Amidst chants of Allah Hu Akbar and Naara e Taqbeer, a Muslim mob, ‘offended’ by a Facebook post allegedly against the Prophet of Islam went on a rampage, indulged in stone-pelting, rioting and arson in Bengaluru. They burnt the house of the Congress MLA whose nephew, Naveen, had allegedly written the Facebook post and injured over 60 police personnel.
One would imagine the media to take a hard stand calling out the Islamist mob and also analysing why and how the Muslim community seems only overeager to get offended enough to run riots. Especially after the brutal murder of Kamlesh Tiwari for alleged “blasphemy”, the media was expected to certainly call the spade a spade.
However, the media has chosen instead to paint a target on Naveen. Deccan Herald has published an article that virtually offers justification for his murder. In a report published by Deccan Herald, the publication calls Naveen a ‘serial offender’ essentially saying that he is in the habit of insulting the Prophet of Islam and posting “derogatory” messages against the community that seems to get offended at the drop of a hat.
The Deccan Herald report said, “Sources revealed that Naveen, nephew of MLA Akhanda Srinivas Murthy and the second son of his sister, has a history of posting derogatory content triggering hatred. He posted abusive content on August 5 about the Padarayanapura incident”.
The Padarayanapura violence had erupted on April 19th after secondary contacts of a Coronavirus patient had refused to be escorted to quarantine and create a ruckus. 119 people were arrested for the violence and one Irfan was being probed after his name came up during the interrogation of 4 other suspects.
Interestingly, in both these incidents that Deccan Herald says that Naveen “hurt sentiments”, it was the Muslim mob that had indulged in actual violence on the streets, be it the Padarayanapura violence or even what happened in Bengaluru over Naveen’s Facebook post. However, instead of unequivocally condemning the violence, Deccan Herald has deemed fit to brand Naveen a ‘serial offender’ and paint a target on his back.
It is pertinent to note that thousands of people had gathered and indulged in rampant violence over one Facebook post by Naveen. And now, Deccan Herald is citing “sources” to brand him as a person who regularly insults Islam. In a scenario where one knows how radical elements within the Muslim community functions, and the great support they appear to enjoy within the community, one can only wonder what Deccan Herald’s intentions are over virtually directing Jihadis in his direction.
The mainstream media claims to speak truth to power but whenever such a moment arrives, the media invariably chooses to side with tyrants. Indeed, it is for very good reason that the media is often branded the enemy of the people. It is because they conduct themselves in a manner that betrays their actual loyalties.
It is of significance to note that the mainstream media has transformed into a propaganda machinery for the worst elements within Muslim society. Their reportage and conduct is tailor-made to suit the best interests of the radical sections of the Muslim community. In their defence of the Radical Islam, their submission is total and complete.
In this regard, one remembers that the tradition of the assassination of critics goes back to the time of Prophet Mohammed himself. One particular hadith is of particular import during the whole discussion. In the Book of Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah), an interesting incident is mentioned during the time of the prophet of Islam.
Ka’ab bin Al Ashraf was a man who used to satire Prophet Mohammed and ‘hurt’ the prophet and his followers. When he refused to desist from insulting the prophet, Mohammed ordered his assassination. Muhammad bin Maslamah was sent to kill the satirist. Following the murder, the Jews and polytheists are said to have been frightened and came to meet the prophet. Then, an agreement was signed between the two factions and the non-Muslims agreed to not ‘hurt’ the prophet.
Islamic scholars, too, brand Ka’ab bin Al Ashraf as a ‘serial offender’. They speak of how Allah ordered Mohammed to exercise patience and forgiveness when he initially insulted him. According to them, it was only after he refused to stop that Mohammed ordered him to be murdered. It is precisely the same justification that Deccan Herald appears to offer in its hitjob on Naveen.
Thus, it is a long tradition of violence for the insult to the prophet that Muslims of the 21st century is continuing. One would expect the mainstream media, whose journalists fancy themselves to be revolutionaries, to call out the culture of violence that has continued to fester within the community. Instead, they have prostrated to the ones who create violence.
When Deccan Herald paints Naveen as a ‘serial offender’, it is fully aware of the potential consequences. After what happened to Kamlesh Tiwari, no one could pretend otherwise. And yet, they went ahead and did it anyway. Under such circumstances, no one could be blamed for reaching the conclusion that the media network genuinely believes that death is the punishment Naveen deserves for his transgressions against the prophet.
Thus far, the mainstream media had restricted itself to justifying the actions of Muslim mobs after a crime had been committed. Deccan Herald, however, has crossed a significant border. It has now offered a justification that subtly says violence against Naveen is permissible because he is a ‘serial offender’. It marks a dangerous turn of events and the mainstream media would inevitably come to regret the Rubicon they have just crossed.