View previous stories
	The provocateurs know politics and religion don"t mix by The Independent & agencies   14 September 2012   UN human rights chief urges religious leaders to restore calm amid anti-Islam film protests.   The United Nations human rights chief today urged religious and political leaders to do their utmost to restore calm in the wake of an anti-Islam film that has sparked protests in countries across the world.   “The film is malicious and deliberately provocative and portrays a disgracefully distorted image of Muslims. I fully understand why people wish to protest strongly against it, and it is their right to do so peacefully,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said in a news release.   “However, I utterly condemn the killings in Benghazi, and other violent and destructive reactions to the film and urge religious and political leaders to make a major effort to restore calm,” she added.   On Tuesday, the United States Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi came under attack, leading to the death of the US ambassador to the country, Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats, and left other people injured.   According to initial media reports, those responsible carried out the attack in protest against an anti-Islamic video produced by a US citizen in the state of California.   Demonstrations against the film first erupted in Egypt on Tuesday, when Islamist protesters scaled the US embassy walls in the capital, Cairo, and replaced the flag there with an Islamic one. The violence reportedly left more than 200 people injured.   On Thursday, demonstrators in Yemen stormed the US embassy compound, but were unable to break into the main building. The incident led to one death and injured 15 others. Other protests have been reported today in Sudan, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.   Ms. Pillay emphasized that the best way to deal with provocations such as the film was to ignore them.   “Deliberate and obnoxious acts of this type should be deprived of the oxygen of publicity,” she said, adding that she welcomed the Libyan Government’s efforts to bring those responsible for the attack in Benghazi to justice.   The High Commissioner also noted that there is a legal framework – in particular Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – which offers strong protective measures to all forms of expression, while at the same time giving States the possibility to impose restrictions necessary for the respect of the rights and reputations of others.   Addressing a General Assembly forum on the promulgation of a ‘culture of peace’ at UN Headquarters in New York today, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted the “terrible attacks and unrest” of recent days in Libya and elsewhere, apparently sparked, he said, by a “hateful, disgusting film.”   He also called it shameful to exploit the right to free expression to provoke bigotry and bloodshed, but deemed it equally wrong to exploit the resulting anger and feed “the cycle of recrimination and senseless violence.”   On Thursday night, a spokesperson for the Secretary-General said the UN chief was “deeply disturbed” by the violence in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East and called for calm and restraint to end hostilities.   “Mr. Ban condemns the hateful film that appears to have been deliberately designed to sow bigotry and bloodshed,” the spokesperson said in a statement, which also stressed that at this time of tensions there is a need for “dialogue, mutual respect and understanding.”   Sep 2012   Dear Alliance of Civilizations Supporters,   With all that has happened this week in Libya and across the Middle East, many of us are left feeling that those on the fringe are speaking for all of us. Whether it is the group who made a film that denigrates the Prophet of Islam or those behind the brutal killing of 4 people at a consulate in Benghazi, they do not represent us.   While the media focuses only on the most extreme views, the rest of us don’t get a fair hearing. Many of our leaders aren’t listening either. In fact, some are using this as an opportunity to divide all of us along religious lines. That’s not responsible leadership.   While we stand for freedom of speech, using our freedom to humiliate others is not the way forward. And, while we all believe in peaceful protest, violence is unacceptable. The sanctity of human life must always be respected.   So, we’re calling on all of you now to join us on Twitter under the hashtag #RepresentYourself and speak out, so the rest of the world can hear. In the words of President Sampaio, “You are the Alliance.”   Represent yourself to the world so your voice isn’t drowned out by a vocal and violent minority. Write blog posts, take pictures, film vlogs, and post them all with the hasthag #RepresentYourself. Encourage others to do the same. Call for responsible leadership and responsible citizenship.   http://www.unaoc.org/2012/09/time-to-speak-out-libya-and-innocence-of-muslims-film/   http://www.unaoc.org/   September 13, 2012   The provocateurs know politics and religion don"t mix, by Robert Fisk.   So another internet clever-clogs sets the Middle East on fire: Prophet cartoons, then Koranic book-burning, now a video of robed "terrorists" and a fake desert. The Western-Christian perpetrators then go into hiding (an essential requisite for publicity) while the innocent are asphyxiated, beheaded and otherwise done to death – outrageous Muslim revenge thus "proving" the racist claims of the trash peddlers that Islam is a violent religion.   The provocateurs, of course, know that politics and religion don’t mix in the Middle East. They are the same. Christopher Stevens, his diplomat colleagues in Benghazi, priests in Turkey and Africa, UN personnel in Afghanistan; they have all paid the price for those ‘Christian priests’, ‘cartoonists’, ‘film-makers’ and ‘authors’ – the inverted commas are necessary to mark a thin line between illusionists and the real thing – who knowingly choose to provoke 1.6 billion Muslims.   When a Danish cartoon in a hitherto unknown newspaper drew a picture of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb in his turban, the Danish embassy in Beirut went up in flames. When a Texas pastor decided to ‘sentence the Koran to death’, the knives came out in Afghanistan – we are leaving aside the little matter of the ‘accidental’ burning of Koranic pages by US personnel in Bagram. And now a deliberately abusive film provokes the murder of one of the State Department’s fairest diplomats.   In many ways, it’s familiar territory. In fifteenth century Spain, Christian cartoonists drew illustrations of the Prophet committing unspeakable acts. And – just so we don’t think we have clean claws today – when a Paris cinema showed a film in which Christ made love to a woman, the picture-house was burned-down, one cinema-goer was killed, and the killer turned out to be a Christian.   With the help of our wonderful new technology, however, it only needs a couple of loonies to kick off a miniature war in the Muslim world within seconds. I doubt if poor Christopher Stevens – a man who really understood the Arabs as many of his colleagues do not – had ever heard of the ‘film’ that unleashed the storming of the US consulate in Benghazi and his own death. It’s one thing to witlessly claim that the US would go on a “crusade” against al-Qaeda – thank you, George W. Bush – but another to insult, quite deliberately, an entire people. Racism of this kind stirs many a crazed heart.   And has Al-Qaeda – defeated by the Arab revolutionaries who demanded dignity rather than a Bin Laden Caliphate across the Middle East – now decided to cash in on populist grievances to advance their Islamist cause? Libya’s largely impotent government blames the Americans themselves for Stevens’ killing – since the consulate should have been evacuated – and suggests that a Gaddafi clique was behind the attack. This is ridiculous. If the armed militia in Benghazi, calling itself the ‘Islamic Law Supporters’, are more than telephone-gunmen, then al-Qaida involvement has to be suspected.   Ironically, there is room for a serious discussion among Muslims about, for example, a re-interpretation of the Koran; but Western provocation – and western, alas, it is – closes down such a narrative. Meanwhile, we beat our chests in favour of a ‘free press’. A New Zealand editor once proudly told me how his own newspaper had re-published the cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb-filled turban. But when I asked him if he planned to publish a cartoon of a Rabbi with a bomb on his head next time Israel invaded Lebanon, he hastily agreed with me that this would be anti-Semitic.   There’s the rub, of course. Some things are off limits, and rightly so. Others have no limits at all. Several radio presenters asked me yesterday if the unrest in Cairo and Benghazi may have been timed to “coincide with 9/11”. It simply never occurred to them to ask if the video-clip provocateurs had chosen their date-for-release to coincide with 9/11.   * Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper.   13/09/2012   Islamic Scholar Dr Usama Hasan calls for violence over Muhammad Film to Stop, by Paul Vale. (Huffington Post UK)   An Islamic scholar has called for Muslims to "ignore material" offensive or insulting to Islam, in the wake of protests in Cairo, Benghazi and Yemen against a film posted on YouTube.   Blogging for the Huffington Post UK, Dr Usama Hasan, a senior research fellow at the Quilliam Foundation, said: "Instead of ignoring material insulting and offensive to Islam, or forgiving their authors as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would have done, some immature Muslims resort to violence that ends up killing people who had done more than most to actually help Muslims or Muslim-majority countries."   His comments come as demonstrations against the amateur film, spilled into Yemen, Gaza, Tunisia and Tehran, and a day after the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was killed in an attack in Benghazi.   On Thursday thousands of Yemeni protesters, stormed the embassy in the capital Sana"a, while further clashes broke out in Cairo.   The Muslim Council has also issued a call to stop the violence.   "The violence we saw is not in keeping with the teachings of the Prophet, whose honour these people wish to defend. Those who carried out these attacks are in a minority and do not speak for Muslims, or our faith.   "The death of the US ambassador to Libya is a deep tragedy, particularly as the country is taking its first steps towards democratic transition following the overthrow of dictatorship last year.   "Whilst this in no way justifies these attacks, the film-maker responsible for this defamatory video mocking Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, should be ashamed of his actions.   "We urge that such vile actions of a few on both sides must not be allowed to create divisions. Understanding, mutual respect and peaceful dialogue must prevail.   "We hope that others will join us in condemning both the violence in Egypt and Libya, and the irresponsible actions of the film"s producer."   Hasan says that the violence "must stop", and urges Muslims to embrace the "patience, forgiveness and forbearance, as exhorted by numerous verses of the Qur"anic revelation." He adds: "We must surely look forward to, and work towards, the day when the image of Islam is represented by merciful young men and women rather than angry young men, and when believers hold placards at demonstrations saying "Forgive those who insult Islam."   September 2012   "Don"t Overreact" to Anti-Islam Movie say Indonesian Muslim Leaders. (Jakarta Globe)   The Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) on Friday asked Muslims not to be provoked by the anti-Islam movie “Innocence of Muslims,” but at the same time demanded that legal action be taken against the producer.   Amid increasing protests in response to the movie in the Middle East, MUI deputy chairman Amidhan said Muslims should stay cool-headed and advised against conducting rallies to protest it.   “Don’t overreact,” Amidhan said in Jakarta on Friday, as quoted by the Indonesian news portal tempo.co, adding that Muslims should not be affected by the movie.   But he added that the MUI nevertheless condemned the movie and called for legal action to be taken against the producer.   A similar call came from the Islam-based United Development Party (PPP), which asked Muslims not to be provoked by it.   Sep 2012   Nothing justifies violence but neither does intolerance alone explain it, by Ruby Hamad. (ABC Online)   Anger over religious insults alone doesn"t explain the violence in the Arab world, writes Ruby Hamad. The film at the centre of the protests was a hateful attempt to enrage people racked by war.   It is a cliché to say that freedom of speech comes with responsibility. But that does not make it any less apt when it comes to the anti-Islam video, linked to the wave of protests currently sweeping the Arab world.   The storming of the US embassy in Libya, which killed the US ambassador as well as three other officials, was an organised military-style attack that used the protests as a diversion. The US is currently investigating claims the attack was planned to coincide with the anniversary of September 11.   These protests follow a number of similar incidents in the past few years. In February of this year, thousands of Afghans took to the streets following the burning of the Koran by military personnel at the Bagram Air Base. Thirty people died, six of them US soldiers.   This followed protests in April 2011, also in Afghanistan, after American Christian pastor Terry Jones staged a mock trial of the Koran and, finding it guilty, set it alight. Enraged protesters responded by storming the UN compound, killing seven.   There is no doubt that many Muslims take any insult, whether perceived or real, to their religion personally. Incidents such as these fuel the perception that Islam is a violent religion, intent on ending free speech across the globe.   Look closer. There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, yet when Jones set fire to that Koran in Florida, the incident barely raised an eyebrow except in Afghanistan, a country crippled by decades of war, poverty, illiteracy and an American military presence then in its 11th year.   Protesters took to the streets at the urging of their mullahs who warned of "violence and protests not only in Afghanistan but in the entire world". The protests in the rest of the world never materialised.   Likewise, the anger over the Koran burning in Bagram was contained to Afghanistan, and, while real, it was not limited to the incident itself. Those protests occurred not long after an air strike on civilians killed eight young Afghans and US marines were photographed urinating on the dead bodies of Afghan fighters. As one protester told The New York Times, "This is not just about dishonouring the Koran, it is about disrespecting our dead and killing our children".   Anger over religious insults alone, while enough to provoke some Muslims, is not enough to fuel the level of violent protests seen in either Afghanistan or Libya.   Like their Afghan counterparts, Libyan crowds were exploited by angry mullahs, said to have ties with Salafist groups unhappy with the direction of the country following the fall of Moamar Gaddafi. That violence is not inherent in all Muslims should be obvious from the number who have since come out to disavow the violence.   At the time of writing, it is unknown whether the protests were planned by those who attacked the embassy. The film has only recently been dubbed into Arabic and promoted on Arabic channels, indicating someone was deliberately trying to provoke an angry mob.   Which brings us to the intentions of the filmmakers themselves. Let"s be clear: despite hiding under the banner of "free speech", this film is not a legitimate criticism of Islam. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a hateful provocation aimed at inciting violence in order to show the world what a violent religion Islam is.   When I first attempted to watch the "trailer", I found it to be an unwatchable shambles with bad acting, unintelligible dialogue, and amateurish sound recording.   Sections of dialogue have been dubbed over entirely, including all the references to "Mohammed", apparently to conceal the contents from the cast themselves.   CNN reports that the cast have issued a statement disavowing the film, claiming they had no idea they were hired to propagate anti-Islam propaganda.   Take a moment to absorb that information. The producers of the film, intent on enraging Muslims, hired actors without informing them exactly what they were participating in.   And just who are the producers? Originally thought to be one Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American living in California, that name is now known to be fake, and US law enforcement has just named Nakoula Bassely, a convicted criminal as the man behind it all. Astute enough to attempt conceal his own identity, Bassely was more than willing to place his cast and crew in danger.   Outrageous does not even begin to describe these actions. That is not to say that there is no room for criticism of Islam. I myself have publically questioned aspects of the religion I was raised in.   But there is a difference between reasoned criticism and the racist buffoonery of this video, which appeals to the lowest common denominator by portraying Mohammed in such an offensive way.   Bassely has betrayed his own cast in order to deliberately enrage a region of the world so racked by war, poverty and oppression that many people feel they have nothing left but religion. And when that is desecrated, what do you have to lose by taking to the streets? Nothing justifies violence but neither does intolerance alone explain it.   * Ruby Hamad is a writer and filmmaker. Below is a link to the Anna Lindh Foundation, a forum promoting dialogue among people of different cultures and beliefs: http://www.euromedalex.org/trends/digest/edition/2012-edition-8-october   * Between Free Speech and Hate Speech: The Rabat Plan of Action, a practical tool to combat incitement, from the UN Human Rights Office:   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/TheRabatPlanofAction.aspx Visit the related web page
	We still miss you. We have not forgotten by New York Times USA   September 11, 2012   This time, there were no presidents reading psalms, no sounds of cello echoing across the plaza, no national outpouring of decade-later reflections.   This time, the faces on the stage were almost all those of the 200 readers listing the dead, one by one, the names of cousins, brothers, mothers and husbands sounding for almost four hours over the twin reflecting pools that stand where the towers fell 11 years ago.   Other elements of the annual Sept. 11 ceremony at ground zero remained the same: a chorus of children’s voices, six moments of silence to mark the impact of planes crashing and buildings hitting the ground.   At the World Trade Center on Tuesday morning, the readers reminded the assembled crowd of relatives, friends, police officers, firefighters and politicians that even if the rest of the country seemed ready to move on, their grief, at least on this day, was still vivid.   Politicians did attend, although none spoke, under rules that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg imposed for the ceremony this year.   Some victims’ relatives, like Angela Pesce, whose son Danny Pesce died on Sept. 11, said they were glad the politicians had been excluded this year. Others said it did not matter.   “To me, it’s not a good or bad feeling,” said Michael Lira, whose brother, Kenneth Lira, worked as a network engineer in the World Trade Center. “I’m going to come here to remember my brother anyway.”   The anniversary of the attacks led to a brief halt in the presidential campaign.   President Obama said, “No matter how many years pass, no matter how many times we come together, know this — that you will never be alone,” Mr. Obama told relatives of the victims of the attacks. “Your loved ones will never be forgotten. They will endure in the hearts of our nation.”   At ground zero, the absence of readings, prayers, speeches or anything but music, bells and names from the program meant the ceremony was dominated by personal tributes from relatives to their dead.   The names varied, but the messages were nearly all the same, repeated by children who never knew their fathers, and wives who lost their husbands, until they became a kind of refrain within the long list of the dead.   When Angelina Jimenez read her mother’s name, adding a personal message in Spanish, her cracked, wavering voice made her meaning clear, even if not all could understand the words.   It was the same as all the others: We still love you. We still miss you. We have not forgotten. Visit the related web page
	View more stories