FREE Subscription to our
just enter your email address
View Previous Issues

Letter Three

18th July 1988

Dear A

Your reasoning regarding the poster would be acceptable if the poster itself did not portray such racist violence.

The Star of David is worn by all Jews. It is not a symbol of the State of Israel, which one can agree is pursuing racist violence against Palestinian Arabs, and is making no allowance for a peaceful solution to a problem being exacerbated by many political interests.

The Muslim sword of The Holy War is shown thrust into that symbol. That makes no allowance for the feelings of those Jews who wear the Star and who give no support for the current Israeli Government's policies. There is a total difference between asking people to demonstrate against a country which shows racism and showing dramatically agressive images in this place where people wish to live in peace together.

Yours sincerely




Reply Three

19th July 1988

Dear Mr. L.

Thank You for your letter.

In you letter you suggest that the poster "portrays racist violence" since it shows a sword thrust into the "Star of David" which is worn by all Jews.

This is not correct. The star depicted in the poster is not the "Star of David which is word by all Jews". The star shown, blue with white background, is taken out of the zionist flag. As such it is not a symbol of Judaism, but a symbol of Zionism. It is a shameful misuse of the Star of David.

The Muslims hold great respect for Prophet David (peace and blessings of God be upon him) as the reciever of Divine Revelation; the Psalms. We would never intentionally attack the Star of David. But since the 'zionist star' symbolises racism in Palestine, it is our duty as human beings to attack it. This is what the poster portrays.

To illustrate my point, I will give an example: the swastika. The swastika was a symbol used by people belonging to the aryan race, originating in ancient persia. When the aryans invaded India they brought with them this symbol, and today their descendants in northern India still use this symbol to decorate for example cakes on religious festivals. In the 1940's, as you are aware, a man called Hitler used this harmless symbol to represent his facist ideology, Nazism. This was a misuse of the symbol. And as such, when we portray an attack on his barbaric, facist ideology by depicting a swastika with a sword thrust into it, it is interpreted as an attack on racism. No one interprets it as an attack on the aryan race, those indians of Northern India do not see it as an attack against them.

Once again let me repeat, we do not hold any malice in our hearts against jews. They are our brothers and sisters. In the Holy Qur'an the Jews and Christians are refered to as the 'people of the Book', those who have recieved Divine Revelations, as such we hold them especially dear.

Finally, in your letter you refered to "The Muslim sword of The Holy War". The term Jihad, mistranslated to "Holy War" is misused constantly by the media inorder to dramatise a news report. Please give me this opportunity to show what Muslims mean by this term. Literally, Jihad in arabic means 'struggle', to struggle in the Way of God. Jihad is of two kinds: Major Jihad and Minor Jihad. Major Jihad is the resistance against inner enemies. i.e. unruly passions and campaign against mean qualities and moral degradations like ignorance, fear, injustice, pride, selfishness, envy etc. Minor Jihad is campaign against external enemies: enemies of truth, enemies of justice and enemies of virtue. Fighting the racist state forms part of the latter Jihad.

Yours sincerely