A comment underneath the Loon Watch update on Hamza Kashgari who was released today, apportions the major share of the blame onto the 'unelected government' of Saudi Arabia for his plight. The commenter had responded to another reader criticising the religious extremism emanating from the Kingdom and appears to be lending support to Loon Watch's feeble attempts to exonerate the people, culture and religion of any blame for Hamza Kashgari's plight and instead encourage criticism of the 'western backed' Al Sauds. This is a common tactic that Loon Watch writers employ in a pathetic attempt to obfuscate the immense influence problematic Islamic texts from Saudi Arabia wield not only upon their own citizens but the faithful ummah around the world. Constantly re-iterating that Arab and Muslim regimes are 'western-backed' is meant to appeal to their Anti-West, Anti Israel and Anti-Semitic readership's sense of victimisation and is a well used stick to beat anyone who dares to question their claims of 'Islamophobia' or link Islamic terrorism to the Quran and Shariah.
As tempting as it is to blame the corrupt, dictatorial Saudi regime - notorious for it's lack of human rights - it is too simplistic to assume that an absolute monarchy no matter how corrupt would not act in accordance with public will, even if only for fear of it's own survival. The question here is did the Saudi regime go against what their people wanted? What if any part in Hamza Kashgari's plight did the ordinary Saudi and/or the religious establishment play? Were they innocent bystanders to the 'western-backed regime?' Or did they support, maybe even compel the regime to act against Kashgari?
Electronic Frontier Foundation reported in Feb 2012:
Meanwhile, Ahmed a popular Saudi blogger who had been following Kashgari's case, offered this revealing account on his blog Saudi Jeans:
Very often when reports of terrorism and Islamic extremism from Saudi Arabia or any Arab/ Muslim regime eventually reaches the mainstream media, there is a simultaneous effort by their apologists and sympathisers to beam the spotlight onto sensationally reported salacious excesses of the conveniently 'western- backed' ruling regime. This is then followed by a compulsive rush to blame the regime for whatever the latest act of terrorism/extremism is regardless of whether or not it has popular appeal. After all, absolute monarchies and dictatorships controlling and often abusing the immense oil wealth of their nation states are not going to elicit much sympathy or applaud, even for any commendable act that may grudgingly be acknowledged. Be that as it may, it should not be a reason to downplay the fact that the regime may have been forced to act because of public pressure as appears to be the case here. Not least because it provides an opportunity for those with an agenda to deflect the blame away from the religious element and onto the western support enjoyed by the Saudi regime.
In response to a scathing comment about Saudi society the Loon Watch writer of the piece dismissed the critic as being a 'gawking western hypocrite' in one comment which she later deleted and in another one responded:
Therefore Ilisha, 'gawking western hypocrites' do indeed have every right to see what 'images of Islam' are being projected from Saudi Arabia whether that country considers it to be it's 'job' or not!
As tempting as it is to blame the corrupt, dictatorial Saudi regime - notorious for it's lack of human rights - it is too simplistic to assume that an absolute monarchy no matter how corrupt would not act in accordance with public will, even if only for fear of it's own survival. The question here is did the Saudi regime go against what their people wanted? What if any part in Hamza Kashgari's plight did the ordinary Saudi and/or the religious establishment play? Were they innocent bystanders to the 'western-backed regime?' Or did they support, maybe even compel the regime to act against Kashgari?
Electronic Frontier Foundation reported in Feb 2012:
Saudi Journalist Faces Threats from Militants
Earlier this month, EFF called for the protection of Saudi blogger and journalist Hamza Kashgari, who had fled Saudi Arabia after tweets he wrote about the Prophet Mohammed provoked clerics to demand that he be tried for apostasy, and members of the public to call for his murder.
Even if Kashgari is not charged with apostasy, a crime with carries the death penalty, the blogger and journalist continues to face threats to his life from Saudi militants. A Facebook page titled “The Saudi people want the execution of Hamza Kashgari,” has over 26,000 members. It is not enough for the Saudi government to release Kashgari—they must allow him to leave the country for his own safety.
Meanwhile, Ahmed a popular Saudi blogger who had been following Kashgari's case, offered this revealing account on his blog Saudi Jeans:
Saudi Writer Hamza Kashgari Flees Country After Controversy on Twitter
Saudi users on Twitter erupted with outrage, posting nearly 30,000 tweets on the topic in less than 24 hours. Many people believed that he insulted the Prophet by addressing him and speaking about him like that. They accused Kashgari of blasphemy, atheism and apostasy. Many said he must be punished and some said he should be killed. Others even went as far as threatening to kill him or offer money for his head.
The outcry resulted in a full U-turn by Kashgary, who deleted the controversial tweets and published an apology saying he has sinned and that he has now repented. He explained that what he wrote earlier was “feelings I erred in describing and writing, and that I ask God for forgiveness, but they don’t really represent my belief in the Prophet.”
The apology was not enough for many people, especially the religious conservatives who demanded that Kashgari be tried in a Sharia court. One of these people is a cleric named Nasser al-Omar, who appeared in a YouTube video weeping because he said he could not bear to see the Prophet insulted.
Al-Omar and others insist that even if Kashgari has repented he should still be sentenced for apostasy, effectively calling for his death by sword. Al-Omar called on his followers to send telegraphs to the King, Crown Prince and the Grand Mufti to punish Kashgari.
Very often when reports of terrorism and Islamic extremism from Saudi Arabia or any Arab/ Muslim regime eventually reaches the mainstream media, there is a simultaneous effort by their apologists and sympathisers to beam the spotlight onto sensationally reported salacious excesses of the conveniently 'western- backed' ruling regime. This is then followed by a compulsive rush to blame the regime for whatever the latest act of terrorism/extremism is regardless of whether or not it has popular appeal. After all, absolute monarchies and dictatorships controlling and often abusing the immense oil wealth of their nation states are not going to elicit much sympathy or applaud, even for any commendable act that may grudgingly be acknowledged. Be that as it may, it should not be a reason to downplay the fact that the regime may have been forced to act because of public pressure as appears to be the case here. Not least because it provides an opportunity for those with an agenda to deflect the blame away from the religious element and onto the western support enjoyed by the Saudi regime.
In response to a scathing comment about Saudi society the Loon Watch writer of the piece dismissed the critic as being a 'gawking western hypocrite' in one comment which she later deleted and in another one responded:
Except that western support does not demand that the Saudi regime practice religious discrimination or carry out cruel medieval punishments including death for apostasy, nor does it sanction the litany of human rights abuses too numerous to mention. The OIC, which has revived it's decades long goal of seeking an international defamation law designed to stifle criticism of Islam, spends an inordinate amount of time lobbying Western governments and the UN for 'tolerance'. The irony of calls for 'tolerance and understanding' from the OIC whilst being based in Saudi Arabia - that beacon of enlightenment - are not lost on even the casual observer.
Therefore Ilisha, 'gawking western hypocrites' do indeed have every right to see what 'images of Islam' are being projected from Saudi Arabia whether that country considers it to be it's 'job' or not!
