The annotated version of the above article, linked to earlier (20 July).
My comments indented.
ADEEL MALIK LETTER:
In her letter ("Why Muslims must speak out against attacks", July 11) Marian Schneps says, "Muslims bear the brunt of terror in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, not in France, Britain or America", but conveniently leaves out important facts.
The terror visited upon Muslims in the Middle East is a result of the mismanaged and illegal invasion of Iraq, jointly led by Britain and America, a war that spawned Islamic State (IS).
The invasion was certainly stupid. Rather as if the US, after the attack on Pearl Harbour, had invaded Mexico. "Illegal"? That's questionable. "Spawned Islamic State"? Saddam Hussein was already working in an ISIS precursor, the Faith Brigades.
And the very fact that chaos ensued after the allied invasion of Iraq shows up the sectarianism of these groups who's religiously-based hate of each other had only been kept in check by brutal dictatorships.
Also, all three countries cited above have for decades sold weapons to dictators in the Middle East, including Bashar al-Assad, who will probably have a stronger grip on power with the impending collapse of IS.
Support dictators and keep the peace? Or overthrow dictators and create chaos? US can't win!
What citizens in the West (including Muslims citizens there) are currently dealing with are sparks from the bonfire the West is no doubt responsible for igniting.
No it's not. The so-called Arab Spring was sparked by a Tunisian stall holder self immolation in protest at overbearing government.
Meanwhile, in France, Britain and America , where Ms. Schneps claims Muslim citizens "do not bear the brunt of terror", Muslims have to live with this terrifying fear.
What "terrifying fear" do Muslims have to live with in the West? Governments, liberal media and Left of centre Islam apologists regularly speak out for the rights of Muslims. The speak out against Islamophobia (which would be better themed "anti Muslim bigotry, for the term "Islamophobia" is used by islamists to silence valid criticism of the tenets, the ideas, of Islam). Given the rash of terrorist incidents in recent years in the name of Islam, its the tolerance of Europe and the west, not its bigotry that's on display.
The Muslim headscarf acts as a lightning rod for attacking Muslim women, and well over 1,000 mosques across the West have experienced at least one incident of vandalism. These have included – Molotov cocktails and small explosive devices being thrown within the mosque's compound; arson attacks resulting in mosques being burned to the ground; and armed demonstrators picketing mosques as well as threatening letters and phone calls. There have also been threats of violence against Muslims in the West, who are loyal citizens of the countries where they live. These attacks have happened – according to statistics compiled by Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) and other civil rights groups – due to unabated one-sided rhetoric exacerbating Islamophobia.
Some attacks on mosques have been by Muslims aiming to blame them on "Islamophobia".
TellMAMA got its funding from the U.K. Government stopped because it was exaggerating attacks by including nasty words on Twitter. *Everyone* gets attacked on Twitter! Attacks on hijabis are not on. But neither is the fetishising of the hijab.
"Islamophobia" is a bogus term coined by islamists to stop even valid criticism of the *idea* of Islam.
Your correspondent points out there is a "distinct trend of terror committed in the name of Islam in countries that are majority Christian". However, she overlooks how the key proponents in the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and in the war on terror are the US, Britain and France. They are also the primary supply source of weapons for the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. The US, Britain and France are predominantly Christian countries.
Therefore, it would be dishonest to claim this is a war between Islam and Christianity. Instead, it is very much about dirty politics and power, with religion used as a front.
This is false moral equivalence. There is a difference between armed forces trying to avoid civilian casualties while going after the perpetrators of violence who specifically aim at civilians.
Adeel Malik, chairman, Muslim Council of Hong Kong
LATER: And then, letter from Marian Schneps, Wanchai:
LATER: And then, letter from Marian Schneps, Wanchai:
