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  
Khalilallah

I Am In Conflict With Myself Over The Charlie....

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Killing of that stupid person was perfectly islamic and the one who sent him to hell will wake up as jannati on day of judgement. (I am not sure who Allah will judge on killing of innocents, but again in war some times innocents people also get killed)

 

Insult to prophet cant be tolerate on any expense.

 

Hell to such freedom of speech.

 

Please tell me what the Prophet (as) did to the woman who used to throw trash on him.  

 

Furthermore, it is evil to say that in war it is in any way acceptable that innocents are killed.  Anyone who has killed one innocent person, it is as if he has killed all of humanity.  Just because it has happened in recent human history doesn't make it right.  Industrialization of war has done more to dehumanize humanity than all the torture that went on in ages long past.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me what the Prophet (as) did to the woman who used to throw trash on him.  

 

Furthermore, it is evil to say that in war it is in any way acceptable that innocents are killed.  Anyone who has killed one innocent person, it is as if he has killed all of humanity.  Just because it has happened in recent human history doesn't make it right.  Industrialization of war has done more to dehumanize humanity than all the torture that went on in ages long past.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Ever.

It is an Islamic ruling. The one who insults the prophet should be killed. I didn't make it up and it will not change by denying it's existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing of that stupid person was perfectly islamic and the one who sent him to hell will wake up as jannati on day of judgement. (I am not sure who Allah will judge on killing of innocents, but again in war some times innocents people also get killed)

Insult to prophet cant be tolerate on any expense.

Hell to such freedom of speech.

Islam did teach me about peace, justice, respect for the decisions and opinions of others... not this. Notme's post pretty summarizes the noble and peaceful example of the prophet. And that wasn't freedom of speech but actual harrassment.

The people of that magazine may have an opinion contrary to our beliefs, but in no way we have the right to say they are going to hell or if they deserve to die. I'd rather fight to protect their right to express their opinions. Honestly, we muslims should be publicly condemning what happened in France and completely avoid such hateful comments.

Seriously impressed we have to read such things...

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an Islamic ruling. The one who insults the prophet should be killed. I didn't make it up and it will not change by denying it's existence.

 

Agreed, but this is a judgement that must be handed down by an Islamic court.  It is not up to any individual or minority group to name themselves the Islamic Batman and carry out judgements without proper trials. 

 

Plus, when a Muslim chooses to migrate to a predominantly non-Muslim land, he has to respect the laws there.  He must follow any laws that do not contradict Islam, including laws prohibiting revenge killing.

Honestly, we muslims should be publicly condemning what happened in France and completely avoid such hateful comments.

 

Agreed.

Edited by notme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but this is a judgement that must be handed down by an Islamic court.  It is not up to any individual or minority group to name the Islamic Batman and carry out judgements without proper trials. 

 

Plus, when a Muslim chooses to migrate to a predominantly non-Muslim land, he has to respect the laws there.  He must follow any laws that do not contradict Islam, including laws prohibiting revenge killing.

You can say as much as you want to reassure the west that this will not happen again and you are welcomed to insult our prophet as much as you like.

It won't change the ruling.

What bothers the French the most is that barbaric Muslims coming to their land then affecting their internal policies and oppressing french from making their traditional jokes. The magazine tickled this subconscious feeling and cultivate it and made it grow to a level that the killing of that magazine staff is new 9/11 . Annual martyrdom anniversary.

Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-broke-taboos-defying-threats-and-violence.html?_r=0

This magazine and isis are one team. Both have no goal but to make others angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This magazine and isis are one team. Both have no goal but to make others angry.

 

I agree with this.  I still stand by the fact that it wasn't the right of those men to execute the cartoonists and we should condemn such disorderly behavior, if for no other reason than it makes all Muslims look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need do condemn psychopaths?Every normal human being is against slaughter,murder and oppression.We repeat that on every occasion,no matter in which country which type of psychpath commits crimes against humanity...be it regimes,rapists,bank system or IS and the likes.We called them terrorists from the beginning,we didn't train them or gave them weapons...HELLary Clinton herself said,that they created them...so she and her friends should be held responsable not a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need do condemn psychopaths?Every normal human being is against slaughter,murder and oppression.We repeat that on every occasion,no matter in which country which type of psychpath commits crimes against humanity...be it regimes,rapists,bank system or IS and the likes.We called them terrorists from the beginning,we didn't train them or gave them weapons...HELLary Clinton herself said,that they created them...so she and her friends should be held responsable not a religion.

 

I'm not saying we need to shout it from the rooftops.  I'm just saying it's dangerous to rationalize their behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this.  I still stand by the fact that it wasn't the right of those men to execute the cartoonists and we should condemn such disorderly behavior, if for no other reason than it makes all Muslims look bad.

I don't think isis bother about right or wrong, else they wouldn't be killing Muslims in Muslim countries for a year now, would they?

Muslims are stupid if they sided with any party in this incident. Both are wrong. I am not going to defend someone who insulted our prophet, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day when Ayatullah Khomaini gave fatwa for " Satanic Verses " if all Muslim nation joined hand and give fatwa from all sects, we will never see that kind of act again from anybody.

 

But some people back stab muslims from inside , now blame anyone no body cares ... its all our own mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their behaviour is barbaric and so are their funders,trainers,supporters and lovers.I condemn all of them.They use religions to spread hatred and falsehood...but it is up to mankind to use their ratio this time to see that it is not right to blame religions for something that was created by people who have nothing to do with religion or the slightest sign of morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google it. It is in ancient sunni books as well as modern websites. It is in ancient Shia books as well as modern risala.

 

OK, I did, and I found this, which is in Farsi.

 

It says that the ruling is not "should be killed" or "must be killed" unconditionally but "could be killed" or "should be killed" with some conditions.

 

It also says that because of those conditions our Imams (a.s.) did not do it and did not instruct their followers to do so.

 

On the contrary, they (a.s.) instructed their followers to do not interfere and keep distance from these people.

Edited by Abdul Majid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Muslims feelings aren't hurt? The prophet isn't a historical figure? The cartoons aren't defamation of character and verbal assault? Same argument of "touching a nerve".

 

 

The Prophet is a religious figure who lived 1400 years that a good chunk of people in the West believe was actually a horrible person and not worthy of any respect. As far as they're concerned, to be forced to respect him because of your feelings is like being forced to respect Hitler because of Neo-Nazis love for the Fuhrer.

 

With the Holocaust, there's a general consensus that it happened and was a horrible thing and there are still people whose families suffer from it. There's no consensus in the West that the Prophet is a good person or that he must be respected on principle. There's not even a consensus that religion is anything more than a bunch of hogwash to trick stupid people.

 

There are also huge problems in letting any one religion themselves decide the boundaries of what is or isn't permissible to depict about their holy figures. What if a Christian is offended by the Islamic portrayal of Jesus? Does the Christian have the right to force Muslims to stop? What about if Sunnis don't like the Shi'a depiction of the Prophet's life, should they have the authority to cry "this offends me," and have it removed and replaced with an image of the Prophet that they like?

 

You have to understand that the way things are usually structured in Western societies is precisely so no one religious group is able to monopolize the means by which people determine policy and censor whatever it doesn't like and limit the expression of other religious groups or political parties, except where certain things are commonly agreed by everyone and/or compliant with the state constitution. There's no common consensus or amendment in the constitutions of France, England or America that the Prophet (pbuh) is a good and righteous individual, there is no common consensus or amendment that Islam isn't a bad religion and therefore Muslims don't deserve to have their feelings hurt by people calling their religion a "cancer", there's no common consensus that religion itself isn't cancerous and should even continue to exist and therefore "suffering" of religious individuals whose religion has been offended needs to be consoled by the government. The secular democratic state must accommodate for all differing views in which there is no democratic consensus, act according to what is the consensus and it must do this while at the same time preventing any one religious group or ideology from having a monopoly over the government. Unfortunately for us, this means that our Prophet (pbuh) can be mocked as much as anyone pleases and we're expected to take it.

 

It's not a good system, trust me, that's not what I'm trying to say at all, but the way system is, we have no right, as a minority living off these governments' dime, to demand people respect our views or our religion beyond just not forcing us to give it up, unless the general consensus is in our favor as it is with Holocaust victims or unless we have the lobbies to push for change in policy in our favor.

 

2. I thought freedom of speech had no boundaries and politics was included. The cartoons mocked French politics and its military.

 

Political parties have the right to criticize each other, religions have the right to criticize each other, but what the limit is is usually decided by some form of consensus. If the general consensus is that Holocaust Denial is bad and may be associated with lowly individuals who should not be tolerated in any civilized society, then there's no reason the state has to tolerate Holocaust Deniers, especially when they would cause trouble between the government and its allies. It's the same reason Iran doesn't usually endorse public cursing of the caliphs.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say this is really hypocritical on the government level. It may be hypocritical if ordinary people think that freedom of speech is absolute freedom of speech when the government's policy is clearly and quite openly anything but the guarantee of absolute freedom of speech.

 

I just think that rather than trying to find and point out any hypocrisy, it may be more effective to criticize the values and system of Western governments as they are based on arbitrarily determined secular values, because I see little hypocrisy in a non-religious state guaranteeing people the right to criticize and mock religion and promote heathenism since it's only natural that it would. Right? :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the cartoons were far outside of normal and acceptable criticism by a disbeliever. They were intended to mock and provoke.

But that doesn't justify murder.

 

I agree that it doesn't justify murder, but the problem is that Muslims living in the West can't force people to accept THEIR conception of what the line is between mockery and criticism.

 

I see many bad depictions on television of Jesus and the Jewish prophets that are intended to belittle or trivialize their importance to humanity or to mock religion in general. I also see many depictions of Catholic priests or the pope which I imagine would offend more devout Catholics. And of course, the Buddha, Ghandi and others.

 

But the thing is, religious people here generally accept these things, some of them even laugh at them themselves (not that they should). Muslims seem to be the only ones who can't help losing control, and like I've pointed out, it's only when Muhammad (pbuh) is offended, never any of our other sacred figures, which I think makes us look like hypocrites or like our motivations for this loss of control go beyond religion.

 

The way I feel is that the Western governments should not be forced to censor mocking depictions of the Prophet just because someone brandishes a gun and threatens to slaughter a room full of people. If the government caves into such things, it set a terrible precedent that anyone who is offended by something can influence policy just by using rifles and explosives and threatening to kill random bystanders. It also undermines the democratic principles of the governments, where things are to be decided by congressional votes, constitutional referendums and rulings of organized courts of law. So, I feel like we should be willing to handle humiliation, if for no other reason than to preserve the fabric of law and order for the good of all, even if the system on which the government is based is intellectually flawed or doesn't favor us.

 

Not only that, but it's not like we're not dealing with the Omayyad or Abbasid caliphates here, there do exist channels within the systems of these countries that would allow us to defend the Prophet's honor and change the system from within in a way that would encourage people to respect us and our faith because we are behaving as upstanding citizens. Even if there are people who mock our religion, our religion isn't so hated that unless we have some family of aristocrats stays the hand of the monarch with its money, we'll be slaughtered or forced into taqiyyah. Since we're talking about France, it's not like there aren't successful Muslims in France.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

"But that doesn't justify murder."   Exactly

 

Growing up, l saw and heard myriads of insults to lsa (as). Pornographic and Obscene. Plus jokes.

I always found this offensive. The oldest eviscerating reaction l can remember was in grade school when l first heard "The Feet" joke.

I know what the last one was: at a gay convention/orgy, Best Costume Prize went to "the Jesus". About the same as the one where a gay won the Marlyn Monroe look-alike contest ~1990-1991.

If anyone on this forum slams evilgelicals, it is me. But l never do this kind of filth.

 

Added for St-Jinn23:

The only laugh l can remember about Muhammad (pbuh) at the mosque is when the hadith about the tree dying is recited. Most people just smile.

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be socially unacceptable, not illegal.

If people don't buy it, it will cease to exist.

 

But whether we're talking about changing laws or public opinion, my concern is the image we present of ourselves, what we are doing to curtail radicalism, and whether we carry ourselves with humility in this society or with a sense of self-righteousness and like we're exceptions to all the rules which everyone is expected to follow.

 

There's a lot of Muslims, and not just Muslims but young people in general, with this sense of alienation and hopelessness in European societies, who think the only way to get anything in life is with a gun or by being deceptive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

A few of the fatawa of the contemporary and classical 'ulema are listed here. Just to clarify for those who are saying that the sentence must be delivered by an islamic court, Sayyid Khoei and others have ruled that executing the one who insults the Messenger (sa) is wajib on the one who hears the insult and there is no need for a ruler or jurist or trial etc to hand out the sentence.

Edited by the-truth123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

A few of the fatawa of the contemporary and classical 'ulema are listed here. Just to clarify for those who are saying that the sentence must be delivered by an islamic court, Sayyid Khoei and others have ruled that executing the one who insults the Messenger (sa) is wajib on the one who hears the insult and there is no need for a ruler or jurist or trial etc to hand out the sentence.

 

 

To quote your link:

 

Regardless of the cruelty or irrationality present in the legal literature, there is a condition that remains constant: Lack of harm. Nearly every scholar articulated that permission to exact extrajudicial justice is dependent upon a lack of harm: To life, honor, and property.

 

Commenting on Khomeini’s condition that killing be abandoned if it affects the “life or honor of a believer,” Saanei remarks:

 

This also includes the glory and honor of Islam. If killing becomes reason to accuse Islam of (having caused) distress and disquiet, then the punishment, and its law, are dropped. Islam is a religion separate from security and government. The priority is the glory of Islam, and preserving the honor and life of the believer.

 

— Al-Taliqat ala Tahrir al-Wasilah, vol. 2, p. 492

 

 

I would also add that one has to qualify what exactly is an insult and might also have to take into insults out of ignorance. This is usually up to mujtahids, so one would have to consult a mujtahid as to what is an insult.

 

It might make sense to kill someone who insults the Prophet in such a manner that is over the line in a government ruled by Muslims since to insult the Prophet is to undermine the fabric of social order, for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

It doesn't make much sense when it comes to non-Muslims who probably don't know better and who don't live under a Muslim government in which the social order is built around piety towards the image of the Prophet (pbuh) and his image. If that were the case, there are probably twenty people I should have killed personally by now for having told me the Holy Prophet (pbuh) was a tyrant, a child molester, a murderer, the antichrist and other assorted things...

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^You don't need to directly mention the expletives people shout about our Prophet, everyone's already agitated enough :donno:

 

I'm just trying to emphasize the evil things people say about our Prophet (as) on almost a daily basis. Of course, I don't think it was right for me to even type those things out, now that you mention it, but these are what I encounter and what a lot of us encounter. But I believe we need to bear with such insults for the sake of our honor and I don't think we should try to rationalize as notme stated, these  Wahabi-Salafi vigilantes who by their actions endanger Muslim communities (as they wish to do, because the fallout lends them legitimacy in the eyes of the ignorant) and give the impression that Muslims want to upset law and order in their host countries and enforce their values on everyone else regardless of whether the people there agree with them or not.

 

Plus, there's a crazy blame cycle going on here if we try to justify them just running in and shooting whoever because they happen to work at or patronize the magazine. Why not shoot up all the factories that happened to make the paper for which the cartoons could be printed on if that's the case?

 

Just because there are rulings by our maraji that say it is permissible, in theory, for a Muslim to kill a Muslim or dhimmi who has insulted the Prophet (according to the accepted definition of what an insult is as determined by a qualified legal scholar) without a process of formal trial, doesn't mean we automatically have the right to start killing whoever insults the prophet (pbuh) in the Western countries. There are all sorts of conditions to consider and these conditions need to be explained by a qualified scholar. And we also have to be concerned about the image of Muslims to non-Muslims and whether foul things about the Prophet (as) are said out of ignorance.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

A few of the fatawa of the contemporary and classical 'ulema are listed here. Just to clarify for those who are saying that the sentence must be delivered by an islamic court, Sayyid Khoei and others have ruled that executing the one who insults the Messenger (sa) is wajib on the one who hears the insult and there is no need for a ruler or jurist or trial etc to hand out the sentence.

Thank you.

It seems that Muslims of West are buying the normalization of mockery and obscene insults as daily life practice. In Islam though it is very very very unacceptable.

Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. Ahzab 57.

And no one should be OK with it. It is one major felony in Islam.

It is sad state Muslims are in today. Muslim women fear to wear hijab in free country. Muslim men fear to be label terrorist if he adheres to the Islamic laws.

Muslim society has to watch the next move of alqaeda so to start the defense for the right of existing. Although alqaeda was made by non Muslims for non Islamic reason.

But it is too much if Muslims asked for one thing : don't mock my prophet, out of courtesy.

Curses from all, his prophet, his angels and the cursers upon those who mock the prophet. I don't feel it is my duty to analyze isis or attack it. Isis killed many many many of Shia and sunni in Muslim countries. USA and Europe said we don't have enough intelligence to stop the recruitment. Non told turkey the nato country to close it's borders. The brainwashed western kids kept pouring to participate in the killing parties ....

And now they want Muslims to even humiliate themselves and cry for the death of the cartoonist? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Muslims of West are buying the normalization of mockery and obscene insults as daily life practice. In Islam though it is very very very unacceptable.

 

Nobody here is buying it. AT ALL. But the fact of the matter is we don't live in a theocracy. We don't live in an Islamic country or a country where the majority of people are Muslim or a country where the majority of people are very devout towards any particular religion. We don't control these countries we live in or their laws and we have no place telling them how they should behave towards religious icons. Even if we are citizens who are born and raised here, we are a minority and we have to respect the laws of the lands we live in as long as we depend on them for our livelihood and security and yes that includes the laws which say it's okay to mock our prophets.

 

Nobody's asking anyone to accept the normalization of mocking religious figures. All anyone here is saying is that if we can't change things through a legal and recognized means in a country that isn't governed by Islamic laws or which doesn't recognize any form of Islam as the religion of the government, then instead of making ourselves look like violent self-entitled barbarians who can't be trusted to obey the laws in other countries that are not Muslim ones, then we just need to accept the situation and suffer. There's nothing wrong with suffering if it's for the sake of upholding your principles. Nobody likes being forced to deal with it, but it's better than giving anti-Muslim activists, racists and right-wing nationalists more fodder to encourage their negative portrayals of Islam which are themselves used justify actions against Muslims in the West and against Muslims in the Muslim world since the perception of Muslims becomes that they are unruly and need to be exterminated or brought in line.

 

On that note, the men who killed the people at Charlie Hebdo did far more damage to the honor, safety and image of Islam in Europe than the magazine itself.

 

Whether people who draw such things would be killed in an Islamic society is irrelevant because these aren't Islamic societies, these are sovereign nations with their own laws that are not obligated to accept Islamic rulings when it comes to matters of public speech and expression. And they have allowed Muslims to live, work and study within their borders, have opportunities to integrate into society and observe their religion with relatively little interference. The only condition is that on the Muslims' end, be they born or naturalized citizens or migrants with residential visas, they must uphold and respect all the laws. And if they don't uphold those laws, they must be willing to accept the consequences.

 

If you can't do that, or it causes you too much stress to be around so many non-Islamic things, my best advice to you if you live in the West is to get out so that those of us who can handle it may deal with it properly.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that you will handle properly with this kiss the imperialists feet spirit. You will bend down and change all the laws just to live as security threat for ever and ever. They will never trust you.

You will marry your daughters to non Muslims, you will reject hadiths, you will call for new Quran interpretation and ultimately you will dissolve completely . I think the worst part of this incident is the normalization of mockery of the prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that you will handle properly with this kiss the imperialists feet spirit. You will bend down and change all the laws just to live as security threat for ever and ever. They will never trust you.

 

Muslims did a pretty good job converting the Mongols by impressing them with their humility and learning, there's no reason we can't do the same in the West where we are more free to be Shi'a and have more economic and educational opportunities to strengthen our communities and influence institutions and governments than almost anywhere else in the world that isn't Iran or Lebanon.

 

You seem to act as though we are treated like second class citizens when in America, Muslims, both Shi'a and Sunni, are one of the most successful minorities in terms of education, wealth and employment. The case is certainly harder for Muslims in Europe, who often come from lower economic backgrounds. But I'd disagree with you. It's not as though we are oppressed. For the most part we are accepted, even if we aren't always understood. And many of us are Westerners, who were born and raised here, either as what you'd call natives or second or third generation and if anyone has a right to say what we think about how we as Muslims should handle ourselves in these countries, it's us who have been a part of this culture for most if not all our lives and have dealt directly with its highs and lows. Not that this should come at the expense of Islamic laws, but that we should have a say in how Islamic laws might be able to adapt to this society.

 

 

You will marry your daughters to non Muslims, you will reject hadiths, you will call for new Quran interpretation and ultimately you will dissolve completely .

 

Your statements might ring true for many of the Sunnis, whose faith itself has always been built on the most flimsy of foundations, but from what I can tell, the Shi'a in the West tend to follow their maraji quite well enough. And of course, I'm not concerned with these modernizing Sunnis in the slightest.

 

 I think the worst part of this incident is the normalization of mockery of the prophet.

 

Sin itself is the norm of this world. Always has been. Always will be. If you can't take it, you may as well just kill yourself. There is no society free of sin and there won't be until the Imam (as) returns

 

The point, again, isn't to accept it as right that which shouldn't be, nor is it to not protest against it, but to do what we can to stop it through the means that have been given us by the countries we live in in such a way that the image of Islam as a religion of law, justice, peace and order is preserved. And this image isn't preserved by rebellious teenagers and ruffians who think that the only solution to gain any respect is to use violence and who think the entire world revolves around them and their sensibilities. I don't like the depictions of the prophets I see and I don't like Muslims who buy into the whole "free speech"  sloganeering either. I don't believe any society should permit such unlawful depictions of the prophet that don't accord them respect or reverence anymore than yourself. But does less 2% of a country have the right to force the other 98% through violence and intimidation to conform to their values just because they believe their values are right? Surely, your sense of justice tells you that's wrong.

 

These people who walk about thinking they aren't obligated to obey "kafir laws" while still living and working in these countries and deriving sustenance and pleasure from what they have to offer are also hypocrites of the highest order.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, a number of countries have enacted laws prohibiting and criminalizing Holocaust denial. In Europe, denial laws have been enacted by Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland

 

Instead of taking the law into our hands, we should use our ability to persuade people that mocking should not be acceptable.  

 

We do have a very valid point in the fact that no society should have the authority to dictate its own understanding of what is offensive and what is not to other societies and nations.  The Western attitude is - "We will decide what you may like and what you may not like. That is not your choice."

That should not be acceptable. 

 

Indeed, freedom of speech is pretty selective. 

 

After all, no magazine has ever dared to mock Her Majesty the Queen of England.  

 

And let me tell you, they better not try. Because half the world will rise in arms.

 

That exclusion zone applies not only the the monarch of England but also perhaps those of most other European countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have a very valid point in the fact that no society should have the authority to dictate its own understanding of what is offensive and what is not to other societies and nations.  The Western attitude is - "We will decide what you may like and what you may not like. That is not your choice."

That should not be acceptable.

 

Definitely. It isn't right to mock people's religious icons or to turn religion or God into a joke like so much television does today in Western countries and then tell other people they shouldn't get offended.

 

There's one speaker who did an interview and during its course made a valid point (and I'm paraphrasing) that "the West can't set the limit for how offended Muslims can get over mockery of their Prophet just because it finds it to be uncivilized anymore than Pakistan can tell England or any other country how rowdy and violent its people are allowed to get after a soccer game when their favorite team loses." I believe the best remedy for these situations is not for Muslims to think they can necessarily apply laws which are unique to societies that are built around a respect for the Prophet (pbuh) in the same manner that the West tries to impose its values on other countries. That won't work and taking an attitude where that's okay is not the way to go and encourages Muslims to be a source of lawlessness and anarchy in the non-Muslim countries in which they reside. And it sets a precedent for other members of the society to do the same, which is doubly bad if they wish to act in an unlawful way against the Muslims.

 

Certainly, the person who insults the Prophet in a derogatory way should be punished, even by death, if that is necessary. But people running into magazine headquarters and shooting people indiscriminately without any consideration for or proof of whether or not all the people killed were themselves complicit in such actions (like I've said earlier, if you're just going to kill everyone who works for the magazine, why not kill the guys who cut down the trees to make the paper that was used to print the magazines), in a country that isn't ruled by your religious laws and in a country where people who say those things mostly due to ignorance or because the image that Muslims themselves have perpetuated in their own ignorance, is itself a wrong even according to Islam, especially when non-violent solutions to solve to end these actions may exist in that society for Muslims to express their suffering and appeal to the good will of the rest of the society. And I don't think we are compromising our values and enabling the normalization the mockery of religious figures by saying that.

 

The religious rulings of past scholars also need to be examined in proper context. And that responsibility and the proper legal means of going about ourselves when these situations arise is up to the mujtahids, not our emotions.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you for the most part SJ, and really liked your point of view. However I definitely am against any type of punishment. Free of speech is a right that any country that strives for social justice should defend. I'd avoid a muslim country if I'd have to get my tires slashed every time I'd say something unislamic. The rules in the West could be improved a lot, but they are not stupid rules at all. Freedom of speech is something they have had to fight for it in the last centuries. I don't like that magazine for a number of reasons, not only the latest depictions of Islam. And these latest depictions aren't the worst from that magazine, because they are obviously a manifestation of their ignorance regarding Islam. The muslim people there are also seen very bad for justified reasons for the most part. Most of them go to France to abuse the social benefits their citizens have. And they offer nothing in return. Oh, yes... now they punish people with ak47 if they say anything they don't like. I couldn't care less about their religion and how it is depicted in a French magazine. I care about what is really more important, which are actions.

It doesn't harm me at all what others have to say or think about Islam. But some people saying they are muslims and acting this way is really harmful for the whole islamic community. It should't be because there should be absolutely no relation between religion and this barbaric violence, yet that can't be evident if you read some comments or hear some opinions from muslims. Again, saying the people of that magazine deserve a punishment is definitely the most useless statement we can do now. They have been murdered for expressing their opinion, by people who are definitely barbaric assassins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you for the most part SJ, and really liked your point of view. However I definitely am against any type of punishment. Free of speech is a right that any country that strives for social justice should defend. I'd avoid a muslim country if I'd have to get my tires slashed every time I'd say something unislamic. The rules in the West could be improved a lot, but they are not stupid rules at all. Freedom of speech is something they have had to fight for it in the last centuries. I don't like that magazine for a number of reasons, not only the latest depictions of Islam. And these latest depictions aren't the worst from that magazine, because they are obviously a manifestation of their ignorance regarding Islam. The muslim people there are also seen very bad for justified reasons for the most part. Most of them go to France to abuse the social benefits their citizens have. And they offer nothing in return. Oh, yes... now they punish people with ak47 if they say anything they don't like. I couldn't care less about their religion and how it is depicted in a French magazine. I care about what is really more important, which are actions.

It doesn't harm me at all what others have to say or think about Islam. But some people saying they are muslims and acting this way is really harmful for the whole islamic community. It should't be because there should be absolutely no relation between religion and this barbaric violence, yet that can't be evident if you read some comments or hear some opinions from muslims. Again, saying the people of that magazine deserve a punishment is definitely the most useless statement we can do now. They have been murdered for expressing their opinion, by people who are definitely barbaric assassins.

You do realize that neither the cartoonists nor the isis have anything to do with Muslims right? The victims were woman and other men, 2 of them carried Muslim names,. In Islam you are not allowed to kill women. You are not allowed to kill the unarmed civilians. You are not allowed to terrorize the peaceful citizens in your city AND you are not allowed to kill Muslims.

But we have to forget alllllllll that anomaly that is pointing out that those who carried the attack know nothing about Islam , instead we cowardly are defending disgusting cartoons that were not acceptable even by the French who filed complaints and closed the magazine or made it go broke multiple times through its history?

Why?

Do you think Syrian were not tolerant community? Do you think that the most educated Arab people deserve this ? Who is responsible of creating this monster ? Syrians or those who aided the isis?

yarmouk-camp-iconic-Une.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Ref back to post 57  --"known as murderers" was the wording spoken in Mosque

 

Reading through hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, l did not find this wording but did find references to mass murder and killing.

 

From: Search Quran and Hadith:

al-Bukhari, Chapter 88. #184 (Harj); #206 (most similar); #237 No.7 on signs of the  End.

 

Muslim: Chapter 41: Nos. 6902, 6904, 6949 & 6955

 

 

lt from these l found to look up al-A'maq and Dabiq

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...