The Rights of Man…questionable?

David Irving is a Holocaust Denier. He’s been living for almost 70 years and is completely dedicated to prove his arguements that 6 million couldn’t have died in those times. Holocaust Revisionism is not a very widely known ‘phenomenon’, because of the completely suppresion of it by the laws of all of Europe and many other nations. Now I bring this subject up because recently, in fact just yesterday, Mr. Irving has been sentenced by the Austrian Government. The sources say he’s been arrested for his violating Austrian laws which make it illegal to deny the Holocaust. But a sixty-seven year old man in jail is just cruel, espeacially when they say he has “...cynically misused and abused his right to free expression in order to dismiss some of the worst crimes and atrocities of the 20th century.” Its complety outrageous that this is actually allowed. I’m not argueing this loony’s belief. I’m saying that this guy writes his freedom, his press, his speech and so much of his belief. But when a couple of cartoonists express thier ‘right’ to press, speech and expression, their defended by and entire gov’t. This man that they’ve attempted to humiliate is not any man. I bear witness him as the Messenger of ALLAH. (post spawned from Salika Sufisticate)
Once when the Muslims had conqured Makkah, our Beloved prophet had seen a woman struggling to carry her overload of luggage and towards the desert. Muhammad, may peace and blessing be upon him and his family, had turned to help the aged woman whom he most respectfully had called his mother. He insistingly held her luggage and helped her along the way. This woman was nonmuslim and didn’t know that the greatly generous man that helped her was Muhammad. The Prophet had then asked her kindly as to why she was going. She told the generous man that she was leaving her Makkah because that Muhammad had left nothing for her. That on his conquest of Islam which she hated so, she had lost her father, brother and the rest of her family and hadn’t anything left for her. So she was leaving. Then she told Muhammad to leave and that she would be alble to travel the rest on her own. Muhammad then, calling her Mother, insistingly carried on. On the way she constantly cursed the Humble, Modest and Great prophet while he was walking right with her as though he was her son. She then told the Holy Prophet that he had to go back from that point and that he would have to stop. Constantly calling the aged woman mother he insisted but the woman turned him down. She then asked to know the name of the man that respected her so and the name of the man that had helped her walk so far into the desert. Muhammad dared not to give his name. The woman said that see would like to know his name so that one day, she’d come back on and pay back what he most generously had given her. She competely insisted to know the name of her helper. The woman then heard the prophets confession. Muhammad then confessed that he was that person who people had hated and cursed. That he was that Muhammad. She couldn’t believe in her that the man that she had come to admire was the same man that she hated with great disbelief. She then on the spot accepted Islam.

JahadiFrom this we learn that there is a wisdom that its not by his religion that orginally brought others into Islam, it by his extreme manner. He said himself that he was sent as a messenger to teach Manner. Now I most humbly on behalf of the many muslims who’ve commited actions without thorough discussion with other muslim nations, pleade sorry, again. However it is quite understandable that muslims are enraged. As Jack has said before this, “Unfortunately the cartoonist was somewhat vindicated by the actions of the fundamentalists….”. Trust me, it makes many muslims furious, however the majority have the better sense and are not influenced by the opposing media. The Muslims are those that are able to seem profound in the heart of another. We should concern ourselves with hereafter and not of this world. I agree again with Jack when he says, “Hate to say it, but it’s a pretty sad state of affairs that this happens and that so many people have fallen for the seductive whisper of the extremists, rather than questioning the actions of the people tearing around trying to stir up hatred.” Its quite sensable, the logic of this statement. These times are filled profoundly with great trials. May the light of the mu’min be granted upon all the earth, For without a doubt, ALLAH can do everything.

2 Responses

  1. Ref. David Irving, I think it’s all a matter of context – certainly not the ‘one rule for them [people that are ‘anti’ Jew] and one rule for others [people that are ‘anti’ Islam’ that it might from some angles appear.

    Linking it to the cartoons, these were originally published in Denmark and whilst it upset people it didn’t (at the time) cause any major tangible problems. A case can be made on this basis for David Irving’s nonsense. He initially published and commented on his ‘halocaust denial’ in the UK and he wasn’t arrested or prosecuted. This became a different matter when he went to Austria less than 45 years after the halocaust and gave the same sort of speech to a right wing rally.

    I think freedom of speech laws are based on commonsense and weighing up the pros and cons of stifling or allowing such speech. In the case of David Irving the UK more harm would have been done by censoring him than letting him say his piece. As a country the UK doesn’t have a huge history of large scale anti-semitism so the prevailing view would probably have been that not too many people would be influenced by his rhetoric.

    Compare this to the situation in Austria. Hitler started by just giving speeches (Nuremberg rallies being the most famous) but he managed to convince people with his propoganda and we all know where this led. I guess the Austrian government, drawing on the history that Austrians have previously been seduced by such arguements, had to make the call that in this instance the benefits of free speech were outweighed by the possible repercussions is such right wing propganda gained a hold again.

    To use an analogy, it’s safe to hold a lit match over a puddle but not over a powder keg. David Irving’s ‘spark’ had more of an incendiary risk in Austria than the UK: The cartoons have proved more inflamatory in the middle east than Denmark.

  2. […] A few months ago, I had written an article on the Justification on the Denmark Cartoons that literally and obviously insult Islam. The Denmark cartoonist’s claim this to be their right of speech and press. However in that article I had compared this to their own negation of someone who refutes the occurrence of the Holocaust. They shut him up and they say that he’s just a conspiracy theorist. David Irving, again and again is refuted by those who are offended by his words, claim them to be anti-Semitic. But of course this is stupid, because if words in black and white are intolerable to the Jews then clearly images, more vivid and understandable to anyone, in color, is clearly an offense to the ever inevitably significant Muslims all over the world. Will they not be completely offended by images portraying insults on our beloved prophet. The Denmark Government refutes such claims and still holds its grounds to be a ‘free speaking’ nation. Well woopdi-doo, today the US government is clearly against islam. Now wait just a second and read the following article from the Washington Post. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: