yallknowdatg
01-09-2004, 10:38 PM
NOTE BY DR. AMIR ALI: The term, "INQUISITION" evokes memories of
persecuation and brutalities of the Catholic Church during the 14th to 16th century Europe;
Muslims in Spain suffered the heaviest. During this period anyone who refused to be baptised
by a Catholic priest was killed, crucified or burned at the stake. During the 15th and 16th
centuries Muslims and Jews of Spain suffered terribly, millions were killed and those who
converted to Catholicism were spied on to find if they were practicing their former religion
secretly. Just the suspicioin was enough to take away their children, who were raised by the
Church as dedicated Christians. These forcefully converted Muslims were called Moriscos and
they are still found in Latin America, Spain and Portugal and some of them still carry Muslim
names without knowing it. The 20th and 21st Century's inquisition has been taken over by the
Secular Fundamentalist whom you may call Freedom Fundamentalists (a misnomer). These
people are no less prejudiced than the Old Catholic Church but only more powerful and
viciously rabid dogs. Old Catholic church had power only in Europe but these new rabid dogs
of Secularism have military power to imporse their religion (yes, it is a religion) on the whole
world. Muslims have a duty to fight back using non-violent means in the West, since they are a
very small monority. The strategy of the Prophet under such circumstance was kuffu
aydiyakum meaning "tie down your hands". Muslims are allowed to use only the power of pen,
tongue, public demonstrations and educating the masses about these issues. I believe that the
masses are good people but they behave the way they do is because they have been
poisoned by their leadership. Muslims have a duty to detoxify their minds through education
process.
‘Freedom’ Fundamentalists
“Hypocrisy is an inherent part of
the disbelievers (infidels) way of life”
by Yamin Zakaria
The recent ban imposed
upon the Muslim women in France from wearing the Islamic scarf (Hijab) gives credence to the
above opinion held by many Muslims. It was not too long ago that the Taliban were demonised
for not giving a choice to the women of Afghanistan regarding the Islamic scarf, but is it not the
same choice now being denied by Chirac? France can be excused but not the Taliban! The
same principle is applied by the other member nations (US, UK and Israel) of the
Judeo-Christian civilisation as they conduct their brutal aggression and subsequent
colonisation under the umbrella of ‘defence’ and ‘freedom’. Isn’t it simply hypocritical to wage
an unprovoked war, killing indiscriminately and causing immense destruction in the name of
bringing ‘freedom’? What can the dead in Iraq do with their ‘freedom’? What use is ‘freedom’
to those, whose loved ones have been killed, property destroyed, and the wealth of their
nation looted? They are not the recipients of ‘freedom’ but the victims of the ‘freedom’
fundamentalists, who are intoxicated with imperial arrogance, fanaticism and intolerance.
The issue of Guantanamo Bay is another example of this same hypocrisy of the
‘freedom’ fanatics lecturing the world about human rights, whilst violating the same at will.
Then we had the recent charade of finding WMD in Iraq, whilst existing in abundance in their
own backyard, as they are the creators and the largest producers of these types of weapons.
Hence, no surprise, that the only WMD found in Iraq were those used by the marauding
invaders. The US then ripped open Iraq’s economy, without any legitimate authority, in a
manner that it would not do to its own economy. One can go on producing an endless list of
the duplicity emanating from these ‘freedom’ fanatics. However, it is worth a closer analysis of
this notion of ‘freedom’, as Bush and Blair have been using it incessantly since 9/11, without
substantiating its meaning.
In the current political context, the inference from the
linguistic meaning of the word is simply “self-rule”, and therefore ‘freedom’ dictates that the
nation must decide of its own free will as to how it should govern itself. Which implies that
‘freedom’ must be established from within rather than imposed by a foreign army. The only
exception to this, is when a nation under occupation invites some third party to aid them in their
pursuit for liberation, as an example, the French under the Nazis invited the Allied forces to
help them liberate their country.
The ‘freedom’ zealots have a different approach to
this matter. According to the dynamic duo (Bush and Blair) ‘freedom’ extremists, absence of
‘freedom’ as interpreted by them, legitimises its enforcement, even by the use of force. It does
not matter, whether it is Gotham City or Baghdad, you must have it. Of course, “enforcing
freedom” is a self-contradictory notion, since enforcing denies one the freedom of choice, and
freedom necessitates the absence of an external (foreign) enforcing authority! So the motto is,
although ‘freedom’ offers choices, however, there is no choice on the issue of governing by
the notion of ‘freedom’ as interpreted by the ‘freedom’ fanatics, regardless of the opinion of the
masses. Therefore, legitimacy of ‘freedom’ has to be certified by the High Priests of ‘freedom’
fundamentalism. For sure, the High Priests will not issue the certification, until the government
selected complies with their interests. Perhaps, this is why there has been no free election in
Iraq to date, as the early signs indicated that the Iraqis prefer an independent Islamic form of
government. It is for the same reason that the West kept silent, and indirectly assisted the
Algerian government to suspend the election, when the Islamic party (FIS) was clearly poised
to win.
To a layperson, ‘freedom’ may simply mean, the lack of restraint. Restrictions
are usually imposed by the state and society, manifested in the laws and regulations. Hence
does ‘freedom’ imply a lawless society, total anarchy, like the jungle? As primitive society
progresses towards a modern urbanised democratic society, its laws and regulations grow and
consequently diminish ‘freedom’. Hence, in the pursuit of ‘freedom’, should societies become
more primitive, i.e. lawless? In some respects, societies have become more primitive over the
years as they try to attain greater ‘freedom’. The sexual relationship is an example, the
traditional constraint of marriage, ethics and morality are being eroded. The youths in the clubs
and the beach parties fornicate in public without any inhibition, bringing them closer to the
conduct of animals in the jungle that are totally free.
The scholars of ‘freedom’
fundamentalism acknowledge that order and stability is a prerequisite for human survival, and
absolute freedom results in chaos. Therefore, they define ‘freedom’ as being subjected to the
laws and values imposed by the society, which is subjective as it emanates from certain
beliefs, local customs and traditions. Hence the notion of ‘freedom’ is subjective! So who is
then to judge, which is a free society and which is not? As an example, many Western
societies allow same sex marriage but prohibit polygamy and view it with disdain. Why is the
former an endorsement of ‘freedom’ but the latter is not? Despite this, the ‘freedom’ zealots will
often attempt to portray it as an absolute and universal concept, transcending all civilisations,
often inferring from its linguistic meaning, which has no reality except through the lawless
jungle. For the self appointed High Priests of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism, they assume to have a
monopoly over its meaning and implementation.
Therefore let us have a cursory
examination of ‘freedom’ as implemented by the ‘freedom’ fundamentalists.
Political
System
The embodiment of ‘freedom’ is proclaimed in the system of Democracy. In
theory, the masses exercise their free will to select the ruling authority that would be
representative of their interests. They are supposed to be the servants of the masses, rather
than their masters.
The first question that arises, is whether the notion of majority rule is
inherently correct? Did not Adolf Hitler have the majority of the German population behind him?
Secondly, how does one prevent the majority from becoming a dictatorship, which suppresses
the ‘freedom’ of the minority? What if, the majority in France decided to close down all the
Mosques, prohibit Islamic marriages, Islamic slaughtering, Islamic names, and build Gas
chambers for the disobedient Muslims, would that be in line with spirit of ‘freedom’? If legislation
is passed to protect the minority, it is the same majority that can undo the legislation by passing
newer legislation and amendments.
In reality, almost all the democratically elected
governments are voted into power by the largest minority of the total eligible voting population.
George Bush certainly did not get the majority vote in Florida, as the election was
rigged!
Every society by its nature is composed of various competing groups. Naturally the
group with the greatest power and wealth will have the largest voice. Taking the US as an
example, is it the large multinationals with their huge party ‘donations’ or the thousand of
impoverished voters from the Afro-American or Hispanic community who have more influence?
Hence, it is not votes but dollars that exert real sway upon the Congress and Senate.
So, the ‘freedom’ of choice exercised by the masses in elections, is overwhelmingly
not represented by the democratic government, but it is the weight of money that is
represented. Hence, after the elections, the majority of political ‘representatives’ are only
interested in serving their ‘donors’.
Economic System
The notion of ‘freedom’
is manifested in the economic model of the “free market”. As mentioned above, society is
heterogeneous. That usually results in the domination of a few companies in the market
(domestic and international), distorting the paradigm severely. This is expected, as ‘freedom’
implies rule of the jungle, “survival of the fittest”, hence the strongest members will naturally
dominate. It may be efficient at first but certainly not fair to the weaker members of society.
Given time, that efficiency will erode as the competition diminishes and monopolies and
oligopolies emerge as a result.
In the international arena free market economics is
never practiced in the manner it is preached by the US or Europe. Just examine the subsidies
given to their domestic industries and the import tariffs imposed on foreign imports. The recent
summit at Cancun exposed the inherent greed of these Capitalist nations, as they sought to
open up the third world markets in a manner not to generate free trade, but to exploit them and
their natural resources. The dictation by the various international institutions (IMF, WTO, WB
etc) to the African and other third world nations reflects the same policies.
The
philosophy of the free market is profit before ‘freedom’ (or blood). When the Iraqi civilians were
being murdered, TV commentary focused upon the effectiveness of the weapons. Is it the
Scud or the Patriot? Is it the Abram tank or the Apache or the Black Hawk that has been most
effective? It was no coincidence, that immediately after the first Gulf War, a huge arms
exhibition was held in France.
Therefore, in the name of economic freedom, it is the
majority that is denied their share of the wealth, hence denial of their economic power
(‘freedom’).
Social System
By applying the principal of “judging the tree by its
fruits” is perhaps the most effective way of examining the notion of ‘freedom’. Have the men
and women under the spell of ‘freedom’ attained greater tranquillity and happiness? If so, why
are the divorce rates, single parent families, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide rate, drug
addiction, crime, and the use of anti-depressant drugs constantly on the rise? The direct
consequence of ‘freedom’ has been the erosion of traditional religious family values, leading to
a rise in sexual promiscuity. The boundaries of sexual freedom are pushed constantly as all
sorts of sexual perversions become the norm. So, is this what Bush and Blair desire for our
future generation?
Then comes the flag of “women’s rights”, which is often measured
by the removal of their clothes, rather than looking at health, education and security. Is this is
why the lone Afghan woman was paraded almost naked as a symbol of liberation, whilst those
who desire to wear modest clothing are being forced to remove it (Re: recent event in
France)?
We also see the bizarre duplicity in the Western attitude towards Islam and
the Muslims. As an example, they taunt the Muslims about the vice of polygamy and the
inherent goodness of monogamy, but yet, one would be hard pressed to find someone who is
truly monogamous in their society, even amongst their leaders e.g. Bill Clinton, Mitterrand, John
Major et al. Why is Polygamous marriage a vice, whereas mass participation in the form of
orgies, including homosexual activities, are an endorsement of freedom?
The other
category of the ‘freedom’ fanatics are ironically intolerant and/or intellectually inept to address
any criticism(s), thus they often resort to racist language and personal attacks. Unfortunately
some of the self-appointed leaders of the migrant communities have also adopted the same
arguments, blinded by their material success and comforts in the West. The argument
presented is simple, “If you don’t like it here, then leave.” Is this not a form of chastisment for
expressing their opinion under the principal of ‘free speech’? Why is it that the people who
wave the flag of ‘freedom’ are trying to stifle the critics or dissidents by not addressing the
issues and asking them to leave the country? This type of behaviour and reasoning is
tantamount to an admittance of intellectual cowardice and ineptitude. Of course, these
arguments are only posed to those who belong to the migrant communities, even if they are
born in the country, especially if they have a non-European origin; otherwise they are simply
classified as dissidents. As an example, no one has ever asked the eminent dissident, Noam
Chomsky, to migrate from the US. In any case, opinions of this type have a number of inherent
contradictions and/or flaws.
a) The notion of a ‘free’ society means the ability to
tolerate diverse and opposing views. The very existence of criticism gives substantial credibility
to the claim of having a ‘free’ society. Otherwise what is the meaning of ‘freedom’ when
opposing opinions expressed are not tolerated and threats are issued to expel them?
b)
Those expressing criticism should be viewed as decent law abiding citizens exercising their
rights. The ruling elites are the representatives, and hence they must find a way of representing
the dissident views, rather then attempt to silence them.
c) Even if the dissident views
emanate from the economic migrants, does that automatically mean that they have no right to
voice their opinion? Do they not have the right to participate as citizens and alter society in
accordance to their viewpoint? Shouldn’t ‘freedom’ itself be the arbiter, in letting the masses
decide on the strongest opinion? Isn’t that what ‘free’ thinking is all about? Let the people
argue and prove their case.
d) Finally where should many of these migrant settlers go?
If the argument is that they oppose ‘freedom’, ‘dictatorship’, ‘secularism’, etc then there is no
real choice of settling in anywhere else in the world.
Just examining the track record of
the ‘freedom’ fanatics, they have committed genocide and uprooted nations in the name of
‘freedom’ over the last two to three hundred years. The entire notion of ‘freedom’ is built upon
deceit and lies. Just examine the layers of deception in fabricating the recent war on Iraq.
Therefore it is not the nascent Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, but the ‘freedom’ fundamentalism that
poses the greatest threat to the peace and security in the world.
Yamin
Zakaria
London,
UK
http://www.cdlr.net/English/cdlrboard/showthread.php?
s=a2af17044
2c4655ff896860f546f46c6&threadid=652
persecuation and brutalities of the Catholic Church during the 14th to 16th century Europe;
Muslims in Spain suffered the heaviest. During this period anyone who refused to be baptised
by a Catholic priest was killed, crucified or burned at the stake. During the 15th and 16th
centuries Muslims and Jews of Spain suffered terribly, millions were killed and those who
converted to Catholicism were spied on to find if they were practicing their former religion
secretly. Just the suspicioin was enough to take away their children, who were raised by the
Church as dedicated Christians. These forcefully converted Muslims were called Moriscos and
they are still found in Latin America, Spain and Portugal and some of them still carry Muslim
names without knowing it. The 20th and 21st Century's inquisition has been taken over by the
Secular Fundamentalist whom you may call Freedom Fundamentalists (a misnomer). These
people are no less prejudiced than the Old Catholic Church but only more powerful and
viciously rabid dogs. Old Catholic church had power only in Europe but these new rabid dogs
of Secularism have military power to imporse their religion (yes, it is a religion) on the whole
world. Muslims have a duty to fight back using non-violent means in the West, since they are a
very small monority. The strategy of the Prophet under such circumstance was kuffu
aydiyakum meaning "tie down your hands". Muslims are allowed to use only the power of pen,
tongue, public demonstrations and educating the masses about these issues. I believe that the
masses are good people but they behave the way they do is because they have been
poisoned by their leadership. Muslims have a duty to detoxify their minds through education
process.
‘Freedom’ Fundamentalists
“Hypocrisy is an inherent part of
the disbelievers (infidels) way of life”
by Yamin Zakaria
The recent ban imposed
upon the Muslim women in France from wearing the Islamic scarf (Hijab) gives credence to the
above opinion held by many Muslims. It was not too long ago that the Taliban were demonised
for not giving a choice to the women of Afghanistan regarding the Islamic scarf, but is it not the
same choice now being denied by Chirac? France can be excused but not the Taliban! The
same principle is applied by the other member nations (US, UK and Israel) of the
Judeo-Christian civilisation as they conduct their brutal aggression and subsequent
colonisation under the umbrella of ‘defence’ and ‘freedom’. Isn’t it simply hypocritical to wage
an unprovoked war, killing indiscriminately and causing immense destruction in the name of
bringing ‘freedom’? What can the dead in Iraq do with their ‘freedom’? What use is ‘freedom’
to those, whose loved ones have been killed, property destroyed, and the wealth of their
nation looted? They are not the recipients of ‘freedom’ but the victims of the ‘freedom’
fundamentalists, who are intoxicated with imperial arrogance, fanaticism and intolerance.
The issue of Guantanamo Bay is another example of this same hypocrisy of the
‘freedom’ fanatics lecturing the world about human rights, whilst violating the same at will.
Then we had the recent charade of finding WMD in Iraq, whilst existing in abundance in their
own backyard, as they are the creators and the largest producers of these types of weapons.
Hence, no surprise, that the only WMD found in Iraq were those used by the marauding
invaders. The US then ripped open Iraq’s economy, without any legitimate authority, in a
manner that it would not do to its own economy. One can go on producing an endless list of
the duplicity emanating from these ‘freedom’ fanatics. However, it is worth a closer analysis of
this notion of ‘freedom’, as Bush and Blair have been using it incessantly since 9/11, without
substantiating its meaning.
In the current political context, the inference from the
linguistic meaning of the word is simply “self-rule”, and therefore ‘freedom’ dictates that the
nation must decide of its own free will as to how it should govern itself. Which implies that
‘freedom’ must be established from within rather than imposed by a foreign army. The only
exception to this, is when a nation under occupation invites some third party to aid them in their
pursuit for liberation, as an example, the French under the Nazis invited the Allied forces to
help them liberate their country.
The ‘freedom’ zealots have a different approach to
this matter. According to the dynamic duo (Bush and Blair) ‘freedom’ extremists, absence of
‘freedom’ as interpreted by them, legitimises its enforcement, even by the use of force. It does
not matter, whether it is Gotham City or Baghdad, you must have it. Of course, “enforcing
freedom” is a self-contradictory notion, since enforcing denies one the freedom of choice, and
freedom necessitates the absence of an external (foreign) enforcing authority! So the motto is,
although ‘freedom’ offers choices, however, there is no choice on the issue of governing by
the notion of ‘freedom’ as interpreted by the ‘freedom’ fanatics, regardless of the opinion of the
masses. Therefore, legitimacy of ‘freedom’ has to be certified by the High Priests of ‘freedom’
fundamentalism. For sure, the High Priests will not issue the certification, until the government
selected complies with their interests. Perhaps, this is why there has been no free election in
Iraq to date, as the early signs indicated that the Iraqis prefer an independent Islamic form of
government. It is for the same reason that the West kept silent, and indirectly assisted the
Algerian government to suspend the election, when the Islamic party (FIS) was clearly poised
to win.
To a layperson, ‘freedom’ may simply mean, the lack of restraint. Restrictions
are usually imposed by the state and society, manifested in the laws and regulations. Hence
does ‘freedom’ imply a lawless society, total anarchy, like the jungle? As primitive society
progresses towards a modern urbanised democratic society, its laws and regulations grow and
consequently diminish ‘freedom’. Hence, in the pursuit of ‘freedom’, should societies become
more primitive, i.e. lawless? In some respects, societies have become more primitive over the
years as they try to attain greater ‘freedom’. The sexual relationship is an example, the
traditional constraint of marriage, ethics and morality are being eroded. The youths in the clubs
and the beach parties fornicate in public without any inhibition, bringing them closer to the
conduct of animals in the jungle that are totally free.
The scholars of ‘freedom’
fundamentalism acknowledge that order and stability is a prerequisite for human survival, and
absolute freedom results in chaos. Therefore, they define ‘freedom’ as being subjected to the
laws and values imposed by the society, which is subjective as it emanates from certain
beliefs, local customs and traditions. Hence the notion of ‘freedom’ is subjective! So who is
then to judge, which is a free society and which is not? As an example, many Western
societies allow same sex marriage but prohibit polygamy and view it with disdain. Why is the
former an endorsement of ‘freedom’ but the latter is not? Despite this, the ‘freedom’ zealots will
often attempt to portray it as an absolute and universal concept, transcending all civilisations,
often inferring from its linguistic meaning, which has no reality except through the lawless
jungle. For the self appointed High Priests of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism, they assume to have a
monopoly over its meaning and implementation.
Therefore let us have a cursory
examination of ‘freedom’ as implemented by the ‘freedom’ fundamentalists.
Political
System
The embodiment of ‘freedom’ is proclaimed in the system of Democracy. In
theory, the masses exercise their free will to select the ruling authority that would be
representative of their interests. They are supposed to be the servants of the masses, rather
than their masters.
The first question that arises, is whether the notion of majority rule is
inherently correct? Did not Adolf Hitler have the majority of the German population behind him?
Secondly, how does one prevent the majority from becoming a dictatorship, which suppresses
the ‘freedom’ of the minority? What if, the majority in France decided to close down all the
Mosques, prohibit Islamic marriages, Islamic slaughtering, Islamic names, and build Gas
chambers for the disobedient Muslims, would that be in line with spirit of ‘freedom’? If legislation
is passed to protect the minority, it is the same majority that can undo the legislation by passing
newer legislation and amendments.
In reality, almost all the democratically elected
governments are voted into power by the largest minority of the total eligible voting population.
George Bush certainly did not get the majority vote in Florida, as the election was
rigged!
Every society by its nature is composed of various competing groups. Naturally the
group with the greatest power and wealth will have the largest voice. Taking the US as an
example, is it the large multinationals with their huge party ‘donations’ or the thousand of
impoverished voters from the Afro-American or Hispanic community who have more influence?
Hence, it is not votes but dollars that exert real sway upon the Congress and Senate.
So, the ‘freedom’ of choice exercised by the masses in elections, is overwhelmingly
not represented by the democratic government, but it is the weight of money that is
represented. Hence, after the elections, the majority of political ‘representatives’ are only
interested in serving their ‘donors’.
Economic System
The notion of ‘freedom’
is manifested in the economic model of the “free market”. As mentioned above, society is
heterogeneous. That usually results in the domination of a few companies in the market
(domestic and international), distorting the paradigm severely. This is expected, as ‘freedom’
implies rule of the jungle, “survival of the fittest”, hence the strongest members will naturally
dominate. It may be efficient at first but certainly not fair to the weaker members of society.
Given time, that efficiency will erode as the competition diminishes and monopolies and
oligopolies emerge as a result.
In the international arena free market economics is
never practiced in the manner it is preached by the US or Europe. Just examine the subsidies
given to their domestic industries and the import tariffs imposed on foreign imports. The recent
summit at Cancun exposed the inherent greed of these Capitalist nations, as they sought to
open up the third world markets in a manner not to generate free trade, but to exploit them and
their natural resources. The dictation by the various international institutions (IMF, WTO, WB
etc) to the African and other third world nations reflects the same policies.
The
philosophy of the free market is profit before ‘freedom’ (or blood). When the Iraqi civilians were
being murdered, TV commentary focused upon the effectiveness of the weapons. Is it the
Scud or the Patriot? Is it the Abram tank or the Apache or the Black Hawk that has been most
effective? It was no coincidence, that immediately after the first Gulf War, a huge arms
exhibition was held in France.
Therefore, in the name of economic freedom, it is the
majority that is denied their share of the wealth, hence denial of their economic power
(‘freedom’).
Social System
By applying the principal of “judging the tree by its
fruits” is perhaps the most effective way of examining the notion of ‘freedom’. Have the men
and women under the spell of ‘freedom’ attained greater tranquillity and happiness? If so, why
are the divorce rates, single parent families, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide rate, drug
addiction, crime, and the use of anti-depressant drugs constantly on the rise? The direct
consequence of ‘freedom’ has been the erosion of traditional religious family values, leading to
a rise in sexual promiscuity. The boundaries of sexual freedom are pushed constantly as all
sorts of sexual perversions become the norm. So, is this what Bush and Blair desire for our
future generation?
Then comes the flag of “women’s rights”, which is often measured
by the removal of their clothes, rather than looking at health, education and security. Is this is
why the lone Afghan woman was paraded almost naked as a symbol of liberation, whilst those
who desire to wear modest clothing are being forced to remove it (Re: recent event in
France)?
We also see the bizarre duplicity in the Western attitude towards Islam and
the Muslims. As an example, they taunt the Muslims about the vice of polygamy and the
inherent goodness of monogamy, but yet, one would be hard pressed to find someone who is
truly monogamous in their society, even amongst their leaders e.g. Bill Clinton, Mitterrand, John
Major et al. Why is Polygamous marriage a vice, whereas mass participation in the form of
orgies, including homosexual activities, are an endorsement of freedom?
The other
category of the ‘freedom’ fanatics are ironically intolerant and/or intellectually inept to address
any criticism(s), thus they often resort to racist language and personal attacks. Unfortunately
some of the self-appointed leaders of the migrant communities have also adopted the same
arguments, blinded by their material success and comforts in the West. The argument
presented is simple, “If you don’t like it here, then leave.” Is this not a form of chastisment for
expressing their opinion under the principal of ‘free speech’? Why is it that the people who
wave the flag of ‘freedom’ are trying to stifle the critics or dissidents by not addressing the
issues and asking them to leave the country? This type of behaviour and reasoning is
tantamount to an admittance of intellectual cowardice and ineptitude. Of course, these
arguments are only posed to those who belong to the migrant communities, even if they are
born in the country, especially if they have a non-European origin; otherwise they are simply
classified as dissidents. As an example, no one has ever asked the eminent dissident, Noam
Chomsky, to migrate from the US. In any case, opinions of this type have a number of inherent
contradictions and/or flaws.
a) The notion of a ‘free’ society means the ability to
tolerate diverse and opposing views. The very existence of criticism gives substantial credibility
to the claim of having a ‘free’ society. Otherwise what is the meaning of ‘freedom’ when
opposing opinions expressed are not tolerated and threats are issued to expel them?
b)
Those expressing criticism should be viewed as decent law abiding citizens exercising their
rights. The ruling elites are the representatives, and hence they must find a way of representing
the dissident views, rather then attempt to silence them.
c) Even if the dissident views
emanate from the economic migrants, does that automatically mean that they have no right to
voice their opinion? Do they not have the right to participate as citizens and alter society in
accordance to their viewpoint? Shouldn’t ‘freedom’ itself be the arbiter, in letting the masses
decide on the strongest opinion? Isn’t that what ‘free’ thinking is all about? Let the people
argue and prove their case.
d) Finally where should many of these migrant settlers go?
If the argument is that they oppose ‘freedom’, ‘dictatorship’, ‘secularism’, etc then there is no
real choice of settling in anywhere else in the world.
Just examining the track record of
the ‘freedom’ fanatics, they have committed genocide and uprooted nations in the name of
‘freedom’ over the last two to three hundred years. The entire notion of ‘freedom’ is built upon
deceit and lies. Just examine the layers of deception in fabricating the recent war on Iraq.
Therefore it is not the nascent Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, but the ‘freedom’ fundamentalism that
poses the greatest threat to the peace and security in the world.
Yamin
Zakaria
London,
UK
http://www.cdlr.net/English/cdlrboard/showthread.php?
s=a2af17044
2c4655ff896860f546f46c6&threadid=652