If the Prophet Can be Insulted, then the Holocaust can be Questioned (Al Watan, Libya)

This column is not a pleasant one, but it does unfortunately reflect the views of a sizable number of Muslims, and it is from Libya. And as you can see, the cartoon (above) is from Saudi Arabia. We present it in the spirit of understanding what we’re in for when it comes to relating to these new countries emerging from decades despotism, and I am sorry to have to use the word – ignorance. I would just say in defense of the newspaper Al Watan, that they allow a wide variety of views, and that is to be commended.

So – is there some form of moral equivalency between questioning the well-documented mass murder of Jews during World War II and Muslim violence over a low budget film made by an angry Coptic Christian in California? For Libya’s Al Watan, columnist Ahmad Mustafa Al-Ghar writes that while he doesn’t agree with the killing of diplomats, he does see bias against Islam reflected in part by what Western media prohibits, like films questioning the Holocaust, and those it allows, like those insulting to The Prophet Mohammad.

For Al Watan, Ahmad Mustafa Al-Ghar starts out this way:

Why shouldn’t we rise up and protest a film that denigrates our Holy Prophet? Don’t countries oftentimes protest and revolt for the slightest insult aimed at symbols or slogans that pertain to them, let alone those that insult all of humanity? It is true that I am against attacks on embassies and diplomats, because we offered them security and agreed to their presence through diplomatic exchanges and international treaties and agreements. But one can never ignore the reaction of angry people who at a moment’s notice may go up against governments and governing regimes. It is not surprising, then, that the demonstrations began in Egypt and Libya, then to Yemen, before spreading to the rest of the countries, since little time has passed since their revolutions, and their peoples have liberated themselves from the grip of oppression, which had prevented them from even demonstrating in support of our religion and Holy Prophet.

 

If , as it claims, the United States believes in freedom to the extent that it gives its citizens the right to burn the American flag if they like … is it also possible to allow the production of films questioning the validity of the alleged Holocaust of the Jews? And will American company Google leave video clips exposing the lies of Jews about the Holocaust, without deleting them from YouTube, or will it only take measures it prevent it from being viewed in Israel alone, and leave it for the rest of humanity to see?

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC, OR READ MORE ON THE UNFOLDING CRISIS, AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Author: WILLIAM KERN (Worldmeets.US)

Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US

15 Comments

  1. Free speech is free speech. The only places where I could understand any legal implications involved with holocaust denial are Germany and Israel, everywhere else is fair game.

    People are also free to judge another’s free speech and peacefully react to that speech.

  2. The author is making a valid point, but forgets that we do in fact allow people to deny the holocaust. They may be socially outcast, but people do not burn down the homes of holocaust deniers.

  3. yeah, i think i will retire from this one

  4. As Rocky Raccoon once said, hey Bullwinkle there are nuts on both sides of the road.

  5. I know that some countries have laws against Holocaust denial, but I’m fairly certain the US does not. YouTube is allowed to set their own policies, which means they don’t allow pornography or hate material — so, yeah, no Holocaust denial.

    As stated, the column is not pleasant.

  6. As Rocky Raccoon once said

    I’ll be better, Doc, as soon as I am able.

  7. Roro80, but the “standard” is from 2007 before many violent incidents showed that Muslims are not tolerant of blasphemy. I’m surprised at Google.

  8. I think a lot of people in the middle east have been languishing under state/church controlled media for so long they just don’t get how it works over here. I mean, some no name 2 bit hack puts out a low quality video on his own, and a large number of people over there are reacting like it was put out by the US State Dept. And I’m not totally sure about Youtube’s policies but I’m pretty sure I can go find half a dozen holocaust denying videos on there if I wanted to check for 10 minutes. And even if I couldn’t that’s not a legal thing, that’s just policy at a private company. So basically, I don’t think the author of that article makes any valid points whatsoever, and his fundamental understanding of the situation is incorrect. Except to say the title, while meant to be confrontational to provoke some insight, is instead exactly accurate. Yes, we can mock your prophet. And the same legal protections that allow me to do that also allow me to deny the holocaust if I so choose. In fact, I choose to do neither, but legality issues did not inform my choice in the matter.

  9. Not sure what you mean, dduck.

  10. It should also be noted that Holocaust denial is met with derision, scorn, hate, and sensorship from some large private companies, but not generally with mobs of people looking for violent retribution.

  11. Roro80, sorry, I can’t find a citation on the 2007 “standard” of Google. The point is that the current standard does not acknowledge the potential violence attached to airing blasphemous content.

  12. Sorry DD, but if some religion decides that a video of nose picking is blasphemy and decides to go nuts in the streets, I don’t think we should ban all nose picking.

  13. SL, I doubt it, perhaps a better example as a reason to burn and kill.

  14. A poorly made film from the porno capital of the world is no better reason.

Submit a Comment