Are Muslims Barbaric and Violent as the Media portrays?
And Again….Where To Draw The Line?
Please be sincere and honest to yourself first… you will never uncover the oppression and lies of the media against Islam and the Muslims unless you keep aside the preconceived notions about Islam that you have been spoon fed for several decades through the Media..
I know very well that most of you hate Muslims and Islam from the depths of your hearts.We dont blame you for that!
We, as Muslims are partially to take the blame for our horrible behavior and unworthy character that many of us have portrayed to you…The other half of the blame goes to the Media (ABC,BBC,CNN,Al Jazeera ,etc) on how they portray us to fulfill their well sponsored Agenda.
If you are sincere in clearing the dust off your eyes about Islam and Muslims, please do not judge Islam by the actions of the Muslims.
Muslims, by definition, are a group of human beings who are mostly born to parents who are Muslims or have Muslim names. They don’t necessarily represent the teachings of Islam.
In every community, there are Black Sheeps. But the Media, takes the Black Sheeps among the Muslims, portrays them in big screens and says to you – ” Look! This is how All Muslims are!”
So if you want to clear off the dust and look at Islam as it sincerely is..please read the Quran ( Islamic scripture). If you can, please get a copy of the Quran with translation of whichever language you speak best, at any authentic Islamic book stores around your place or ask your Muslim friend for a copy. If you are unable to get one, then please visit any authentic Islamic websites which includes –
The take home message of this article is to neither trust the Murdoch’s Media Circus (Main Stream Media -ABC,BBC,CNN,Fox News, Aljazeera,etc) nor the alternative media outlets (RT, Presstv, etc) . Each media agency has an agenda of their own. They will manufacture horrible lies, twist the facts and deceive the masses to reach their well funded objectives.
But surely the alternative media is an inch more trustworthy than the Zionist Media Circus.
Surely, with no exaggeration, the worst media corporation is the Murdoch Corporate Media Circus (Main Stream Media – ABC, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Aljazeera, etc) whose lies and deceptive propaganda are so blatant and obvious much of the time. They will do utmost anything to convince the blind and deaf masses of the manufactured and deceptive lies. They will make the oppressors looks like the victims and the victims as the oppressors.
Their News presenters have Phd’s in deception and they know very well how to fool the masses with the alteration of their voice, tone, language, facial expressions, etc according to the situations.
The Main Stream Media have played a major role in the last few decades in promoting wars all over the world by using phony logos e.g.
War Against Terror, In the name of Democracy, in the name of Freedom, fighting fundementalists, terrorists, islamists, etc
Thus Islam and the Muslims have become the victims of their horrible and deceptive propaganda.
Additionally they acted as the major assets of the western military industrial complex, the security firms, petroleum corporations etc thus making billions of dollars worth of profits.
I implore the viewers to stop blindly following these ruthless media outlets and seek authentic knowledge through the authentic sources. If you are unable to confirm the claims, do have patience until things get clearer and do not jump to hasty conclusions that you may regret afterwards.
O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of regret for what ye have done. (Qur’an 49:6)
The BBC World Service is being financially outgunned by Russian and Chinese state-owned news channels, its former director Peter Horrocks has warned, amid high-level concerns that Britain and the US are losing a global “information war” with the Kremlin.
Horrocks said ministers should review Britain’s spending overseas and consider freeing up extra World Service funding to combat the wave of Moscow-backed propaganda sweeping Europe.
“Medium to long term there has to be an anxiety about the spending of others compared to what the BBC are putting into it,” Horrocks said. “You can take a view of the overall national interest and things we spend on international influence, like military spending. When you look at that it would take it in a certain direction.”
International alarm over the rise of Kremlin-funded news, led by 24-hour news channel Russia Today, has intensified following Vladimir Putin’s military intervention in Ukraine and his feud with the west.
David Cameron told MPs he had raised with President Obama his concern about Russian news channels “pumping out a distorted picture” of events in Ukraine after the issue was raised by leaders in the Baltic states at the G20 summit in Australia.
Horrocks, who stepped down earlier this month as the executive in charge of the BBC’s global news operations, said the corporation had asked the Foreign Office (FCO) “whether there’s anything they want to do with development funding for extra programming for Ukraine” but he had not yet had a reply.
FCO funding for the World Service stopped in April, with the £245m annual budget now coming out of the licence fee. Despite this shift, Horrocks said “considering supplementary funding [from the FCO] is something that could be on the policy agenda and could be part of the discussion about the BBC’s future”.
He added: “We are being financially outgunned by Russia and the Chinese but there’s no way we’re being outgunned on the results [global audience]. The role we need to play is an even handed one. We shouldn’t be pro-one side or the other, we need to provide something people can trust.”
Demand for BBC World Service output has soared since the Ukraine-Russia crisis began. The corporation’s Russian-language service has more than doubled to 6.9 million listeners, while in Ukraine its audience has trebled to more than 600,000 since last year.
Globally the BBC’s news operation appears to be healthy – reaching a record 265 million people a week, including the World Service’s 191.4 million audience – in spite of a raft of service closures and cuts since 2010.
As the World Service has pared back, Russia Today has expanded spectacularly. The network, which broadcasts a pro-Kremlin interpretation of world events in English, Spanish, Arabic and Russian, launched a UK-focused channel based in Millbank, central London, recently and plans to launch German and French channels next year.
Putin will next year increase its global budget by 40% to 15.38bn roubles (£183m), up from 11.87bn roubles this year. The channel boasts of a worldwide reach of 700 million – while never disclosing the actual size of its audience – after expanding its Spanish service across South America.
At the same time, state funding has been ramped up for Rossiya Segodnya, a global news agency built on the remains of the liquidated RIA Novosti. Earlier this month Rossiya Segodnya launched Sputnik, an English-language online and radio service to replace Voice of Russia. Its TV news anchor is Dmitry Kiselev, described as Russia’s chief propagandist with a record of attacking homosexuals, who said the project was aimed at a global audience “tired of aggressive propaganda promoting a unipolar world (zionist media circus) and who want a different perspective”.
John Whittingdale, chair of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, said: ” We are being outgunned massively by the Russians and Chinese and that’s something I’ve raised with the BBC. It is frightening the extent to which we are losing the information war.”
Whittingdale said he would seek assurances from BBC News director James Harding about protecting the World Service as a counterweight to Russia Today. “The clear commitment that has been given by Russia and China [to expand state-run news channels in Europe] strengthens the case why we should be backing the World Service,” he said.
Senior BBC executives say privately that the World Service gives the corporation a strong card to play in the upcoming royal charter renewal talks. They sense growing unease among Tory MPs about the future of the licence fee, but know that many of them are passionate supporters of the World Service as a measure of Britain’s influence overseas.
“On a global scale the BBC are concerned because they are being outspent by the Russians and Chinese on a spectacular scale,” said Professor Stewart Purvis, the former ITN chief executive. “It’s the soft power war that’s replaced the cold war. The Russian and Chinese channels are clearly proxies for their governments and Britain is being vastly outspent.”
Sir Tony Brenton, Britain’s former ambassador to Moscow, said the boom in pro-Kremlin propaganda in Europe reflected the insecure mindset of the Russian government. While he did not see the rise of Russia Today as a threat, Brenton warned that any further cuts to the World Service would harm Britain’s influence on the global stage. “If you want a world that is just, you need a world where facts are given the maximum possible currency,” he said. “If I had money to spend on boosting Britain’s influence around the world then the World Service is one of the first places I would put it.”
Richard Sambrook, the director of Cardiff school of journalism and former head of BBC global news, said the World Service had “a fraction of the budget” of Chinese and Russian state-run outlets but nevertheless remains influential in world news. “Russia Today’s expansion is part of a big investment in soft power. A lot of the eastern states have made bit investments in international broadcasting and that’s their attempt to influence western audiences in the same way the BBC have in the past tried to do that,” he said. “What they’re saying is they are offering a different perspective – the problem is that’s quite often fictional.”
Last month Russia Today’s UK channel was threatened with statutory sanctions by Ofcom after breaching the broadcasting code on due impartiality over its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. The channel was censured over four reports, including one featuring a pundit, Mark Sleboda, who described the Kiev regime as a “putsch government” that came to power with the help of violent mobs which included “a number of extremists”.
It is the 10th breach of Ofcom’s code in nine years and there are six investigations ongoing, but some close to the regulator believe Russia Today is spoiling for a fight and would relish being fined or even taken off air by the UK. “Ofcom is right to investigate and impose penalties if breaches have occured,” said Whittingdale. “Where we need to be careful is not to give a propaganda weapon to the Russians. There is nothing Russia would like more than to be able to say the west is censoring us.”
In London, Russia Today has been on a 12-month recruitment drive in preparation for its UK launch. Many who apply for jobs there are young, enthusiastic journalists lured by the prospect of apparently limitless resources. Sara Firth, a former London-based correspondent who resigned in July in protest at its coverage of the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, said presenters’ salaries were “astronomical” and the average monthly take home pay for middle-ranking staff was around £4,300 after tax [see footnote]. In December, all London staff are rewarded with double pay in an initiative known internally as “the 13th month”. “There’s money everywhere,” Firth said. “It’s not the nice side of things but the reason people stay so long is that the money is limitless. It’s frustrating because it’s a huge organisation with all those resources and all this money and all those people who want to do great stories [but], when it comes down to it, the heart of Russia Today is not journalism, it’s the propaganda.”
Firth said there were daily internal battles in London about what could be aired, with routine material like pitches and scripts having to be signed off by top-level officials in Moscow. “I wouldn’t consider myself a propagandist but at the end of it the reality was that I was working for Putin. I was being used as a tool and that was to get out the Kremlin line.”
American anchor Liz Wahl, whose on-air resignation as Russia Today’s Washington correspondent in March has been viewed millions of times on YouTube, said executives conceded that it would never have a following to match CNN or Fox News, but that “it doesn’t necessarily matter how many people are watching – the focus, instead, is on getting the message out”. “When you first start working there, the managers say the goal of the station is to cover stories the mainstream media ignores and to provide alternative news with a different perspective than traditional media outlets. That sounds like a noble mission right? Well, what they don’t tell you up front is that that’s not the primary goal,” said Wahl.
“After a while working for RT, you learn what stories management likes and how to tackle stories in a manner that the bosses find favourable. You come to learn that these stories must conform to a basic principle: make the US and the west look bad. In doing so, you make Russia look better by comparison.”
Russia Today declined the Guardian’s request for an interview and said it was “not possible” to answer questions about its ambitions.
The Ottoman Empire showed great toleration and acceptance of non-Muslim communities in their empire. This is based on existing Islamic laws regarding the status of non-Muslims. They are protected, given religious freedoms, and free from persecution according to the Shariah. One of the first precedents of this was the Treaty of Umar ibn al-Khattab, in which he guaranteed the Christians of Jerusalem total religious freedom and safety.
The Millet System
The first instance of the Ottomans having to rule a large number of Christians was after the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II in 1453. Constantinople had historically been the center of the Orthodox Christian world, and still had a large Christian population. As the empire grew into Europe, more and more non-Muslims came under Ottoman authority. For example, in the 1530s, over 80% of the population in Ottoman Europe was not Muslim. In order to deal with these new Ottoman subjects, Mehmed instituted a new system, later called the millet system.
This portrait of Mehmed II was painted by an Italian Christian, Gentile Bellini
Under this system, each religious group was organized into a millet. Millet comes from the Arabic word for “nation”, indicating that the Ottomans considered themselves the protectors of multiple nations. Each religious group was considered its own millet, with multiple millets existing in the empire. For example, all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire were considered as constituting a millet, while all Jews constituted another millet.
Each millet was allowed to elect its own religious figure to lead them. In the case of the Orthodox Church (the biggest Church in the Ottoman Empire), the Orthodox Patriarch (the Archbishop of Constantinople) was the elected leader of the millet. The leaders of the millets were allowed to enforce their own religion’s rules on their people. Islamic law (Shariah) had no jurisdiction over non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.
In cases of crime, people would be punished according to the rules of their own religion, not Islamic rules or rules of other religions. For example, if a Christian were to steal, he would be punished according to the Christian laws regarding theft. If a Jew were to steal, he were to be punished according to Jewish laws, etc. The only time Islamic law would come into account was if the criminal was a Muslim, or when there was a case involving two people from different millets. In that case, a Muslim judge was to preside over the case and judge according to his best judgement and common law.
In addition to religious law, millets were given freedom to use their own language, develop their own institutions (churches, schools, etc), and collect taxes. The Ottoman sultan only exercised control over the millets through their leaders. The millet leaders ultimately reported to the sultan, and if there was a problem with a millet, the sultan would consult that millet leader. Theoretically, the Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire also constituted a millet, with the Ottoman sultan as the millet leader.
The Ottoman Empire lasted from 1300 to 1922. Throughout most of this history, the millet system provided a system of religious harmony and belonging throughout the empire. As the empire expanded, more millets were organized. Separate millets existed for Armenian, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians, for example, with each sect being divided further into more specific regional churches.
These imperial decrees by the Ottoman sultans Mehmed II and Bayezid II granted the Greek community ownership of the church. The decrees and church remain in Istanbul today.
The millet system did not last until the end of the Ottoman Empire. As the empire weakened in the 1700s and 1800s, European intervention in the empire expanded. When the liberal Tanzimat were passed in the 1800s, the millet system was abolished, in favor of a more European-style secularist government. The Ottomans were forced to guarantee vague “rights” to religious minorities, which in fact limited their freedoms. Instead of being allowed to rule themselves according to their own rules, all religious groups were forced to follow the same set of secular laws. This actually ended up causing more religious tension in the empire, which was one of the causes of the genocide of the Armenians during World War One in the Ottoman Empire’s dying days.
The millet system was a unique and creative solution to running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire. The rights and freedoms it gave to religious minorities were far ahead of their time. While Europe struggled with religious persecution into the 1900s, the Ottomans created a harmonious and stable religious pluralistic system that guaranteed religious freedom for hundreds of years.
So please do NOT blindly believe the islamophobic media oulets, individuals, etc. do your own sincere research about Islam and its factual history that has been intentionally hidden from mainstream media outlets…
Itzkowitz, Norman. Ottoman Empire And Islamic Tradition. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1981. Print.
Ochsenwald, William, and Sydney Fisher. The Middle East: A History. 6th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
By the ninth century, Islamic medical practice had advanced from talisman and theology to hospitals with wards, doctors who had to pass tests, and the use of technical terminology.
In the words of Campbell “The European medical system is Arabian not only in origin but also in its structure. The Arabs are the intellectual forebears of the Europeans.”
Abu al-Qasim Khalaf Ibn Abbas al-Zahrawi (930-1013 CE)
known to the west as Abulcasis, Bucasis, is considered to be the most famous surgeon in Islamic medicine.
In his book Al-Tasrif, he described hemophilia for the first time in medical history.
The book contains the description and illustration of about 200 surgical instruments, many of which devised by Zahrawi himself.In it Zahrawi stresses the importance of the study of Anatomy as a fundamental prerequisite to surgery.
He advocated the reimplantation of a fallen tooth and the use of dental prosthesis carved from cow’s bone, and improvement over the wooden dentures worn by the first President of America, George Washington, seven centuries later.
Zahrawi appears to be the first surgeon in history to sue cotton in surgical dressings in the control of hemorrhage, as padding in the splinting of fractures, as a vaginal padding in fractures of the pubic, and in dentistry.
He introduced the method for the removal of kidney stones by cutting into the urinary bladder.
He was the first to teach the lithotomy position for vaginal operations.
He described tracheotomy, distinguished between goiter and cancer of the thyroid, and the invention of a cauterizing iron, which he also used to control bleeding.
His description of varicose veins stripping, even after ten centuries, is almost like modern surgery.
In orthopedic surgery he introduced what is called today Kocher’s method of reduction of shoulder dislocation and patelectomy. 1,000 years before Brook reintroduced it in 1937 .
Attributed to be the first to use the Seton in surgery and animal gut for sutures.
He was the first to use silk sutures and alcohol for hemostasis.
He was the first to use alcohol as an antiseptic (2).
Dr Ibn Sina
Originated the idea of the use of oral anesthetics.
The Arabs invented the soporific sponge, which was the precursor of modern anesthesia. It was a sponge soaked with aromatics and narcotics and held to the patient’s nostrils.
The use of anesthesia was one of the reasons for the rise of surgery in the Islamic world to the level of an honorable specialty, while in Europe, the Council of Tours in 1163 CE declared “Surgery is to be abandoned by the schools of medicine and by all decent physicians.” . Burton stated that “anesthetics have been used in surgery throughout the Muslim world for centuries before ether and chloroform became the fashion in civilized west..”
Ibn Sina’s description of the surgical treatment of cancer holds true even today after 1,000 years. He says the excision must be wide and bold; all veins running to the tumor must be included in the amputation. Even if this is not sufficient, then the area affected should be cauterized .
His recommendation of wine as the best dressing for wounds was very popular in medieval times.
They freely opened the abdomen and drained the peritoneal cavity in the approved modern style(laparotomy).
To an unnamed surgeon of Shiraz is attributed the first colostomy operation.
Liver abscesses were treated by puncture and exploration.
The surgeons of Islam practiced mainly three types of surgery; vascular, general, and orthopedic. Ophthalmic surgery was a specialty, which was quite distinct both from medicine and surgery.
Surgeons all over the world practice today unknowingly several surgical procedures that Zahrawi introduced 1,000 years ago.
Abbas ibn Firnas was the first person to make a real attempt to construct a flying machine and fly. In the 9th century he designed a winged apparatus, roughly resembling a bird costume. His designs would undoubtedly have been an inspiration for famed Italian artist and inventor Leonardo da Vinci’s hundreds of years later.
8) The crank
Many of the basics of modern automatics were first put to use in the Muslim world, including the revolutionary crank-connecting rod system. By converting rotary motion to linear motion, the crank enables the lifting of heavy objects with relative ease. This technology, discovered by Al-Jazari in the 12th century, exploded across the globe, leading to everything from the bicycle to the internal combustion engine.
Distillation, the means of separating liquids through differences in their boiling points, was invented around the year 800 by Islam’s foremost scientist, Jabir ibn Hayyan, who transformed alchemy into chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and apparatus still in use today – liquefaction, crystallisation, distillation, purification, oxidisation, evaporation and filtration. As well as discovering sulphuric and nitric acid, he invented the alembic still, giving the world intense rosewater and other perfumes and alcoholic spirits. Ibn Hayyan emphasised systematic experimentation and was the founder of modern chemistry.
The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph and was used to grind corn and draw up water for irrigation.In the vast deserts of Arabia, when the seasonal streams ran dry, the only source of power was the wind which blew steadily from one direction for months. Mills had six or 12 sails covered in fabric or palm leaves. It was 500 years before the first windmill was seen in Europe.