Who is the wrong when it comes to the situation in France??

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

9 hours ago, Zaydi Shiapard said:

This is what Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (عليه السلام). has to say on this issue:

Zayd ibn Ali (عليه السلام). narrated from his father (Ali as-Sajjad (عليه السلام).) from his grandfather (al-Husayn (عليه السلام).) from Ali (karramallahu wajhahu) that he (عليه السلام). said: "Whoever insults any prophet, we kill him". (Musnad Zayd ibn Ali)

Quote

صحيح محمد ابن مسلم «قال ان رجلا من هزيل كان يسبّ رسول اللّه .. إلى ان قال فقلت لأبي جعفر أ رأيت لو ان رجلا الآن سبّ النبي (ص) أ يقتل؟ قال ان لم تخف على نفسك فاقتله

 وسائل الشيعه، ج 28، باب 7 از ابواب مرتد، حديث 3

Muhammad ibn Muslim says: A person from the tribe of Hazil always was insulting the Prophet. I asked Imam Baqir (عليه السلام), "Do you allow and do you know it correct that if someone sees someone who insults the Prophet, he will kill him?" The Imam Baqir (عليه السلام)said: If you are not afraid for your life, kill him.

 

Wasa'il al-Shi'a , v 28 , chapter 7 from chapters of Murtad (Apostate) , Hadith  no .3

 

prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) : Whoever insults one of the prophets is killed                                                                                                  قال رسول اللّٰه من سب نبيا يقتل

Wasa'il al-Shi'a , v 28 , chapter 7 from chapters of Murtad (Apostate) , Hadith  no .4

 

 

https://www.andisheqom.com/fa/telegram/View/951750/مجازات-ناسزاگویی-اعدام-نیست

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/ساب_النبی

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Cursing_Imam_Ali_(a)

Quote

The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center explains:

“Blasphemy by insulting a prophet (sabb-al-nabi) is another serious offence in the Islamic Shari’a, incurring the death penalty for the perpetrator. Although it was mentioned in the old Penal Code (art. 513), the new Penal Code includes a separate chapter [Second Book, Part 2, Chapter 5 of the new Penal Code] and express provisions keeping this a capital offence. According to article 260 of the new Penal Code, any person insults the Prophet of Islam or other Great Prophets shall be considered as sābb-al-nabi and punished by death. 

https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/

Sab al-nabi: Insulting the Prophet  (Muhammad),  Imams  and Companions. The  particular  verdict  for  sab al-nabi is death penalty/execution.4 

Article 262 of the Islamic Penal Code and its commentary follow the jurisprudence as follows: Whoever insults or blasphemes the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) or any of the great prophets of God is a Sab-Nabi and is sentenced to death. Also, Qazf of any of the Imams of the Infallibles (عليه السلام) or Hazrat Fatemeh Zahra (عليه السلام) or insulting them is considered as Sab Nabi.

The truth of Sa'b al-Nabi and the death sentence for Sa'b al-Nabi or the infallible Imams and Hazrat Fatima (sa) in terms of jurisprudence and even law have conditions that if those conditions are not provided, in some cases the person will not be referred to Saab al-Nabi and in some cases Despite the truth of this title, execution and murder are not permissible, and we will now refer to some of those conditions from the point of view of jurisprudence and law.

Article 263 of the Penal Code and the commentary of those who claim that their statements were made out of reluctance, negligence, inadvertence, or in a state of intoxication, anger, or tongue-in-cheek, or regardless of the meanings of the words or quotations from another, are not considered sub-prophets.

From the jurisprudential point of view, even where the title of Saab al-Nabi is true, killing and killing a person is prescribed when the execution of such a ruling does not endanger the life, reputation or money of the executor or the people attributed to him. Otherwise, it is not only expedient to carry out the ruling and kill the Sab-Nabi or the Imams (عليه السلام), but it is also expedient to remain silent and in some cases to be tolerant.

https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/7542677/مجازات-قانونی-و-فقهی-اهانت-به-پبامبر-اکرم-ص-چیست

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306130897_Shi'i_religious_thinkers_and_the_issue_of_Apostasy

 

[hasanhh 10,059]

l am commenting along the first two posts.

1] A 'wrong' and then harg-haram. Bad enough, but the French showmanship is the worse because instead of a crime it is now a cause celebre . . . or more accurately, a 'caustic celebre.'

2] The French preconception that religion can be completely divorced from politics or social life is not only false , but is now inverted into determining who is a criminal. Neither you, l nor gov't can separate someone from their religion; and to then make their beliefs a crime-in-itself asks for trouble. The US gov't's own assessment of their experience in lraq took note of this.

3] A practical note. ln a conversation about Paty l had with someone this week, they pointed out that "there is always someone who is willing to die for their religion." That is observably true, l think.

Now Questions:

@realizm  "What "subsidies"?

What happened to the three students that allegedly pointed out Paty for pay??

 

[ServantOfTheHousehold 54]

20 hours ago, Zaydi Shiapard said:

This is what Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (عليه السلام). has to say on this issue:

Zayd ibn Ali (عليه السلام). narrated from his father (Ali as-Sajjad (عليه السلام).) from his grandfather (al-Husayn (عليه السلام).) from Ali (karramallahu wajhahu) that he (عليه السلام). said: "Whoever insults any prophet, we kill him". (Musnad Zayd ibn Ali)

what book?

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

23 hours ago, Guest Musa said:

Salam Brother, is this ruling in islamic country or non islamic country and is judge required? I am follower of Sistani. Thanks

Salam , It's a general  Fatwa but for applying  it in non Islamic  countries  depends  on your Marja that until now all Shia Marjas specially  grand  Ayattollah  Sistani stated about it , just in Islamic  countries  but if applying puts your life  in danger then you can refrain  from  it also applying  it in Islamic countries  needs approve  of a judge.

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

Egypt’s Grand Imam of Al-Azhar to sue France over Prophet cartoons

Quote

Tayeb said Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world, rejects freedom of expression if it protects insults to the prophets.

"I'm the first to protest freedom of expression if it offends any religion and not only Islam," he said in a statement about his meeting with Le Drian, adding, “Insulting the Prophet Muhammad is unacceptable and we will pursue whoever does it in court, even if we spend the rest of our lives doing so.”

Tayeb also dismissed statements by French and Western officials linking Islam to terrorism and rejected the term “Islamic terrorism.”

“Al-Azhar represents the voice of nearly two billion Muslims, and I said that terrorists do not represent us and we are not responsible for their actions.”

The imam continued, “Muslims around the world reject all forms of terrorism committed in the name of religion and affirm that Islam and its prophet have nothing to do with terrorism.”

Quote

Le Drian said the anti-France campaigns in the Muslim world are the result of a distortion of Macron’s statements. “We have a first principle, which is the highest respect for Islam,” Le Drian said at a press conference following his talks with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. “I also want to say that Muslims are fully part of society in France.”

Sisi and Macron discussed the cartoon row during a phone call Nov. 2. According to a presidential statement, Sisi underlined the need to differentiate between Islam as a religion that promotes peace and tolerance and renounces violence and terrorist acts committed by those claiming to represent Islam.

Mohamed Hussein, a professor of international relations at Cairo University, sees Tayeb’s threat of legal proceedings against France over the cartoons as an attempt to de-escalate the situation. He explained that legal action is an effort to soothe Muslim anger by showing Muslims worldwide that the Sunni institution is determined to defend the prophet.

“A move by Al-Azhar to file a lawsuit against France will carry a strong political significance and send a message that all Muslims have the right to be angry over the offending images,” Hussein told Al-Monitor.

 

Quote

Amina Nussir, a professor of theology and philosophy at Al-Azhar University, blamed the behavior of Muslims for anti-Islamic trends in the West. “Muslims living in Europe are to blame … as they failed to to represent Islam well and Islamic values through their behavior and relationships with the people of the countries where they live,” Nussir told Al-Monitor.

Nussir called on Al-Azhar and Islamic countries to take measures such as translating Islamic books into foreign languages to present a better image of the Islamic religion. Nussir concluded, “Introducing Islam in a way that reflects its values will help solve a lot of problems that date back to the Crusades and educate the West about the Islamic religion and the prophet.”

Al-Azhar announced Oct. 28 that it will create an online platform in many languages to defend Islam and introduce the Prophet Muhammad and his moral teachings to the world.

https://en.abna24.com/news//egypt’s-grand-imam-of-al-azhar-to-sue-france-over-prophet-cartoons_1085975.html

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

French opposition leader condemns hatred against Muslims 'Secularism does not mean to hate a religion'

Quote

“There is hatred towards Muslims under the guise of secularism in this country. Secularism does not mean to hate a religion,” Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the France Unbowed movement and an MP from a Mediterranean region with a large Muslim population, told the BFM-TV channel.

Melenchon said Muslims should be respected and constant suspicion towards them should also end.

He said he would continue repeating these statements even though some people would not like it.

He also stressed that he stands against hatred towards Muslims.

Noting that he has received the signatures of 150,000 citizens in support of his candidacy in the 2022 presidential election, Melenchon said the method of fighting against terrorism should change.

https://en.abna24.com/news//french-opposition-leader-condemns-hatred-against-muslims-secularism-does-not-mean-to-hate-a-religion_1086034.html

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

Former Culture Minister of Senegal returned “French Legion of Honor” award in protest to anti-Islam cartoons

Quote

According to Arabi21 website, Amadou Tejan Won made the move in protest at the insults to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in France and French officials Islamophobic remarks.

Tejab Won said when he first was presented with the award, it made him feel proud.

“I regarded this award as a symbol of fraternity, freedom and equality,” he said, adding that now, however, given the insults to the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in France, he has returned the award to the French embassy.

https://en.abna24.com/news//former-culture-minister-of-senegal-returned-“french-legion-of-honor”-award-in-protest-to-anti-islam-cartoons_1086564.html

[Zaydi Shiapard 22]

On 11/15/2020 at 12:31 AM, ServantOfTheHousehold said:

what book?

Book: Musnad Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn: Bab Hadd as-Sahir waz-Zindiq (section on the punishment for sorcerer and heretic)

[realizm 2,731]

On 11/14/2020 at 7:56 PM, hasanhh said:

 Questions:

@realizm  "What "subsidies"?

What happened to the three students that allegedly pointed out Paty for pay??

 

 

Quote

Charlie Hebdo had struggled financially since its establishment until 2015. As the magazine was facing a loss of €100,000 by the end of 2014, it sought donations from readers to no avail.^[143] The international attention to the magazine following the 2015 attack revived the publication, bringing some €4 million in donations from individuals, corporations and institutions, as well as a revenue of €15 million from subscriptions and newsstands between January and October 2015.^[143] According to figures confirmed by the magazine, it gained more than €60 million in 2015, which declined to €19.4 million in 2016.^[144] As of 2018 it spent €1–1.5 million annually for security services, according to Riss.^[144]

TBH I can't even remember who but some Media big shots took shares in the company, and I think this involved some public money at some point. 

 

[hasanhh 10,059]

25 minutes ago, realizm said:

some public money

l read an article in the Bangkok Post that alleged Marcon gave the "green light" for republication of those cartoons.

?

[realizm 2,731]

12 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l read an article in the Bangkok Post that alleged Marcon gave the "green light" for republication of those cartoons.

?

Not sure exactly whether before or after the killing of the teacher but yes he reaffirmed his stance, hence the boycott of the French products. 

[Zainuu 1,137]

On 10/29/2020 at 7:56 AM, ServantOfTheHousehold said:

So who is in the wrong?? Islam or France?? I look forward to you guy's answer

Salamunalaikum, 

May Allah bless you and protect you. 

Their is no straight one word answer to this question. But in my answer I will systematically prove, how both the sides (I mean extremism as well as Islamophobia) are like the two legs of the enemies of Haq and imperialists. 

1. Who created Al-Qaeda? 

Imperialists

2. Who gave rise to the extremist circles among the muslim world and funded them and supported so that they could soread their version of Islam all over the world? 

Imperialists. Proof: Saudi Arabia's historically cozy relations with the Imperialists and note that this KSA was created as a plot to finish the Ottoman Empire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Arabia#:~:text=In 1916%2C with the encouragement,create a united Arab state.

3. All this extremism led to a natural increase in Islamophobia in the previous century (which was also triggered and exaggerated by Media in the west)

As a result, books, cartoons, movies and other ways were sorted to spread hate for Islam. Most of this was a part of the plot. For example, the book by Salman Rushdie. 

These recent ecents are also another shade of the same imperialist colors. They have created and empowered these two strong supports (Islamophobia and extremism) in order to create a chaos. And spread of both has become uncontrolled and sponteneous as the doctrines are taught daily on the entire globe. 

What we should do about it? 

We should hold steadfast and be patient and do something which would be polite, constructive and an accurate response. For this, we should start and propagate a narrative in a way that when this incident is reiterated, it only becomes beneficial for our faith and eases it's propagation. Nothing more than that. 

For your info, all these incidents will eventually lead to the spread of Islam only. Because when logical and ratipnal people will dug into this issue, they will study Qur'an and about Islamic history and ask questions to the muslims. Which will increase awareness. 

And it has been like this only in the previous century too. In the previous century, almost 60000 books have been written to torn the image of Our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but by the grace of Allah, Islam is still the fastest growing faith in the world by any comparison and the rate is still increasing. 

 

So, it's okay if we do what we can do but Allah is himself the guardian and protector of his religion. 

'And they planAnd when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.

— Surah al Anfal verse 30

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

Pakistan govt. under public pressure to expel French envoy over blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

Quote

Protesters have vowed to avenge the blasphemy committed against Islamic sanctities. They are now demanding that the French ambassador be expelled from the country.

Two weeks ago, protesters attempted to force their entry into the red zone of the federal capital in an effort to storm the French embassy. Pakistan’s mainstream media largely opted for a news blackout of the event, allegedly under government pressure to contain agitation on this most sensitive issue.

Pakistan police have teargassed protesters to disperse them in the garrison city of Rawalpindi near the capital Islamabad. Nonetheless a massive crowd emerged on the streets despite chilly weather conditions. At the heart of the intense public anger is the display of blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet of Islam by the French government on state-run buildings last month.

 

https://en.abna24.com/news//pakistan-govt-under-public-pressure-to-expel-french-envoy-over-blasphemous-cartoons-of-prophet-muhammad_1086672.html

[hasanhh 10,059]

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Pakistan govt. under public pressure . . .

4 hours ago, Tehrik-i-Labaik agreed to call-off demonstrations after the gov't agreed to instigate a boycott. -Reuters

2 hours ago, the gov't announced the boycott -BBC

[realizm 2,731]

10 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Salamunalaikum, 

May Allah bless you and protect you. 

Their is no straight one word answer to this question. But in my answer I will systematically prove, how both the sides (I mean extremism as well as Islamophobia) are like the two legs of the enemies of Haq and imperialists. 

1. Who created Al-Qaeda? 

Imperialists

2. Who gave rise to the extremist circles among the muslim world and funded them and supported so that they could soread their version of Islam all over the world? 

Imperialists. Proof: Saudi Arabia's historically cozy relations with the Imperialists and note that this KSA was created as a plot to finish the Ottoman Empire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Arabia#:~:text=In 1916%2C with the encouragement,create a united Arab state.

3. All this extremism led to a natural increase in Islamophobia in the previous century (which was also triggered and exaggerated by Media in the west)

As a result, books, cartoons, movies and other ways were sorted to spread hate for Islam. Most of this was a part of the plot. For example, the book by Salman Rushdie. 

These recent ecents are also another shade of the same imperialist colors. They have created and empowered these two strong supports (Islamophobia and extremism) in order to create a chaos. And spread of both has become uncontrolled and sponteneous as the doctrines are taught daily on the entire globe. 

What we should do about it? 

We should hold steadfast and be patient and do something which would be polite, constructive and an accurate response. For this, we should start and propagate a narrative in a way that when this incident is reiterated, it only becomes beneficial for our faith and eases it's propagation. Nothing more than that. 

For your info, all these incidents will eventually lead to the spread of Islam only. Because when logical and ratipnal people will dug into this issue, they will study Qur'an and about Islamic history and ask questions to the muslims. Which will increase awareness. 

And it has been like this only in the previous century too. In the previous century, almost 60000 books have been written to torn the image of Our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but by the grace of Allah, Islam is still the fastest growing faith in the world by any comparison and the rate is still increasing. 

 

So, it's okay if we do what we can do but Allah is himself the guardian and protector of his religion. 

'And they planAnd when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.

— Surah al Anfal verse 30

 

 

With due respect brother I think this answer is one-sided. 

We should not forget how Iran was at the head of anti Rushdie frenzy back then, and how Islamophobia was actually a term Ayatollah Khomeini (qs) put on the page.  

Ironically enough, all the takfiri killings-beheadings-and-the-likes came afterwards as a counterpower to Iranian lead against imperialism. 

But initially, islamophobia was rather associated with Shia islam. And let's be fair, the trouble makers were mostly Iranians and Lebanese. Hijackings, hostages, tchador etc. 

[Zainuu 1,137]

7 hours ago, realizm said:

We should not forget how Iran was at the head of anti Rushdie frenzy back then, and how Islamophobia was actually a term Ayatollah Khomeini (qs) put on the page.

The case of fatwa on Rushdie was a reply to Islamophobia, it might have triggered Islamophobia but it never started it. As I said, in the entire 20th century, 60000 books were written against the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

On 11/10/2020 at 10:33 PM, Zainuu said:

Salaam brother, 

I would call it a great thread. But I do oppose your objection. I feel the fatwa was appropriate and support it completely. I don't know it's current condition. I don't even know how many muslims follow it. But it was essential at that time. Though I am not a fanatic and can add some reasons to it from my point of view. 
Since the fall of the Ottomans, muslims were constantly on backfoot in the entire world. We were getting attacked by enemies from all sides. From front and from behind also. After the fall of Ottomans several incidents happened against muslims:
1. Palestine
2. Partition of India resulting in the disintegration of Muslims.
3. Then again the division of Pakistan
4. Empowerment of Extremists groups within Muslims

Back to back defeats in wars. Imperialist- imposed dictators in all the muslim nations. And theft of important natural resources in the middle-east by the west. Their are many other events but let us focus on the main point. All of this was humiliating for the muslims and silence in the muslim world gave more confidence to the opponents. So, this fatwa on Salman Rushdie:

1. Became a reason to unite the divided Muslims
2. A way to answer the imperialists that 'it's enough'

We needed a strong response and a violent response at that time. Because they were not objecting or criticizing us. They were not even attacking us but rather mocking us. That book was a message to the Muslims that: "We will defame you and your prophet and you can't do a thing about it." So, a fatwa like that was the most appropriate response to the mockers. If Salman Rushdie had acted as a critique, then I would support your point of answering in an objective fashion. But it was just another attack by imperialists like the occupation of Quds, the creation of extremist groups etc. We were weaker in position at that time and the fatwa was a gesture of strength, toughness and mobility from the side of Muslims. A warning to the enemy that their attacks won't go unanswered.
Writing a book as an answer won't work because muslims were lagging a good media support needed to promote the book. Further, publishing the book in western publications would always be a toug BBC task. So, in the 1980s, a book (that too from Iran which was already hated because of Hostage crisis and war) would go completely ignored in the west. Although muslims would read it but that is not important. 

Now, another point you raised that it added more fuel to the fire and became a reason to defame Islam and the muslims. No my friend. Do you think that as a true devout muslim you will ever earn a good image among the imperialists? They mislead the people by spreading false information about our leaders. Taking anything out of context would mislead the west about us. How many times they depict Sayyed Nasrallah as a 'terrorist' and Ayatullah Khamenei as a 'dictator' without even showing their messages and stances. I agree that it led to a bit of defamation but that was nothing in comparison to what could have happened if the fatwa was not in place.

If Ayatullah Khomeini had not given that Fatwa, everyone would have read that book in the west (as Rushdie is a popular writer) and it would tear down the image of our Prophet (SAWW). The objective and genuine people in the west would have never found a popular reaction to it. This could be a humility for Islam and for Muslims that would be really difficult to bring down. 

 

7 hours ago, realizm said:

Ironically enough, all the takfiri killings-beheadings-and-the-likes came afterwards as a counterpower to Iranian lead against imperialism. 

Afghan resistence, which later converted to Al-Qaeda was established in 1980 by the US. Saudi Arabia was created in 1932 and was funded and supported by Britain much before that to defeat the Ottomans. 

Saddam and Hasan al Bakr (may be I spelled it wrong) all were left in Iraq by Britain after leaving. 

7 hours ago, realizm said:

But initially, islamophobia was rather associated with Shia islam. And let's be fair, the trouble makers were mostly Iranians and Lebanese. Hijackings, hostages, tchador etc. 

Let's not divide to Sunni and Shia over here and put the balls in each other's courts. Islamophobes don't see us like that. 

For Hostage crisis, documents from the embassy are disclosed which prove why it happened. In Lebanon, well if someone invades your country what will you do? 

I agree that this all spinned a bit of anti-Islamic rhetoric but it was a result of media exaggeration and falsehood that propagated it, rather than Iranians and Lebanon. 

FYI, Iranians and Lebanese who did trouble the west are still present so why they are now not the factor? 

[Nightclaw 466]

On 10/29/2020 at 5:26 AM, ServantOfTheHousehold said:

On October 16th, a French teacher by the name of Samuel Paty was murdered by a "Muslim" named Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov. The teacher was beheaded because he depicted prophet Mohamed (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Muslim students considered this disrespectful because paty also depicted him with nudity. Eventually a students father shared a video telling the public about his actions. He told them that he was a sinner that needed to be brought to justice. Then Paty was hunted down and slaughtered. But for WHAT?! Showing a cartoon?!? Yes depicting the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is very disrespectful. BUT WHY SLAUGHTER HIM?!? Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov is not Muslim. ISLAM LITERALLY MEANS TO SURRENDER PEACEFULLY!! ASALAMUALAIKUM LITTERALY MEANS "peace be upon you"!! Astaghfirullah. Why Kill him?? There are so many things the father could have done. he could have transferred his daughter to another school. BUT NOO HE HAD TO SHARE THE VIDEO. He had to help spread fear. Islam to a lot of people is seen as a religion of TERROR not peace! But France is also in the subject. Firstly, the teacher showing nudity in a friking MIDDLE SCHOOL!! WHAT THE HECK MAN Second not firing the teacher seriously bro use you brain. Thirdly, RELIGEON SEPERATION WTH Macron are you trying to get yourself KILLED!! WHY BRO WHY?!?!

So who is in the wrong?? Islam or France?? I look forward to you guy's answer

Wassalamalaikum warahmatullaah (Salam means peace!!)

The one who is in the wrong is the French teacher. If someone drew your dead mother or father naked out of pure spite, disrespect, and trying to hide under the banner of "free speech", you would react angrily - naturally. If someone were to make fun of your dead parents, slandering them with lies, would you just sit there and turn the other cheek because we are supposed to be these druidic peacemakers? If your mother was raped and made fun of because of it and people slander her time and time again, would you sit there and accept it because Islam is the religion of peace? If you say yes, you are certainly lying [unless your parents were horrendous people, which I doubt]. 

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is above our parents and most beloved to us more than all of mankind and would gain a reaction more detrimental. Allah commanded the Muslims to fight back and even sent angels to assist in battles, in some occasions. Therefore, we are not sheep-herding, pacifistic, monks who sit and turn the other cheek when a wrongdoing is done - no. We get up and fight. That is how the Muslims were left alone to begin with, if you look at history. When the opposing nations attacked us, we showed relentlessness until they stopped attacking us and made treaties because of it - even having them live under us and our protection. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was a warrior who had the most patience, the kindest heart and was the most merciful out of all of mankind - yet he still had to fight.

You have issued a fatwa stating that "Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov is not a Muslim." May Allah forgive you for this mistake. He is an excellent young lad and may Allah be pleased with his actions of defending the Messenger of Islam. The Chechens and Dagestanis are not people to mess around with. They are people whom even the Russians fear. These people are devout Muslim and among the people who accepted Islam [after the Muslims lost against the Turks, whom also accepted Islam after winning against the Muslims]. They mostly know their religion and will descimate anyone who disrespects the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. After the children get off Qur'an school, they go wrestle with guns on their backs or wrestle with wild animals. They are one of the most exemplary category of people nowadays. This young man - Abdullah - did the right thing, mashallah. He died the death of a martyr. He died the best of deaths for a Muslim - and he was a Muslim.

To make takfir on someone who has done more than you have by sitting judging him while he is in his grave will be something you are held accountable for in your grave - and could very well take you outside of the fold of Islam. Do not say such things. By the by, Shi'a hold the same view as us Sunni - blaspheme against the Messenger of Allah is punishable by death, unless one is to convert to Islam. Al-Khoei, al-Tusi, and al-Sudduq all hold this view. If you know better than them or have reasons better to oppose them, bring it forth. There is a saying that I really love, and I will say it here to you:

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom of consequence. Peace is not equal to pacifism. 

[Nightclaw 466]

7 hours ago, realizm said:

But initially, islamophobia was rather associated with Shia islam. And let's be fair, the trouble makers were mostly Iranians and Lebanese. Hijackings, hostages, tchador etc. 

Even before then, the problem was with the Saudi family selling out. Even today, they use Mecca and Medina as places to earn money with whatever regard they have towards the religion. They let the Western countries do whatever they want to the Muslims - and still allow it. They allowed the West to do whatever they want and create whatever they want, completely tarnishing the religion of Islam. It could be argued that it is the best governed Muslim country, but to what extent? 

[realizm 2,731]

9 hours ago, Zainuu said:

The case of fatwa on Rushdie was a reply to Islamophobia, it might have triggered Islamophobia but it never started it. As I said, in the entire 20th century, 60000 books were written against the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

 

Afghan resistence, which later converted to Al-Qaeda was established in 1980 by the US. Saudi Arabia was created in 1932 and was funded and supported by Britain much before that to defeat the Ottomans. 

Saddam and Hasan al Bakr (may be I spelled it wrong) all were left in Iraq by Britain after leaving. 

Let's not divide to Sunni and Shia over here and put the balls in each other's courts. Islamophobes don't see us like that. 

For Hostage crisis, documents from the embassy are disclosed which prove why it happened. In Lebanon, well if someone invades your country what will you do? 

I agree that this all spinned a bit of anti-Islamic rhetoric but it was a result of media exaggeration and falsehood that propagated it, rather than Iranians and Lebanon. 

FYI, Iranians and Lebanese who did trouble the west are still present so why they are now not the factor? 

Was it not your point that the acts that lead to Islamophobia today are committed by Sunnis, therefore are a creation of the West [\shortcut mode] ? That's what I understood from your post, to which I replied, WE Shias also played our part in the past.

As you said, no difference between Shia and Sunni here, but that also applies to a Westerner's point of view : executing a hostage is barbaric, whether done by a Lebanese in the 80s, a Zarqawi in the 2000s or a Daeshi in 2016. Btw, all them claimed to act in response to some superpower invading their country. 

I am just pointing some arguments that I found inconsistent in your speech. 

The fact that Hezbollah did achieve things that the others never did and never will is another topic. Islamophobia is due to the actions of Muslims, at least partly. 

[realizm 2,731]

8 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

The one who is in the wrong is the French teacher. If someone drew your dead mother or father naked out of pure spite, disrespect, and trying to hide under the banner of "free speech", you would react angrily - naturally. If someone were to make fun of your dead parents, slandering them with lies, would you just sit there and turn the other cheek because we are supposed to be these druidic peacemakers? If your mother was raped and made fun of because of it and people slander her time and time again, would you sit there and accept it because Islam is the religion of peace? If you say yes, you are certainly lying [unless your parents were horrendous people, which I doubt]. 

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is above our parents and most beloved to us more than all of mankind and would gain a reaction more detrimental. Allah commanded the Muslims to fight back and even sent angels to assist in battles, in some occasions. Therefore, we are not sheep-herding, pacifistic, monks who sit and turn the other cheek when a wrongdoing is done - no. We get up and fight. That is how the Muslims were left alone to begin with, if you look at history. When the opposing nations attacked us, we showed relentlessness until they stopped attacking us and made treaties because of it - even having them live under us and our protection. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was a warrior who had the most patience, the kindest heart and was the most merciful out of all of mankind - yet he still had to fight.

You have issued a fatwa stating that "Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov is not a Muslim." May Allah forgive you for this mistake. He is an excellent young lad and may Allah be pleased with his actions of defending the Messenger of Islam. The Chechens and Dagestanis are not people to mess around with. They are people whom even the Russians fear. These people are devout Muslim and among the people who accepted Islam [after the Muslims lost against the Turks, whom also accepted Islam after winning against the Muslims]. They mostly know their religion and will descimate anyone who disrespects the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. After the children get off Qur'an school, they go wrestle with guns on their backs or wrestle with wild animals. They are one of the most exemplary category of people nowadays. This young man - Abdullah - did the right thing, mashallah. He died the death of a martyr. He died the best of deaths for a Muslim - and he was a Muslim.

To make takfir on someone who has done more than you have by sitting judging him while he is in his grave will be something you are held accountable for in your grave - and could very well take you outside of the fold of Islam. Do not say such things. By the by, Shi'a hold the same view as us Sunni - blaspheme against the Messenger of Allah is punishable by death, unless one is to convert to Islam. Al-Khoei, al-Tusi, and al-Sudduq all hold this view. If you know better than them or have reasons better to oppose them, bring it forth. There is a saying that I really love, and I will say it here to you:

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom of consequence. Peace is not equal to pacifism. 

Wow man, that was tough speech. Impressive. 

Anyway that lad was a delinquent, known from the police for violence. Had he not killed to "avenge Islam", he probably would have been into serious violence stuff or crime.

You seize the opportunity to make him a hero, that's your choice but it doesn't make him one. 

Any one to ban the guy BTW? 

[Zainuu 1,137]

5 minutes ago, realizm said:

Was it not your point that the acts that lead to Islamophobia today are committed by Sunnis, therefore are a creation of the West [\shortcut mode] ?

No

 

6 minutes ago, realizm said:

executing a hostage is barbaric, whether done by a Lebanese in the 80s, a Zarqawi in the 2000s or a Daeshi in 2016. Btw, all them claimed to act in response to some superpower invading their country.

When did Daesh respond to an invading superpower? I don't know about Zarqawi and lebanese did it between 1982 to 1992. This entire span from 1982 to 2000 was an era of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Adding to my points, even Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad movements (Sunni) have confronted west and Israel but I never labelled them in the category of extremism. They are just portrayed badly due to fake news and false propaganda.

Let me clarify that I am not pointing out any Sunni as extreme. But rather Daesh, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram etc. Under category of extremism I count those who kill the innocents without any reason whatsoever. 

[realizm 2,731]

2 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

No

 

When did Daesh respond to an invading superpower? I don't know about Zarqawi and lebanese did it between 1982 to 1992. This entire span from 1982 to 2000 was an era of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Adding to my points, even Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad movements (Sunni) have confronted west and Israel but I never labelled them in the category of extremism. They are just portrayed badly due to fake news and false propaganda.

Let me clarify that I am not pointing out any Sunni as extreme. But rather Daesh, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram etc. Under category of extremism I count those who kill the innocents without any reason whatsoever. 

Indeed hijackings, bombings and kidnappings were common in the 70-80s by movements you mentioned, and actually if my memory is good, the Satanic verses narrates a story of hijacking or terrorist attack. So it's hard to say if Rushdie got inspired by contemporary Hezbollah or previous generations of 'Fedayeen', but the first/major Islamophobic pamphlet of our times was not inspired by Daesh : it was rather inspired by either Shia or 'political Sunnis'. Causes that you and I would consider legit. 

Hope you get my point. 

[Ali_Hussain 6,043]

31 minutes ago, realizm said:

Wow man, that was tough speech. Impressive. 

Anyway that lad was a delinquent, known from the police for violence. Had he not killed to "avenge Islam", he probably would have been into serious violence stuff or crime.

You seize the opportunity to make him a hero, that's your choice but it doesn't make him one. 

Any one to ban the guy BTW? 

His family didn't even know he was religious and said that had they known they would have kept more of an eye on him (paraphrasing) - so his level of religiosity as well as that of his people is clearly being blown completely out of proportion.

Loads of thugs are attacked to the violent aspects they can link to the religion, it doesn't make them pious.

[Zainuu 1,137]

35 minutes ago, realizm said:

Indeed hijackings, bombings and kidnappings were common in the 70-80s by movements you mentioned, and actually if my memory is good, the Satanic verses narrates a story of hijacking or terrorist attack. So it's hard to say if Rushdie got inspired by contemporary Hezbollah or previous generations of 'Fedayeen', but the first/major Islamophobic pamphlet of our times was not inspired by Daesh : it was rather inspired by either Shia or 'political Sunnis'. Causes that you and I would consider legit. 

Hope you get my point. 

Most of the lebanese shia movements were formed in 1980s after the invasion of Israel. Before that, Shias were not involved in any of such political mess. This you can find out through a simple google search. And I cannot stack Daesh, Hezbollah and Hamas all in the same category. It would not be correct to say Hezbollah and Hamas are similar to Daesh. 

That is why I said 'extremism created by the west' pointing to Daesh and alike. 

And 'false propaganda to promote hate for Islam and Muslims.' pointing to Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and alike. 

And I disagree on your point that "it was rather inspired by either Shia or 'political Sunnis'" because they were portrayed badly by the western media. 

And that is what I have said from the start. Don't put extremism and resistence (portrayed badly) in the same list. 

[Nightclaw 466]

1 hour ago, realizm said:

Wow man, that was tough speech. Impressive. 

Anyway that lad was a delinquent, known from the police for violence. Had he not killed to "avenge Islam", he probably would have been into serious violence stuff or crime.

You seize the opportunity to make him a hero, that's your choice but it doesn't make him one. 

Any one to ban the guy BTW? 

Wa 'alaykum assalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

He was a delinquent... according to who? I always refrain from believing what people tell me, especially if it is the media. You are taking this narrative that he was this horrible person - based off of what? He cannot defend himself right now as he is dead. I never understood the type of people to talk bad about someone after they are dead, especially when they try doing what is right in Islam. He defended the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and died doing so while you sit on the internet behind a screen talking about him.

I think I know which is greater of a sight in the eyes of Allah.

[lissenma 73]

i have not been following news much. what happened in france?

[realizm 2,731]

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Wa 'alaykum assalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

He was a delinquent... according to who? I always refrain from believing what people tell me, especially if it is the media. You are taking this narrative that he was this horrible person - based off of what? He cannot defend himself right now as he is dead. I never understood the type of people to talk bad about someone after they are dead, especially when they try doing what is right in Islam. He defended the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and died doing so while you sit on the internet behind a screen talking about him.

I think I know which is greater of a sight in the eyes of Allah.

He killed someone and beheaded him. Cut his head with a knife : skin, carotid artery, spine. 

How sweet is that. 

[Nightclaw 466]

Just now, realizm said:

He killed someone and beheaded him. Cut his head with a knife : skin, carotid artery, spine. 

How sweet is that. 

Sweeter than honey and 'ajwa dates combined with milk. Perhaps his method of killing was a bit harsh, but what is more harsh in the sight of Allah:

1. Insulting His Beloved Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or
2. Someone defending the Messenger of Allah for blaspheming... which is punishable by death in all schools of Islam?

[realizm 2,731]

4 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Sweeter than honey and 'ajwa dates combined with milk. Perhaps his method of killing was a bit harsh, but what is more harsh in the sight of Allah:

1. Insulting His Beloved Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or
2. Someone defending the Messenger of Allah for blaspheming... which is punishable by death in all schools of Islam?

It amazes me how Muslims always like to bring those ahadith were Prophet (sawas) got insulted, mocked, thrown garbage at, and always remained patient, but think it is a personal duty to kill anyone who would do this today. With no proper trial, no chance to defend himself. 

Sorry but you must be one sick dude, or an unexperienced youngster. 

[Nightclaw 466]

1 minute ago, realizm said:

It amazes me how Muslims always like to bring those ahadith were Prophet (sawas) got insulted, mocked, thrown garbage at, and always remained patient, but think it is a personal duty to kill anyone who would do this today. With no proper trial, no chance to defend himself. 

This shows, despite being a Muslim, you do not know what you are talking about. Before going straight to assuming, try looking at what every single Muslim school of thought says. A blasphemer is put to death if a Muslim/apostate [unless they sincerely repent]. If they are non-Muslim, they are trailed, given the chance to convert or face the death penalty. You, as a Shi'a, should know what your schools of thought say. Below this is are references to back up my claim.
Al-Murtada: Al-Intisar, pp. 480–481, al-Khoei: Minhaj al-Salihin - volume 2, pp. 43–45,  al-Saduq: Al-Hidaya fi Usul wa l-Furu, pp. 295–97, al-Tusi: Al-Nihaya, pp. 730–31, Tadhib al-Ahkam - volume 10, page 85

The Messenger was sent as a mercy to all of the worlds, hence his exemplary existence and patience. He was known for being someone who unlimited forbearance. However, that does not excuse mocking him.

[realizm 2,731]

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

This shows, despite being a Muslim, you do not know what you are talking about. Before going straight to assuming, try looking at what every single Muslim school of thought says. A blasphemer is put to death if a Muslim/apostate [unless they sincerely repent]. If they are non-Muslim, they are trailed, given the chance to convert or face the death penalty. You, as a Shi'a, should know what your schools of thought say. Below this is are references to back up my claim.
Al-Murtada: Al-Intisar, pp. 480–481, al-Khoei: Minhaj al-Salihin - volume 2, pp. 43–45,  al-Saduq: Al-Hidaya fi Usul wa l-Furu, pp. 295–97, al-Tusi: Al-Nihaya, pp. 730–31, Tadhib al-Ahkam - volume 10, page 85

The Messenger was sent as a mercy to all of the worlds, hence his exemplary existence and patience. He was known for being someone who unlimited forbearance. However, that does not excuse mocking him.

Please extra read about how laws are to be passed on an individual in Islamic law.

[Nightclaw 466]

27 minutes ago, realizm said:

Please extra read about how laws are to be passed on an individual in Islamic law.

I am no expert in shari'a, but I certainly know the basics of blaspheming. No Muslim school of thought goes against that a blasphemer should either be given a chance to convert [or excused/given a warning after trialing, as they may have been ignorant] or put to death. If they are already Muslim, they are to be put to death or repent sincerely, depending on the school of thought and after the process is done.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Nightclaw

[Ashvazdanghe 8,217]

9 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

. You, as a Shi'a, should know what your schools of thought say. Below this is are references to back up my claim.
Al-Murtada: Al-Intisar, pp. 480–481, al-Khoei: Minhaj al-Salihin - volume 2, pp. 43–45,  al-Saduq: Al-Hidaya fi Usul wa l-Furu, pp. 295–97, al-Tusi: Al-Nihaya, pp. 730–31, Tadhib al-Ahkam - volume 10, page 85

Salam they said it's only applicable in an Islamic  country  that runs by muslim government  but It's does not  apply in a non muslim country  with non muslim government  in Shia Islam only infallible  Imam or a person that has authority  from him can applies this ruling but radical sunni sects like wahabists or Salafist & etc are executing people just based on their wrong understanding  & much wrong conclusion after reading their books. 

[realizm 2,731]

9 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

I am no expert in shari'a, but I certainly know the basics of blaspheming. No Muslim school of thought goes against that a blasphemer should either be given a chance to convert [or excused/given a warning after trialing, as they may have been ignorant] or put to death. If they are already Muslim, they are to be put to death or repent sincerely, depending on the school of thought and after the process is done.

Good, so why not acknowledging that what that kid did was completely un-islamic. 

Same as @Ashvazdanghe said. 

[Nightclaw 466]

5 hours ago, realizm said:

Good, so why not acknowledging that what that kid did was completely un-islamic. 

Same as @Ashvazdanghe said. 

This Paty fellow knew that it was not allowed, but did it anyway. There is a difference between antagonizing and being ignorant.