Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
5a49

Should We Be Mad At Who Mocks The Prophet?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä íÍíì æíÍíì Èä ÃíæÈ æÞÊíÈÉ æÇÈä ÍÌÑ ÞÇá íÍíì Èä íÍíì ÃÎÈÑäÇ æÞÇá ÇáÂÎÑæä ÍÏËäÇ ÅÓãÇÚíá íÚäæä Èä ÌÚÝÑ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÍÑãáÉ Úä ÚØÇÁ æÓáíãÇä ÇÈäí íÓÇÑ æÃÈí ÓáãÉ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÑÍãä Ãä ÚÇÆÔÉ ÞÇáÊ ßÇä ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ãÖØÌÚÇ Ýí ÈíÊí ßÇÔÝÇ Úä ÝÎÐíå Ãæ ÓÇÞíå ÝÇÓÊÃÐä ÃÈæ ÈßÑ ÝÃÐä áå æåæ Úáì Êáß ÇáÍÇá ÝÊÍÏË Ëã ÇÓÊÃÐä ÚãÑ ÝÃÐä áå æåæ ßÐáß ÝÊÍÏË Ëã ÇÓÊÃÐä ÚËãÇä ÝÌáÓ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã æÓæì ËíÇÈå ÞÇá ãÍãÏ æáÇ ÃÞæá Ðáß Ýí íæã æÇÍÏ ÝÏÎá ÝÊÍÏË ÝáãÇ ÎÑÌ ÞÇáÊ ÚÇÆÔÉ ÏÎá ÃÈæ ÈßÑ Ýáã ÊåÊÔ áå æáã ÊÈÇáå Ëã ÏÎá ÚãÑ Ýáã ÊåÊÔ áå æáã ÊÈÇáå Ëã ÏÎá ÚËãÇä ÝÌáÓÊ æÓæíÊ ËíÇÈß ÝÞÇá ÃáÇ ÃÓÊÍí ãä ÑÌá ÊÓÊÍí ãäå ÇáãáÇÆßÉ

Aisha said: The Messenger of Allah was sitting comfortably in my house revealing his thighs. Abou Bakir asked if he can go in, The Prophet let him, while he is sitting in the position. They talked, then Umar asked if he can go in, the Prophet allowed him, and they talked. Then Uthman asked if he can go in, the Prophet sat down properly and fixed his clothings. They talked and when they left, Aisha asked the Prophet why is it that he kept revealing his legs and thighs infront of Abu Bakir and Umar and didnt care, but when Uthman came in, he fixed his clothings and sat properly? The Prophet answered: Shouldn't I feel ashamed infront of a man, that Angels feel ashamed infront of him.

Sahih Muslim

thanx for posting this, when ever I will be emotionally down I will read this joke and laugh untill my ribs hurts. :lol:

Edited by Ali Huzaifa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of the question relates to, I believe, the behaviour exhibited by Muslims over the portrayal of our beloved Prophet (as) in some circles, and not our interpretation of the Prophet's sexual life.

Are violent protests, and in general the anger shown by Muslims, justified as a response to the insult of the Prophet ? That is the question we must be asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you've done there is just regurgitate the same interpretation everyone else has given, the hadith has been quoted in its full arabic form in the above website and the word used is "yatoof" which means "circumambulate" aka visiting. It doesnt mention sex at all, only that he visited his wives. And Aisha herself makes clear what happened in those visits.

Man I know Arabic no need to teach me. But then. Why in other Ahadeeth they claim Sawda used to give up her time for Aisha if Sunnis believe he is just visitng? Lol Sahih Bukhari and Muslim have crazy things, thats the truth..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem for Sunnis is their sexual morality is more derived from that of Umar than the Prophet (pbuh), so deep down they feel uncomfortable about narrations like this. Since most Shias have also by and large adopted Sunni sexual morality, they also have the same issues when reading this stuff, but are obviously at greater liberty to criticise it. Personally, I don't see the problem.

Would you be comfortable if intimate details of your life were published in the public forums? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question: How would the hadith narrator know whether the Prophet just visited or slept with his wives? Did the Prophet tell him? Or did the Prophet's wife tell the narrator this?

Exactly, and how would he know Sawda gave her time for Aisha..

Thats how sick their Ahadeeth are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the sexual morality that these Sunni narrations relate, I don't see where there's any wrong attributed to the Prophet. All they say is that the he enjoyed the company of his wives next to the other narrations mention that he was a master of self-control. All I see in this thread is a bunch of sticks in the mud who are getting upset at hadith that mention the Prophet finding pleasure in the company of his women, legally, which the Quran actually enjoins upon us.

Finding enjoyment in sexuality is nothing sinful or dirty, as long as it is in a civilized and lawful manner. Finding pleasure in the company of women doesn't make you a "sex maniac" That's why God gave them to us in the first place, to enjoy them

It's hypocritical and ironic how some of you so-called Muslims will get all upset at somebody who says "I don't think I want to get married," or will promote mutah ('pleasure marriages') but then you find it offensive when narrations from either the Sunnis or the Shia mention the Prophet or Ahlul Bayt actually finding pleasure and enjoyment in their women or extolling the virtue of sexuality.

Likewise, the Westerners and polemicists who take narrations like these and try to twist them to make the Prophet look bad are hypocrites half the time and fools the other half. Westerners champion the sensual luxuries of their society and scoff at self-restraint, but when a Prophet comes along who provides a middle ground, where one can enjoy and take delight in the sensual pleasures God has given us without having them consume his/her soul, they laugh at or condemn him. When they read him preach and extol self-restraint and chastity, they call him a repressive prude. When he praises sensual gifts of Paradise, the fruits and the houris, they call him a hedonist or a sex maniac. You can't win with these people. :dry:

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the sexual morality that these Sunni narrations relate, I don't see where there's any wrong attributed to the Prophet. All they say is that the he enjoyed the company of his wives next to the other narrations mention that he was a master of self-control. All I see in this thread is a bunch of sticks in the mud who are getting upset at hadith that mention the Prophet finding pleasure in the company of his women, legally, which the Quran actually enjoins upon us.

Finding enjoyment in sexuality is nothing sinful or dirty, as long as it is in a civilized and lawful manner. Finding pleasure in the company of women doesn't make you a "sex maniac" That's why God gave them to us in the first place, to enjoy them

It's hypocritical and ironic how some of you so-called Muslims will get all upset at somebody who says "I don't think I want to get married," or will promote mutah ('pleasure marriages') but then you find it offensive when narrations from either the Sunnis or the Shia mention the Prophet or Ahlul Bayt actually finding pleasure and enjoyment in their women or extolling the virtue of sexuality.

Likewise, the Westerners and polemicists who take narrations like these and try to twist them to make the Prophet look bad are hypocrites half the time and fools the other half. Westerners champion the sensual luxuries of their society and scoff at self-restraint, but when a Prophet comes along who provides a middle ground, where one can enjoy and take delight in the sensual pleasures God has given us without having them consume his/her soul, they laugh at or condemn him. When they read him preach and extol self-restraint and chastity, they call him a repressive prude. When he praises sensual gifts of Paradise, the fruits and the houris, they call him a hedonist or a sex maniac. You can't win with these people. :dry:

I guess you didnt read all the Hadiths.

I suggest you read all the Hadiths I put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see from what RoAcHy has posted of ahadith is that either the Prophet compromised for the sake of pleasure with his wives (the business with the music on Eid and the dancing Habashis), and/or the hadith books that contain these have been compromised (Creeper ahadith between "saintly Prophet" ahadith - odd placement).

These ahadith serve to show that the Prophet did some odd things.

Even if the ahadith were legit, all they show is that Aisha was better than him. He fell asleep to the tune of the music, while she winked them away. She turned her head while he remained watching.

As for the sleeping with 8 in one night, that's nuts. Assuming he'd do ghusul after each one, what an exhaustive process. Seems like a magical narration to me.

Besides the fact that even if Aisha could give credible ahadith, her jealousy of Ahlul Bayt soured all the milk in the carton.

There is nothing wrong with sexuality, but the issue of having a sex-crazed Prophet pales in comparison to the fact that he had a wife that would paint him in such an unflattering light, let alone books that certify this slander as Sahih.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah Azzwajalla has already said in the Al-Quran;

WarafaAAna laka thikrak

And raised high for you your repute.[94:3]

Despite this We will not sit quietly.

Alhamdulillah, We are already working on it. We have warned them (The Hizb who blaspheme our Hazrath Rasool Allah (Sallallaho Alaihi Wa Sallam) and others) already, particularly a SHIA by name Ali Sina (alisina.org) and we have included "Mr.Salman Rushhhhhhiiiinnnngg to Die". We have given them 313 days deadline. [starting Tuesday, 4 September 2012 10:36 PM] I have already pronounced in my earliest post what is the 1 thing that links Us with Al-Komeni.You can check my earliest post in this forum.

By the power of Allah Azzwajalla how much ever Mr.Rushhhhhhiiiinnnngg to Die (as per the video "Should Rushing to Die" by Late Mr.Ahmed Deedat Rahima-u-Allah) tries to say that he has repented and reformed we shall abhor him even after his death, which will be per Al-Quran as pronounced in that video.

It is a covenant/vow that we have taken and Its me Syed Khadir Ahmed Rabbani Qadri who will slay him and its Allah Azzwajjala's duty to fulfill it.

How HE will do it, its up to HIM.

We shall produce the email once we are satisfied with the results, Inshallah.

Inna shani-aka huwa al-abtar

Indeed, your enemy is the one cut off. [108:3]

Wa Makru Makrallah Wallahu Khairul Maakirin

Allah the Supreme High is the Best of the plotters.

Jazakallah

Who tf are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, particularly a SHIA by name Ali Sina (alisina.org)

this cursed man you mentioned is not Shia, he has left Islam long ago, and doesn't belong to any Religion. How you start labeling anyone Shia out of your grudge against them?

Which hizb did blasphemy? as you said, hopefully you were not slandering hizbullah? Show us the proof if you meant that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, we should be offended and we should show our offense, peacefully of course. Being peaceful and being passive are two different things. Islam encourages us to be peaceful when attempting to make our point or get our needs addressed, but we are not supposed to be passive. We should do what is in our ability that Allah(s.w.a) gave us to distance ourselves from the despicable attack against our Messenger(p.b.u.h) and our religion that is framed by the Western Media as 'free speech'.

Especially those who live in the U.S, where the film originated should do tabara (distancing oneself) from this crime. We are having a demonstration in Washington D.C. at Lafayette Park (across from the White House) this Saturday, Sept. 22 from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Any brothers and sisters that can attend should attend to show the U.S. govt and others working behind the scenes that we will not just 'roll over and play dead' when our Prophet(p.b.u.h) is insulted. For more info, you can email muslims4prophet@gmail.com

this cursed man you mentioned is not Shia, he has left Islam long ago, and doesn't belong to any Religion. How you start labeling anyone Shia out of your grudge against them?

Which hizb did blasphemy? as you said, hopefully you were not slandering hizbullah? Show us the proof if you meant that?

This guy ( not you Kaniz, the guy you quoted) is a troll. please ignore.

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roachy, of course you can be mad at someone. Killing other people that had nothing to do with the movie is just silly. To get a sense of how the Western World views this tragegy, do a Google search on the following terms "No One Murdered Because Of This Image" on a short article published by the Onion.

The people that attacked the embassy showed no discipline or ability to control their impulses. I would think those qualities would be considered bad by most religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roachy, of course you can be mad at someone. Killing other people that had nothing to do with the movie is just silly. To get a sense of how the Western World views this tragegy, do a Google search on the following terms "No One Murdered Because Of This Image" on a short article published by the Onion.

The people that attacked the embassy showed no discipline or ability to control their impulses. I would think those qualities would be considered bad by most religions.

I think you replied answering the Title but not the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we should definetly stand up and defend the Prophet but in a way that doesn't make us look like exactly what the USA/Western media portrays us as. I think that Sayyed NasrAllah's approach is great. He called for peaceful protests and peaceful assembly. Not the attacking and burning of embassys, fastfood chains, and other local buildings. This in my opinion is barbarianism and mindless violence. I think that those kind of acts are completely senseless and unIslamic. I also wish that the Muslims would care about more important issues like the Genocide of our Fellow Muslims in Burma. This is by far one of the most dire issues in the world that the Muslims attention should really be on. I even believe that our beloved Prophet would say to defend our helpless, murdered, raped, and ejected brothers and sisters before going out and rioting for his name and image. I know for a fact that our Prophet was selfless and cared more for the ummah then himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be mad if someone kept defaming, mocking, and insulting your dead father, grandfather, or some other beloved. deceased relative who isn't presesnt to defend themselves from such attacks? That someone would even ask this question suggests a lack of imaan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point and Case

One has to be respectful, and killing is never allowed unless its self defense. this was a trick, by some guy in LA to show that muslims are uneducated. It worked!

Granted that slander and disrespect should not be tolerated. but thre are ways to fight this "by the book". rioting and killing 4 U.S citizins (EVEN though the Western Hempisphere kills thousands of muslims via drone attacks, CIA, subtrafuge sabotoge etc.....) is not allowed under any circumstance.

in a area where there is poverty and apparent lack of education you have to use tact when discussing controversial points, this movie had no other point except to cause war.

why didnt Iran have riots? because they had enough restraint to know that killing and rioting would not help anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth

Why would prophet saww need ghusl Al Janabat?

Well assuming that something wajib for us was wajib then, especially for the Prophet who brought down the religion that made it wajib and is the source of emulation for everyone, wouldn't he also have done ghusul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is an article By Waleed Aly (I'm not sure if he's known internationally but he's probably one of the most prominent Muslims in general Australian culture) about how this is helping no one:

The Incredible Muslim Hulk proves to be no friend of Islam either

Opinon

By Waleed Aly

WHERE do I start? Perhaps with the viral image that will come to define this episode: a child who'd be three or four hoisting a sign triumphantly above his head blaring ''Behead all those who insult the Prophet'' while a woman, presumably his mother, thinks this is cute enough to capture on her smartphone. Alternatively, I could begin with the observation that the trailer for the anti-Islamic film that ostensibly started this all, Innocence of Muslims, is now a blockbuster, with YouTube hits in the millions thanks largely to the protesters around the world who think nobody should see it.

"This is the behaviour of a drunkenly humiliated people: swinging wildly with the hope of landing a blow, any blow, somewhere, anywhere."

No. Let's start with the fact that so few of the protesters who descended on Sydney's CBD this weekend seem actually to have seen the film that so gravely offends them. When asked by journalists, they bluntly admit this, one even adding that she refuses to watch something so offensive. It's almost impressive how cyclical this stupidity is. But it's also instructive. In fact, this is the key to making sense of something so gobsmackingly senseless. The protesters - at least the ones quoted in news reports - know nothing except how offended they are.

DP_Protest-20120915174553540494-620x414.jpg

That, you see, is all that matters. This isn't about a film. It's about an excuse. We know because we've seen it all before, like when Pakistani protesters vandalised American fast food outlets and burnt effigies of President George W. Bush in response to the Danish cartoons.

We know because so much of the weekend's ranting was nakedly gratuitous: ''Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell''. Pardon? Which dead? Weren't we talking about a movie?

This is the behaviour of a drunkenly humiliated people: swinging wildly with the hope of landing a blow, any blow, somewhere, anywhere. There's nothing strategic or calculated about this. It doesn't matter that they are the film's most effective publicists. It doesn't matter that they protest using offensive slogans and signs, while protesting against people's right to offend. It doesn't matter that they object to insulting people on the basis of their religion, while declaring that Christians have no morals. This is baffling only until you realise these protesters are not truly protesting to make a point. The protest is the point.

It feels good. It feels powerful. This is why people yell pointlessly or punch walls when frustrated. It's not instrumental. It doesn't achieve anything directly. But it is catharsis. Outrage and aggression is an intoxicating prospect for the powerless.

Accordingly, it is not an option to leave an insult unanswered because that is a sign of weakness, rather than transcendence.

The irony is that it grants an extraordinary level of power to those doing the offending. It puts them constantly at the centre of your world. That's why, when Gallup polled 35 Muslim majority countries, it found that of all the gripes the Muslim world has against the West, among the most pervasive is the West's ''disrespect for Islam''.

And it is this disrespect that is the overarching grievance that subsumes others. Everything, global and local, can be thrown into this vortex: Swiss minaret bans, French niqab bans, military invasions, drone strikes, racist stereotyping, anti-immigrant politics, and yes, even films so ridiculously bad that, left to their own devices, they would simply lampoon themselves.

This is what gives Innocence of Muslims meaning: not its content, but its context. It's a symbol of contempt, which is why protests against it so quickly turn into an orgy of anti-Americanism. So, ''Obama, Obama, we love Osama'' they scream, mainly because it's the most offensive rhyme they can muster. Osama, too, is a symbol; the most repugnant one in their arsenal. How better to prove you exist than to say something outrageous?

That the Obama administration immediately condemned the film in the strongest terms doesn't register. Nor that the White House took the extraordinary (and ultimately unsuccessful) step of asking Google to pull the video. This is invisible to an audience of humiliated souls waiting desperately to be offended and conflate every grievance. Indeed, they need the offence. It gives them the chance to assert themselves so they can feel whole, righteous even. It's a shortcut to self-worth.

The trouble is that in our digital world, there is always something to oblige. Anyone can Google their prejudices, and there is always enraging news to share with others. Entire online communities gather around the sharing of offensive material and subsequent communal venting. Soon you have a subculture: a sub-community whose very cohesion is based almost exclusively on shared grievance. Then you have an identity that has nothing to say about itself; an identity that holds an entirely impoverished position: that to be defiantly angry is to be.

Frankly, Muslims should find that prospect nothing short of catastrophic. It renders Islamic identity entirely hollow. All pride, all opposition, no substance. ''Like the Incredible Hulk,'' observes Abdal Hakim Murad, a prominent British Islamic scholar, ''ineffectual until provoked.''

Sometimes you need a scandal to demonstrate an underlying disease. And that's the good news here. The vast bulk of Saturday's protesters were peaceful, and Muslim community organisations are lining up to condemn the outbreak of violence. But now a more serious conversation is necessary. One that's not about how we should be speaking out to defend our prophet and ourselves. One that's more about whether we can speak about anything else.

Waleed Aly hosts the Drive program on ABC Radio National and is a lecturer in politics at Monash University.

(original article with more pictures (especially of the signs he was talking about, might be a bit confusing in text) and a video - http://www.smh.com.a...0916-260e8.html )

Edited by Pascal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse we should be mad and protest against who ever mocks and insults our Prophet.

But the question is, when a non-Muslims reads Ahadeeth from Sunna books such as Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, etc.. Won't he think our Prophet is like whatever they put in the movie, and what they put in caricatures before?

I mean everyone here, knows how they have described the Prophet in their Ahadeeth.

Should we burn USA embassies, or get rid of their Ahadeeth books, and wake the Sunnis up, to read what mockery they have in their own books, but they are ignorant to know about it.

Here is a pic from Sayed Kamal Haydaris show.

(This Hadeeth is taken from Musnad Ahmad)

FDC1B96E-EB6C-4C13-AEEE-F3CAC6F0CCA3-5373-0000057CF91DCBB0.jpg

"Aisha: The messenger of Allah (saw) used to stay fasting, then he would stay kissing me all over where he desired of my face, until it was time for Iftar"

Now a Christian, reading this. Wouldn't come up with Prophet Muhammad being very sexual etc.. This is just kne Hadeeth, and I know lots and lots of Ahadeeth that are crazy.

I'll leave the rest for you.

Terry jones has got some real supporters in iran. sad......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think similar narrations can be found in Shia books.

I was doubting you are a Wahibi disguised in Shia name, but now I am sure you are one. Can you tell me hadiths which show Prophet (pbuh) on negative light?

one hadith that Prophet (pbuh) wanted to commit Suicide from Shia books.

One hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) allowed adult breastfeeding from Shia books.

One hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) was seen naked from Shia books.

One hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) was bewitched from Shia books.

On the contrarary you will find these in your Sahih Sunni books.

I am waiting for an anwer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was doubting you are a Wahibi disguised in Shia name, but now I am sure you are one. Can you tell me hadiths which show Prophet (pbuh) on negative light?

one hadith that Prophet (pbuh) wanted to commit Suicide from Shia books.

One hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) allowed adult breastfeeding from Shia books.

One hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) was seen naked from Shia books.

One hadith in which Prophet (pbuh) was bewitched from Shia books.

On the contrarary you will find these in your Sahih Sunni books.

I am waiting for an anwer.

Where did I say any of that can be found in Shia books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say any of that can be found in Shia books?

Denial at its best

Please check post #26 your reply to this post of Marbles

Sexual fulfillment with one's legally wedded wives is fine but what do we do with Sunni narrations which portray the Prophet in a negative light, informing as they do about his sexual prowess and desires (yes, there's a Sunni hadith which says that Prophet used to have intercourse with all his wives in one night - and according to the same hadith at that time he was wedded to 8, I think), and that he was all for sex and women especially whatever his 'favourite' wife has left for the posterity to read, and muse over.

you said

I think similar narrations can be found in Shia books.

So is that not agreeing that Shia books have negative narrations on Prophet (pbuh) by your unproofed or posting without any evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that not agreeing that Shia books have negative narrations on Prophet (pbuh) by your unproofed or posting without any evidence.

I never said I agreed with Marbles' assessement that these narrations did portray the Prophet (pbuh) in a negative light. And even if they do, I never said the ahadith were necessarily authentic. Just that there are ahadith in Shia books mentioning this ability to go to all his wives in one night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And are you goof? Do sunnis ever quote those hadiths? NO THEY DONT AND WILL NEVER NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE WRITTEN. ONLY YOU AND TERRY JONE DOES............ SO YOU BETTER DECIDE ON WHICH SIDE YOU ARE

What hadiths? The ones in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that were quoted earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...