The Evil of Selective Information
The printing press and electronic communications have ushered in a new age which has generally come to be called the age of information. But the question arises: why is it that the age of communication has brought along with it the age of hatred?
It is evident that people of almost every group, with the exception of the scientific community, have nothing but hatred for each other. The reason for this is the selective information placed in the public domain by writers and speakers. Every group, according to its interests, gives out only selective information for one reason or the other. That is, its reporting about the group which it considers its rival is one-sided. Human rights activists, social reformers, political leaders, media reporters, professional writers, and so on—almost all are, more or less, engaged in this practice.
One-sided reporting of this kind has made certain groups unsympathetic towards certain other groups. Under normal circumstances, this feeling lies dormant. But, it all too often flares up and takes on the form of violence and terrorism. The present-day terrorism is certainly a result of this phenomenon.
In the practice of one-sided reporting, the Muslim community is involved to a much greater extent than other communities are. Two examples illustrate this point. The first is of a book authored by the Syrian Muslim scholar Shaykh Abd ar-Rahman Hasan Habannaka al-Maydani. He has compiled several books in the Arabic language with the title, Silsilah Aʿdaa al-Islam (Series on the Enemies of Islam, 2000). The title of one book in this series is Ajniha al-Makar ath-Thalatha wa Khawafiha (The Three Wings of Conspiracy and their Secondary Feathers). In this book he mentions three anti-Muslim conspiracies at work to destroy Islam and Muslims. According to the author, these three conspiracies are: the Christian Mission (at-tabshir), Orientalism (al-istishraq) and Colonialism (al-istiʿmar).
However, this kind of labelling is completely unjustified for those targeted by this author are not conspirators. Their activities are purely representative of the concerned groups’ point of view. Each group has its point of view just as Muslims have their point of view. The above kind of labelling is the result of a lack of objectivity in viewing these factors and typifying them in a selective manner. If others also look at Muslims’ activities in a selective manner, then they too would think that Muslims were involved in conspiracy. For example, a survey reported by the media said that Islam was the fastest growing religion in the UK.1 If taken in a selective way, others would tend to think that Muslims were involved in a conspiracy to Islamize Britain. But if this trend is explained in terms of people’s exercising their freedom of choice, it will appear to be a normal development.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, certain historical developments took place, chief among them being Zionism, colonialism, communism and American expansionism. Muslims wrongly supposed that these were anti-Islam. Due to this wrong supposition, they started fighting against these forces and, to justify their actions they related them to Islam, declaring that Islam was in danger. But this was not true. Muslims should not have taken these changes as anti-Islam. They should have taken them as normal phenomena. It is a wrong supposition on the part of the Muslims that has created the problem.
If Muslims are free to engage in their activities, then they must allow others, too, to enjoy the same freedom. If Muslims give the title of conspirators to others, then they shall also have to give others the right to regard them as such. If Muslims have some reservations, they have the right to make a rational analysis of others’ statements, but they do not have the right to label others as conspirators. Doing the latter is little better than resorting to abusive language.
It is not possible to change these writers’ and speakers’ proclivities. However, we can educate people so that they do not become provoked but ignore such events and reports, and refrain from allowing their thinking to be adversely affected.
This was an example from the medium of the printing press. Now, consider an example which was reported extensively both in print and the electronic media. A Muslim chaplain, Tahera Ahmad, of Chicago’s Northwestern University was on board a United Airlines flight on May 30, 2015. During the flight she asked for an unopened can of soda and says she was told, ‘Well, I’m sorry. I just can’t give you an unopened can, so no Diet Coke for you.’ When the man next to her got an unopened beer can from the in-flight service, Ahmad said she was told by the flight attendant: ‘We are unauthorized to give unopened cans to people, because they may use it as a weapon on the plane.’ On her Facebook page, Ahmad claimed this flight attendant was “discriminating against me.” She used the hashtag Islamophobia is real for the post. Muslim activists then took to the social media to brand the alleged incident as an inexcusable act of bigotry and said they would boycott United Airlines, basing their decision on what they interpreted as open discrimination.
This incident is so trivial that it was almost a non-event, but posted as it was on Facebook by the above Muslim passenger, it became sensational news for the media, and was reported on a large scale. It is such reporting which appears in the media almost on a daily basis, which has developed hatred among Muslims for other communities, especially those of the West.
This kind of selective reporting is the greatest problem of the present times, in that it has spread negative thinking across the world. The Muslim authors and reporters who spread such news have become trendsetters for Muslims. These trendsetters are the ones who are responsible for the Muslims’ present state.
It is not possible to change these writers’ and speakers’ proclivities. However, we can educate people so that they do not become provoked but ignore such events and reports, and refrain from allowing their thinking to be adversely affected.
Everyone enjoys freedom in this world. We cannot take away people’s freedom, but certainly we have the wisdom not to form opinions on the basis of wrong reporting. We should form opinions based on our own reasoning.
