely abused freedom of expression!

If we Muslims are misled and have many wrong teachings, please, do criticise our religion.

Teach us the right faith and law but, please, do it in a respectful and objective manner and not by insults and mockery.

If we really want to live together in peace, let us understand and respect one another and avoid what offends one another. Let us resort to wisdom and reason.

If we want to protect our lives, our properties and our honour, let us protect them not by the police but by right, justice and mutual respect!