Salman Rushdie stabbed

[Ethics]

Everything we have learned from our prophets and imams was to be patient and fight falsehood with truthhood and dialogue. If someone is spreading falsehood about Islam around the world, then it is the duty of EVERYONE to enlighten and represent Islam even more so with etiquette and valor. I mean its literally all over in the holy quran. We have so much more stories on patience and virtue than anything else. Heck we even have stories of our prophets and imams who forgave people that tried to kill them. Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) knowing that the king of his time thought he was God, was commanded by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to still go and speak with gentle words. Can you even find a greater example? God could have given any command to Musa (عليه السلام) but no this is a lesson for us in the holy quran. Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) grace and status is far above a clot of sperm trying to disrespect Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or His religion. whom Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Himself blessed with that garbage humans existence. Since the creation of mankind, mankind has went against His word and killed and destroyed His message and His representatives..Yet Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) through His mercy has given us all existence.


And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allāh]. Holy Quran 20:44

Edited August 15, 2022 by Ethics

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

6 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Islam: be tolerant of others because it is a good thing.

Muslims: we want to be intolerant cry babies, even though intolerance is a bad thing.

Andrew Tate: Muslims are intolerant and that's a good thing.

[Zainuu]

Salaam,

Intolerance in the matters of faith is a good thing and natural at the same time.

If you are a believer, you will be naturally intolerant towards the insult of any prophet (S).

Christianity is dead. Tolerance of christians is a sign of the death of christianity.

Liberals don't tolerate when it comes to the liberal values. Hindus don't tolerate when it comes to the Hindu values. Why in world should we muslims tolerate when it comes to our values?

As I said, a person who can tolerate the insult of his religious sanctities is either spiritually dead or weak enough in Imaan to take a stand.

I don't care if anyone likes it or not.

Every action has a reaction.

Questions and genuine objections must be answered with debates and dialogues.

Mocks and insults must be condemned through protests and demonstrations.

Serious attacks on Islam to create a fitna by means of anything must be answered with arms and violent actions.

Rushdie's book was a serious attempt to create fitna. And although, he has become popular but he can never escape now from the cause of his fame. He can never escape the controversy surrounding this book. And rational people and clear headed people who followed the events after this book can easily see the falling curtains of evil. This is why fatwa makes sense.

And what I see even today is that even though a billion dollar industry is working behind empowering the apostates and anti-muslims but the returns are very low. In fact, it is only exposing the hypocrisy of the west.

[ShiaChat Mod]

An off-topic post and a reply were removed. Stick to the topic.  

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 8/14/2022 at 12:34 PM, kadhim said:

Whereas it’s equally obvious to the rest of us that ironically the truth is much the opposite. The viciousness of the response prompts people to mess with you. Khomeini’s fatwa was a factor in opening the door to events in France and Denmark later on. 

We need as a community to learn this lesson that in the 21st century you can’t intimidate people into respecting your faith. Every effort to do this has the opposite effect and makes the problem worse. 

Salam I totally disagree with you because cursed Rushdie'book  has been a great "factor  in opening the door to events in France and Denmark later on." which in both of  France & denmark , cartoonists have used his book as backbone for their catoons  which he used fabrications & insults to prophet Muhammad (pbu) as materials of his book  which later all islamophobes through his book have started mining these fabrications & insult from Sunni sources but on the other hand Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) based on preserving Islamic unity has tried to stop blasphemy of Rushdie before it becomes a great issue also all of people who have attacked to cartoonists in France & denmark have been Wahabists & salfists who all of them have been enemies of Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) so then they never heard about Imam Khomeini'es Fatwa about Salman Rushdie so therefore your rhetoric about Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) is void due to your deviation & grudge against Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) . 

[Ashvazdanghe]

10 hours ago, kadhim said:

We need as a community to learn this lesson that in the 21st century you can’t intimidate people into respecting your faith. Every effort to do this has the opposite effect and makes the problem worse. 

You need to learn that in the 21st century everyone must respects to your faith which everytime you have shown you consider liberal values likewise supporting LGBT & other great sins against religious principle under guis of being modernist & lberal & etc by calling all religious principles & rullings as obsolete matters which you promote practicing liberalism 7 western culture instead of religious principles & rillings, 

[It's me hello]

15 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

You need to learn that in the 21st century everyone must respects to your faith which everytime you have shown you consider liberal values likewise supporting LGBT & other great sins against religious principle under guis of being modernist & lberal & etc by calling all religious principles & rullings as obsolete matters which you promote practicing liberalism 7 western culture instead of religious principles & rillings, 

Tolerating something is not the same as supporting something. Also, people who believe in vigilante stabbings of people who speak bad about Islam are significantly more harmful than anything any one of these guys have ever written. You wonder why nobody respects Muslims in the west or any of the civilized world? It's because of this barbarity. If you want to continue to harm Islam, you do you. You will win nobodies respect with stuff like this and will only encourage acts of defiance like @kadhim has already mentioned.

God has given you a brain, use that brain to counter misinformation rather than resorting to violence.

[Ashvazdanghe]

20 hours ago, Ethics said:

Heck we even have stories of our prophets and imams who forgave people that tried to kill them. Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) knowing that the king of his time thought he was God, was commanded by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to still go and speak with gentle words. Can you even find a greater example?

Salam Imam ali (عليه السلام) has tolerated Khawarij until they have been insulting him but onthe other hand  when they have started their terrorism & harming muslim community so then he has killed them in large number without mercy which in similar fashion cursed  Rushdie by writing his book has caused a great damage to muslim community besides of insulting to prophet Muhammad (pbu) & Allah almighty which punishment of both of his harms are death penalty which only Imam Mahdi (aj) has authority for forgiving him or  not nevertheless for Marjas as his deputies only available choice is executing death penalty for him .  

Quote

Messenger of Allah (pbu)

[On the Day of Resurrection] A man will come while holding a man's hand and say: O my Lord! This killed me.

Allah will say to him: Why did you kill him? He will answer: I killed him, so that the honor and authority will be yours. Allah will say: That belongs to me.

Another man will come while holding a man's hand and says: My Lord! This killed me. Allah will say: Why did you kill him? He will answer: In order for someone to gain honor and power. Allah will say: Honor and authority does not belong to Him. So he will be killed to avenge his blood.

پيامبر خدا صلى الله عليه و آله :

 يَجيءُ الرجلُ آخِذا بِيَدِ الرَّجُلِ فيَقولُ : يا رَبِّ هذا قَتَلَني ، فيقولُ اللّه ُ لَهُ : لِمَ قَتَلتَهُ ؟ فيقولُ : قَتَلتُهُ لِتَكونَ العِزّةُ لكَ ، فيقولُ : فإنّها لي . و يَجيءُ الرجُلُ آخِذا بيدِ الرجُلِ فيقولُ : أي رَبِّ إنَّ هذا قَتَلَني ، فيقولُ اللّه ُ: لِمَ قَتَلتَهُ ؟ فيقولُ : لِتَكونَ العِزّةُ لفلانٍ ، فيقولُ : فإنّها لَيسَت لفلانٍ ، فَيَبُوءُ بِإثمِهِ .

 

 

Quote

Imam Baqir (as):

There is no soul who is killed innocently or with a sin, except that he will be ressurected on the Day of Resurrection, while he is hanging on his killer with his right hand and holding his severed head in his left hand, and blood is gushing out of his veins. He will say: O my Lord! Ask him why he killed me? If the killer says: I killed him in obedience to Allah, the killer will be rewarded with heaven and the victim will be taken to the fire. And if he says: I killed him in the way of obedience to so-and-so, then the victim will be  told: You kill him in similar fashion that he killed you. Then allah Almighty will do whatever He wants with those two.

امام باقر عليه السلام :

ما مِن نَفسٍ تُقتَلُ بَرَّةً و لا فاجِرَةً إلاّ و هِي تُحشَرُ يَومَ القِيامَةِ مُتَعلِّقَةً بقاتِلِهِ بيَدهِ اليُمنى و رَأسُهُ بيَدِهِ اليُسرى و أوداجُهُ تَشخَبُ دَما ، يقولُ : يا رَبِّ سَلْ هذا فِيمَ قَتَلَني ، فإن قالَ قَتَلَهُ في طاعَةِ اللّه ِ اُثيبَ القاتِلُ الجَنّةَ و اُذهِبَ بِالمَقتولِ إلَى النارِ ، و إن قالَ في طاعَةِ فلانٍ ، قيلَ لَهُ : اُقتُلْهُ كما قَتَلَكَ ، ثُمّ يَفعَلُ اللّه ُ عَزَّ و جلَّ فيهِما بعدَ مَشيئَةٍ

Occasions  which Killing  is allowed

Quote

Messenger of Allah (pbu)

By the one who has no god but him, shedding the blood of anyone who testifies to the oneness of Allah and my mission is not permissible except in one of these three cases: the one who renounces Islam and separates from the Islamic Ummah. A man who has a wife and commits adultery and a person who commits suicide.

پيامبر خدا صلى الله عليه و آله :

 و الذي لا إلَهَ غَيرُهُ لا يَحِلُّ دمُ أحَدٍ يَشهَدُ أن لا إلَهَ إلاّ اللّه ُ و أنّي رسولُ اللّه ِ إلاّ بِإحدى ثلاثٍ : التارِكُ للإسلامِ المُفارِقُ للجَماعَةِ ، و الثَّيِّبُ الزاني ، و النفسُ بالنفسِ .

Whoever turns away from his religion (become an apostate), kill him.

پيامبر خدا صلى الله عليه و آله :

مَنِ ارتَدَّ عن دِينِهِ فاقتُلُوهُ .

 

Quote

Whoever [even] with half a word helps in killing a believer, he will meet Allah on the Day of Judgment in a state where it is written on his forehead: Despaired (deprived) from  Allah's mercy.

پيامبر خدا صلى الله عليه و آله :

مَن أعانَ على قَتلِ مؤمنٍ بشَطرِ كَلِمَةٍ لَقِيَ اللّه َ يَومَ القِيامَةِ مَكتوبٌ بينَ عَينَيهِ : آيِسٌ مِن رَحمَةِ اللّه ِ .

https://ahlolbait.com/article/6471/کشتن-در-احادیث

[Ashvazdanghe]

10 minutes ago, It's me hello said:

God has given you a brain, use that brain to counter misinformation rather than resorting to violence.

Salam I use my brain about following Islamic rules in especiall case of cursed Rushdie nevertheless  I don't support barbaric actions of Wahabist & salfists about resorting violence between innocent civilians based on their deviations & wrong interpretations from Islam which both of you & @kadhim have misataken Wahabists & salfists with shia Muslims under guise of nonvilolence propaganda & freedom of speech.

[Ashvazdanghe]

4 hours ago, Ethics said:

Heck we even have stories of our prophets and imams who forgave people that tried to kill them.

Killling of captives 

Book of عوالى اللآلى

 Abu Gharrah Jumahi has been captured in the Battle of Badr. He said to the Prophet: O Muhammad! I am a family man. Please pardon me and release me. The Prophet also released him, on the condition that he does not participate in the war [against the Muslims]. He went to Mecca and said: I mocked Muhammad [and told a lie], so he released me. He took part in the battle of Uhud again, the Messenger of Allah, may allah bless him and his progeny and grant them peace, prayed that he would not escape from the hands of the Muslims. Abu Gharrah has been  captured. [and like the previous time] he said: I am a man of family, please pardon me and release me. The Prophet said: Shall I free you to return to Mecca and say in front of the Quraysh: Did I make fun of Muhammad? A believer is not bitten twice by the same hole. Then he killed him with his own hand.

 

عوالى اللآلى :

 إنّ أبا غرّة الجُمَحيَّ وَقَعَ في الأسرِ يَومَ بَدرٍ فقالَ : يا محمّدُ ، إنّي ذو عَيلَةٍ فَامنُنْ عَلَيَّ ، فَمَنَّ علَيهِ أن لا يَعودَ إلَى القِتالِ ، فَمَرَّ إلى مَكّةَ فقالَ : سَخِرتُ بمحمّدٍ فَأطلَقَني ! و عادَ إلَى القِتالِ يَومَ اُحُدٍ، فَدعا علَيهِ رسولُ اللّه ِ صلى الله عليه و آله أن لا يُفلِتَ ، فَوَقَعَ في الأسرِ ، فقالَ : إنّي ذُو عَيلَةٍ فامنُنْ عَلَيَّ ! فقالَ عليه السلام : حتّى تَرجِعَ إلى مكَّةَ فتقولَ فينادي قريشٍ: سَخِرتُ بمحمّدٍ؟!لا يُلسَعُ المؤمنُ من جُحرٍ مَرَّتَينِ . و قَتَلَهُ بيَدِهِ .

Quote

 

 

پيامبر خدا صلى الله عليه و آله ـ در روز فتح مكّه ـ فرمود:

 لا يُقتَلُ قُرَشيٌّ صَبرا بعدَ هذا اليَومِ إلى يَومِ القِيامَةِ .

The narrations about killing a captive
The Prophet of God, peace be upon him and his progeny, said on the day of the conquest of Meccah:

After today until the Day of Resurrection, you should not kill anyone from Quraysh who has been captivated.

 

وقعة صفّين :

 كانَ عليٌّ عليه السلام إذا أخَذَ أسيرا مِن أهلِ الشامِ خَلّى سبيلَهُ ، إلاّ أن يكونَ قد قَتَلَ أحدا مِن أصحابِهِ فَيَقتُلَهُ بهِ ، فإذا خَلّى سَبيلَهُ فإن عادَ الثانيَةَ قَتَلَهُ و لَم يُخَلِّ سَبيلَهُ

 

The occurrence of Safin:

 Whenever Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has taken a prisoner from the Syrian Army, he would release him unless he had killed one of his companions, in which case he would kill him. When he was releasing a captive, if he would came to war again, he would kill him and not release him.

Imam Sadiq (as):

The Messenger of Allah , peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny , never killed a captive, except for one person: Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ayt, and he stabbed  Ubayy ibn Khalaf    by a spear, as a result of which he died later.

لم يَقتُلْ رسولُ اللّه ِ صَبرا قَطُّ غيرَ رَجُلٍ واحِدٍ : عُقبةَ بنِ أبي مُعَيطٍ ، و طَعَنَ اُبَيَّ بنَ أبِي خَلَفٍ فماتَ بعدَ ذلكَ .

Quote

Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt (Arabic: عقبة بن أبي معيط, romanized: ʿUqbah ibn ʾAbī Muʿayṭ) (died 624) was one of the principal adversaries of Islam. He was a Quraysh leader and a member of the Banu 'Abdu Shams clan of Quraish tribe.

Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Uqba_ibn_Abi_Mu'ayt

Ubay ibn Khalaf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ubay ibn Khalaf (Arabic: أبي بن خلف) was a non-Muslim who was a contemporary and an enemy of Muhammad. He is the only person in the history of Islam whose death has been linked to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He was a brother of Umayyah ibn Khalaf.

Biography
He paid his ransom after Badr, but was killed outside of the battlefield from a small scratch on his neck which happened during the Battle of Uhud (625 CE) when the prophet Muhammed threw a spear in his direction out of defence. Verse [Quran 8:17] was revealed in this occasion.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubay_ibn_Khalaf

https://ahlolbait.com/article/6471/کشتن-در-احادیث

Quote

Kanz al-Ummal - quoted by Yazid bin Bilal -:

I was in the battle of Safin with Imam Ali (عليه السلام). When a captive has been brought to Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام), he would say: I will never kill you in captivity, I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
Hazrat took his weapon and made him swear that he would not fight again and gave him four dirhams.

كنز العمّال ـ به نقل از يزيد بن بلال ـ :

شهدتُ مع علي صفين فكان إذا اُتِيَ بالأسيرِ قال ـ : لَن أقتُلَكَ صَبرا ، إنّي أخافُ اللّه َ رَبَّ العالَمينَ . و كانَ يَأخُذُ سِلاحَهُ و يُحَلِّفُهُ لا يقاتِلُهُ و يُعطيهِ أربَعةَ دَراهِمَ .

[Ibn-e-Muhammad]

17 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam,

Intolerance in the matters of faith is a good thing and natural at the same time.

Ws.

No, it is not. I think what you're trying to convey is that being firm and unswaying in your own beliefs is a good thing, and with that I do agree. You shouldn't be easily manipulated or influenced in matters of belief.

17 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Christianity is dead. Tolerance of christians is a sign of the death of christianity.

Yes, let's ignore centuries of secularization of Western societies where the church and state have been more or less divorced from each other, and blame everything on tolerance.

Look, Andrew Tate is the kind of person who seems to believe that Christian-born women who party on Saturdays and go to church on Sundays aren't really Christians. His reasoning is always, for some reason, fixated on girls and their sexual habits.

Wear an insulting shirt about the Prophet (s) in Albania. You'll come out without a blemish. Try wearing an insulting shirt about Jesus in rural Texas. You can tell me how that goes, bud.

17 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Hindus don't tolerate when it comes to the Hindu values.

I mean, you might get chased down the alley in Varanasi if you said something off the mark about their god(s). Or they might create a fuss over a movie - like they did with Padmavat.

But what are these values that Hindus are taking up arms for? And who is opposing them anyway?

17 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Serious attacks on Islam to create a fitna by means of anything must be answered with arms and violent actions.

Where do you draw the line?

I think any page of any book that says the Prophet (s) displayed no control over himself and performed sex with his menstruating wife is insulting. I think that any person who celebrates or defends the Prophet's (s) alleged marriage to a 6-year old is causing fitna. I think all of these allegations are dishonest and dangerous. Should we raise an army that will carry out attacks against some of our own people? I genuinely want to know what you will gain out of violence. And where exactly do you draw the line.

[Ethics]

40 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam

Wasalam. You can quote as many of these kinds of hadith as you like but regardless whether they are authentic or not, it is only in the power of the divines command. Maraja are not imams...they do not have the authority of passing judgement like that. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the master of the day of judgement and He is the only one that has that authority in which He has given that to the infallible Imams (عليه السلام) and Prophets on specific special scenarios. Clearly there are far beyond cases of mercy and forgiveness and tolerance than anything else in the whole religion. Intellect and Quranic discourse overturns any fallible human judgement in such scenarios. I will not argue further on this subject. I disagree and am against entirely with any such rulings.

For the Islam that I believe in, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that I take as lord, His representatives is not some weak, senseless, anger, revenge driven motives or beings. You claim Islam is the religion of truth. But what kind of religion of truth cannot stand up to some joke propaganda, joke books. That tells me your faith is shaky and weak. You are scared those such things will disprove your religion so you resort to such mentality.

Nay, truth is clear from falsehood. There is no compulsion in religion!

No matter if the world starts burning all the qurans, insulting the prophets and imams, desecrating the kaaba and the holy shrines.. THE RELIGION OF ALLAH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL. For Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) sacrificed everything for it, and for Our Holy Imam (عليه السلام) being by our side.

[Ashvazdanghe]

The Revelation Reason of Verse ( 27 ) from Surah ( Al-Furqân )

{ وَيَوْمَ يَعَضُّ ٱلظَّالِمُ عَلَىٰ يَدَيْهِ يَقُولُ يٰلَيْتَنِي ٱتَّخَذْتُ مَعَ ٱلرَّسُولِ سَبِيلاً }

 

(On the day when the wrong-doer gnaweth his hands…) [25:27]. ‘Ata’ al-Khurasani reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “Ubayy ibn Khalaf used to go to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, keep his company and listen to his speech without believing in him. ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayt, then, rebuked him for doing so, and so this verse was revealed about it”. Said al-Sha‘bi: “ ‘Uqbah [ibn Abi Mu‘ayt] was a friend of Umayyah ibn Khalaf. When ‘Uqbah embraced Islam, Umayyah said to him: ‘I do not want to ever see you if you follow Muhammad’. ‘Uqbah disbelieved again and renounced Islam to please his friend, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Other commentators of the Qur’an said: “Ubayy ibn Khalaf and ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayt were allies.......................................................................................Ubayy said to him: ‘I will never be happy with you until you go to him, spit on his face and step on his neck’. ‘Uqbah did just that, and the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said to him: ‘If I ever meet out of Mecca, I will behead you’. ‘Uqbah was later killed while in captivity at Badr. As for Ubayy ibn Khalaf, the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, killed him in a duel at Uhud. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed about ‘Uqbah and Ubayy this verse”. Said al-Dahhak: “When ‘Uqbah spat on the face of the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, his spit split into two and flew back on ‘Uqbah’s face. This caused both his cheeks to burn and the scars resulting from this burning remained visible until he died”.

https://www.altafsir.com/asbabalnuzol.asp?soraname=25&ayah=27&search=yes&img=a&languageid=2

[Ashvazdanghe]

10 minutes ago, Ethics said:

Nay, truth is clear from falsehood. There is no compulsion in religion!

Salam you have a point anyway when you have accepted Islam so therefore you must follow it's rulling & principles which anyone is free to choose to follow Islam or not without any complusion which some people have misinterpreted it as Muslims must not give proper answer to any insult & mocking of Allah & Islam & prophet muhammad (pbu) by enemies of Islam which if anyone has done it once against Islam due to ignorance or any other reason we can forgive that person as ignorant person but on the other hand when someone likewise cursed Rushdie  has done  insulting & mocking of Allah & Islam & prophet muhammad (pbu) purposely by his free will & his level of knowledge so therefore any Muslim can't be indiffernt to him .

17 minutes ago, Ethics said:

No matter if the world starts burning all the qurans, insulting the prophets and imams, desecrating the kaaba and the holy shrines.. THE RELIGION OF ALLAH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL. For Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) sacrificed everything for it, and for Our Holy Imam (عليه السلام) being by our side.

It will prevail by following his way not by sitting in home and praying in corner of your home which he has sacrified everything for Islam in a bloody war which wahabists & salfist say that it has been rebelion against legal ruler & a kind of suicide which in similar fashion Islamophobes say that it was a war for kingship & politics & gaining power between two tribes of Muslims which after martyrdom of Imam hussain (عليه السلام) ,cursed Yazid has ordered attack to Meina & Mecca which he has ordered to his army to burn Qurans & destroy holy Kaaba to the ground & rape women due that he has tought there is no guardian of Islam anymore which due to efforts of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) &rest of Imams after him by sacrifying their life in way of Islam & education of people & spreading knowledge & insight between people , islam has been prevailed in exchange of martyrdom of our Imams & their loyal followers in hidden war with tyrants &oppressors based on following way of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) .

30 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Where do you draw the line?

I think any page of any book that says the Prophet (s) displayed no control over himself and performed sex with his menstruating wife is insulting. I think that any person who celebrates or defends the Prophet's (s) alleged marriage to a 6-year old is causing fitna. I think all of these allegations are dishonest and dangerous. Should we raise an army that will carry out attacks against some of our own people? I genuinely want to know what you will gain out of violence. And where exactly do you draw the line.

certaily waging war & rising an army is not true response which we must spread truth & right information to refute all of these fabrications & insults  by following way of infallible Imam that is vary based on situation which sometimes needs more education & spreading truth which in especiall cases likewise cursed Rushdie it needs hard response .

[Hasani Samnani]

21 hours ago, kadhim said:

Which doesn’t give him any jurisdiction to call out hits in the UK or wherever else in the world outside of Iran.

 Respected brother and brothers who support you viewpoint, I understand your viewpoints towards your consideration of violent acts. It's not clean, looks barbaric,  we should convince people with our Ikhlaq, and kindness and forgiveness that is the teachings of our  Masoomeen, toward personal insults in numerous of our Hadith.

However,  insults directed towards our Lord and his Messenger,  carefully crafted with Madison Ave/Edward Bernays level marketing and messaging are pure Satanic and Luciferian operations. Just like the birthing of the Wahhabi/Salafi movement designed to slaughter Shia and Mohib e AhlulBayt sunnies and sufis.

We are involved in a Global War against Kufr. If some chose to remain conscientious objectors to combat,  its part of our LA IQRA FID DEEN, no one is going to force you to take up arms or condone violent acts. But please don't act as fifth columnists towards those brave enough to take up arms to fight, we should be united , because our enemies are united under a Standard of Shaitan. I am not saying that this specific incident is part of our combat operations,  but responses to attacks are necessary,  we are not turn the other cheek types.

We are having an academic discussion and I have respect for opposing viewpoints. I am a Libertarian at  heart and believe you have a right to say what you want, and I will fight for your right to say it.

But even free speech is restricted in so-called free speech countries...fire crowded theater,  mis gendering, threatening speech, conspiracy theories,  and God forbid my favorite alternative medical therapies. Now without devolving off topic...

Shias and Iran specifically is in involved in low intensity war with global kufr as Sunni writer Kalim Siddiqui used to say.

The same global kufr war, again low intensity but insidious wars, is true of our Marjae/ulema/jammat in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan,  Yemen, Nigeria  etc.

In some cases it's full on Kinetic war, targeted assassinations of Nuclear scientists and their families, our most illustrious Generals ( yes they're combatants but the killing modus operandi is dishonorable since they don't fight on a battlefield , but drone assassinations) , targeted assassination of prominent Shia businessmen and Doctor's ( who were serving the poor and converting thru their actions) in Pakistan,  murder of entire Shia jammah in masjids and Imam baragha in Afghanistan on a trimonthly basis, targeted slaughter/imprisonment of very ill ulema and and their followers in Nigeria,  slaughter of Shia by certain monarchies, and list goes on.

The blood of Shia is very freely spilt since the time of Imam Hussain.

Yes it's distasteful for those in the west to see a barbaric attack,  because they are afforded relative safety in the west. A slight tinge of NIMBY thought perhaps. I don't condone the attack,  but that doesn't mean he didn't deserve it thru his Satanic and unrepentant prideful global gloating. It's like watching a enemy of Islam get brutally killed , we can condemn the brutal nature of attack, but sort of self inflicted...no? Some of our brothers are quicker to brutal actions,  likely because of their backgrounds and upbringing.

The insidious social media, printed words that incite Fasad fil Ard by writers proud that they degraded Our beloved Rasoolullah and his  Family will not be tolerated.

One day this war may come to your peaceful homes and May Allah protect you and your loved ones at that time. I hope you will be willing to take up arms at that time.

In interests of keeping things light ...I am going Billy Joel on you and your boys...We didn't start the Fire... I just ear wormed you,  be careful brothers I have more such ammunition. 

[Zainuu]

44 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

No, it is not. I think what you're trying to convey is that being firm and unswaying in your own beliefs is a good thing, and with that I do agree. You shouldn't be easily manipulated or influenced in matters of belief.

If someone abuses your father in front of you, you'll not like it. Prophet (S) is more than our fathers.

You might ignore it once or twice but when it becomes consistent and systematic and is directed to become a norm, you will strike and that's absolutely fine.

47 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Yes, let's ignore centuries of secularization of Western societies where the church and state have been more or less divorced from each other, and blame everything on tolerance.

Look, Andrew Tate is the kind of person who seems to believe that Christian-born women who party on Saturdays and go to church on Sundays aren't really Christians. His reasoning is always, for some reason, fixated on girls and their sexual habits.

Wear an insulting shirt about the Prophet (s) in Albania. You'll come out without a blemish. Try wearing an insulting shirt about Jesus in rural Texas. You can tell me how that goes, bud.

See. I don't care who that man is and it doesn't matter. But what he said is correct. Stick to your values. And my values teach me to be polite and sweet to the believers and strong, tough and harsh to the unbelievers. (By unbelievers I don't mean non-muslims. But those who have enmity and hate burning within their hearts for Islam.) You can refer to Surah al Maida verse 54.

54 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Or they might create a fuss over a movie - like they did with Padmavat.

But what are these values that Hindus are taking up arms for? And who is opposing them anyway?

Padmaavat was not an insult to hinduism. And the protest was not by Hindus but a specific group of Rajputs.

So, this is irrelevant.

55 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Where do you draw the line?

Lines must be drawn when a global level campaign is being triggered to insult the Prophet (S) and Islam. Because it is a fitna. It is equivalent to masking of Islam.

And lines must be drawn by the leaders not the public. It is not like anyone can stand and do what he wants.

[It's me hello]

42 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

If someone abuses your father in front of you, you'll not like it. Prophet (S) is more than our fathers.

You might ignore it once or twice but when it becomes consistent and systematic and is directed to become a norm, you will strike and that's absolutely fine

This would justify killing just about any atheist that has significant problems with Islam and that writes or speaks about it. If you're okay with vigilante killings of every single outspoken atheist, then that's cool. You should just admit to that. Just say that you want outspoken anti-Islam advocates to get stabbed to death.

However if you actually care about spreading a positive message about Islam, you should probably look into not killing people. Nobody will be like "Ohhhhh, he just got stabbed and mutilated to death by a Muslim? Maybe I should become a Muslim, they seem like a very reasonable group of people." What do you hope to accomplish by this? Do you guys just blindly follow any authority without questioning for 1 second? You are literally hurting Islam worse than any one of these idiot atheists could. Every time something like this happens, people who hate Islam are frothing at the mouth to take advantage of the situation. They use events like this to make Muslims look like barbaric savages, and honestly they wouldn't be wrong. After reading this thread, it seems like a lot of Muslims believe it's okay to murder someone who disagrees with you.

[ali_fatheroforphans]

25 minutes ago, It's me hello said:

They use events like this to make Muslims look like barbaric savages

Yeah I personally didn't see anything positive come out of this situation for the Muslims. 

[Haji 2003]

Freedom of speech
 

Quote

Two British publishers have censored books intended for western readers to ensure they can be printed cheaply in China, in the latest instance of companies yielding to Beijing’s restrictions on free speech.

https://www.ft.com/content/63cbf209-656f-4f99-9ee3-722755c228ed

[Abu_Zahra]

19 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Islam: be tolerant of others because it is a good thing.

Muslims: we want to be intolerant cry babies, even though intolerance is a bad thing.

Andrew Tate: Muslims are intolerant and that's a good thing.

He raises an interesting point though, which is that the Catholic church failed to draw the line anywhere and as a result lost credibility in the eyes of their own followers.  This is why he and many other Christians consider their religion 'dead', because it stands for absolutely nothing anymore. 

[Diaz]

If anyone wanna read more about the young man who tried to killed Rushdie, the link is below.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110905/Mother-alleged-Salman-Rushdie-attacker-says-son-responsible-actions.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[Abu_Zahra]

13 hours ago, It's me hello said:

This would justify killing just about any atheist that has significant problems with Islam and that writes or speaks about it. 

No it doesn't because there is a difference between disagreeing and insulting. By all means, disagree and even criticize Islam, but when you start insulting then don't be surprised if among two billion Muslims, somewhere there happens to be one who decides they won't let it pass.

[Abu_Zahra]

3 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Wear an insulting shirt about the Prophet (s) in Albania. You'll come out without a blemish.

I don’t think you've met many Albanian Muslims...

Also:

I mean, you might get chased down the alley in Varanasi if you said something off the mark about their god(s). Or they might create a fuss over a movie - like they did with Padmavat.

Muslims have been killed in India just because someone spread a rumor that they ate beef.

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Mahdavist

[Northwest]

Many people seem to be viewing this case through the prism of the Enlightenment. According to this paradigm, killing for religious reasons is deemed “intolerant” and a relic of “uncivilised” and “superstitious” times, or as a resort to the baser instincts of human nature, that is, emotion over intellect. After all, the Enlightenment introduced the notion of religious, if not political, pluralism, in addition to Deism and liberalism.

The problem is that this notion does not apply to most of human history, yet (post-)modernity acts as though its standard is the pinnacle of human rationality.

Nevertheless, the Enlightenment also introduced the concept of the autonomous individual, based on individualism, as opposed to the traditional viewpoint in which the individual is an organic unit, part of the community. The Enlightenment turned man into an abstraction and made “rights” absolute rather than relative, even though “rights” have always been relative in all times and places.

Ironically, Muslims themselves made themselves vulnerably by adopting Enlightenment-derived standards in attacking the traditional dominance of (Trinitarian) Christianity. By criticising the “intolerance” and “savagery” of Christendom, and by demanding religious and political pluralism, they inadvertently opened the door for anti-Islam forces to apply the same standards to Islamic “barbarism.”

By no means am I defending Rushdie or his ilk, but I think the atheistic libertines have long sought to pit religious communities against one another, and to encourage lines of thought that undermine all basis of authority and solidarity, especially communal. By constantly attacking the Christian right and its allies, Muslims have left themselves vulnerable to Rushdie and his ilk. So there is plenty of blame to assign.

[Zainuu]

1 hour ago, It's me hello said:

This would justify killing just about any atheist that has significant problems with Islam and that writes or speaks about it. If you're okay with vigilante killings of every single outspoken atheist, then that's cool. You should just admit to that. Just say that you want outspoken anti-Islam advocates to get stabbed to death.

However if you actually care about spreading a positive message about Islam, you should probably look into not killing people. Nobody will be like "Ohhhhh, he just got stabbed and mutilated to death by a Muslim? Maybe I should become a Muslim, they seem like a very reasonable group of people." What do you hope to accomplish by this? Do you guys just blindly follow any authority without questioning for 1 second? You are literally hurting Islam worse than any one of these idiot atheists could. Every time something like this happens, people who hate Islam are frothing at the mouth to take advantage of the situation. They use events like this to make Muslims look like barbaric savages, and honestly they wouldn't be wrong. After reading this thread, it seems like a lot of Muslims believe it's okay to murder someone who disagrees with you.

You did not read the entire post and just read a segment and replied.

This is not what I said. This is not even how sharia works. Sharia is not random but very strict and conditional. Ayatullah khomeini gave the fatwa to kill Rushdie and associated people. Nothing more and nothing less.

Jazakallah.

[Zainuu]

15 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Ironically, Muslims themselves made themselves vulnerably by adopting Enlightenment-derived standards in attacking the traditional dominance of (Trinitarian) Christianity.

Salaam,

One Iranian scholar I heard said that Muslims today face the same enemies which Christians used to face pre-World War I.

[Ethics]

Violence due to insults make no sense. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) taught us etiquette and mannerism on how to deal with people who insult us and such. I do not need to bring proofs from the holy quran and hadith, my fellow followers of ahlulbayt, now do I. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) time and time again has brought forth the importance of setting aside anger and being patient. This is not a religion of violence, this is a religion of peace. "Drawing a line"/"losing credibility" argument is also irrational because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) commands us to ENJOIN good and FORBID evil. Muslims and scholars around the world denounce and forbid any evil that comes towards us. If anything that is the whole message of the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام).

3 hours ago, Ethics said:

No matter if the world starts burning all the qurans, insulting the prophets and imams, desecrating the kaaba and the holy shrines.. THE RELIGION OF ALLAH WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL. For Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) sacrificed everything for it, and for Our Holy Imam (عليه السلام) being by our side.

And btw when I put it into an extreme scenario like this, my point is the message of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will never get lost. So hurting people or whatever, due to major propaganda or because someone is insulting our Prophet, somehow that will solve the issue is just stupid. Studies and history have shown that will only make things more worse for Islam and it's followers. We live in an intertwined world. Of course the only time we should fight back is to defend ourselves or our lands. But Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) prohibits violence in any other situation.

[Zainuu]

4 hours ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Where do you draw the line?

A more accurate question should be:

What must be done if the line is crossed?

Because red line in this case is clear-as-daylight.

 

And in my opinion, we must obey what our leader says just like what a soldier would do if someone illegally enters into his national territory.

[Northwest]

38 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Salaam,

One Iranian scholar I heard said that Muslims today face the same enemies which Christians used to face pre-World War I.

@Zainuu

One lone voice does not indicate a pattern.

My point is that Muslims have drawn themselves into a trap by their own use of Enlightenment-era standards to criticise rival faiths such as (Trinitarian) Christianity.

Many Muslims have been educated and/or informed by liberal ideology and thus attack Christianity’s “intolerance” for other faiths, resort to “irrationality,” enslavement and/or killing of nonbelievers, application of “misogyny,” and so on—as though Islam would somehow be more “modern” and “enlightened” in these regards.

In employing liberal tropes to assail Christianity, Muslims end up legitimising attacks on their own faith, including claims that Islam is “misogynist,” “irrational,” “intolerant,” and so on.

Unfortunately, I think that even the ulema in Iran have not effectively defended the essential illiberalism of all faith, including that of Islam, but have merely reacted apologetically.

4 hours ago, Ethics said:

His representative is not some weak, senseless, anger, revenge-driven motives or beings. You claim Islam is the religion of truth. But what kind of religion of truth cannot stand up to some joke propaganda, joke books? That tells me your faith is shaky and weak. You are scared those such things will disprove your religion so you resort to such mentality.

@Ethics

Superficially Rushdie’s works might seem innocuous and marginal. By themselves, decontextualised, they might well be.

Nevertheless, I suspect that Imam Khomeini’s fatwa was based on Rushdie’s intentions and associations. Rushdie was being promoted by elite-level forces in order to attack a certain religion’s core principles. Rushdie’s handlers may have sanctioned his activity in order to see whether Muslims (or others) would respond to an attack on their honour, or would merely remain passive and tacitly permit similar actions in the future. Perhaps Rushdie’s controllers felt so confident in the weakness of their foes that they exhibited a bit of chutzpah.

Modernity and its bureaucratic enforcers regard matters such as “honour” as negotiable, subject to supply and demand, as well as a figment of man’s emotional past and/or “immaturity.” However, in traditional societies one’s status was based on one’s function, rather than individual autonomy, the individual being a mere organic unit, part of a whole (community). Only slaves and masters existed, all of whom being subject to the Heavenly Master. One was not in a position to question one’s earthly master, who in turn represented a chain of superiors.

In medieval times, in feudal societies, for instance, it was one’s duty to avenge attacks on one’s master. The master would have ordered his slaves to do so, and slaves, by definition, lack individual identity, much less autonomy. The slave was thus bound to avenge assaults on the dignity and station of his master. A son, being indebted to his father, would be in the same position. How much more so would be a slave’s position in relation to his spiritual father/master, who in turn would be seen to represent the Heavenly Master. Rôle/duty were identical.

It is only in modern times that this ancient fact became obscured, owing to the rise of supposedly “autonomous” individuals, “rational” agents of “choice,” who were no longer seen as bound by traditional, or feudal, obligations. Traditionally these obligations were to one’s family and community, both of which, in turn, were subject to larger material units and ultimately, like all creation, to overarching spiritual hierarchies. One’s superiors laid down the Law, and one, being a slave, was not in a position to rationally question/interpret it.

2 minutes ago, Ethics said:

Violence due to insults make no sense. ... Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) time and time again has brought forth the importance of setting aside anger and being patient. This is not a religion of violence, this is a religion of peace.

@Ethics

As always, semantics and definitions are everything. This world is temporal, so everything is relative. “Peace” is only conceivable in relation to war, so if the latter did not exist, or was not latent in man, “peace” would be incomprehensible. In this world “peace” is only obtained by submission to an ordered hierarchy. If this were not so, war would be perpetual, and a state of anarchy, or decentralisation, would prevail.

As all religion has been social, it has sought to create society, which is feasible only by binding/ordering/commanding, lest individual units act autonomously, leading to conflict and chaos. Order necessarily implies hierarchy and a chain of command, as well of “intolerance” for rival centres of organisation, that is, power.

The essence of religion, including Islam, is organisation and hence “submission” to a central authority. Society is thus embodied in the state, a corporate entity, and the latter’s submission to an overriding principle. This principle must always retain the capacity for war, in order to maintain the “submission.”

The problem is that most Muslims, like other religionists, are unaware of their own tradition and thus succumb to liberal tropes. Unfortunately, by their apologetic defence(s), much of the Islamic ulama has inadvertently contributed to this mindset, concealing much from the general (lay) public.

[Zainuu]

4 minutes ago, Northwest said:

One lone voice does not indicate a pattern.

My point is that Muslims have drawn themselves into a trap by their own use of Enlightenment-era standards to criticise rival faiths such as (Trinitarian) Christianity.

Many Muslims have been educated and/or informed by liberal ideology and thus attack Christianity’s “intolerance” for other faiths, resort to “irrationality,” enslavement and/or killing of nonbelievers, application of “misogyny,” and so on—as though Islam would somehow be more “modern” and “enlightened” in these regards.

In employing liberal tropes to assail Christianity, Muslims end up legitimising attacks on their own faith, including claims that Islam is “misogynist,” “irrational,” “intolerant,” and so on.

Unfortunately, I think that even the ulema in Iran have not effectively defended the essential illiberalism of all faith, including that of Islam, but have merely reacted apologetically.

I agree with you over this. Muslims (even Iranians) mostly adopted the policy of 'an enemy of the enemy is a friend'.

[Abu Hadi]

20 hours ago, kadhim said:

Let’s, for the sake of argument, take that claim at face value. So taking that as a given, whose fault is it when our community mindlessly follows the script? 

A Muslim who is worth the name is someone who takes responsibility for regulating his own actions and responses. I don’t see any acknowledgement of that basic principle in anything any of you are saying. 

I agree with you on this point. A muslim needs to take personal responsibility for his/her own actions. This concepts is actually at the center of the Aqeeda. That is why myself, and most of the senior members here are very careful when it comes to these issues. We don't normally advocate violence, even in the face of insults and plots against us. That is because the religion of Islam teaches (as most other religions teach also) that violence is the very last resort. You should try everything else first, and you should also practice patience. 

At the same time, there are certain red lines, that when crossed put someone in a very precarious position because of  their own actions. This is just reality, it doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. If you kick a hornets nest enough times, you are going to get stung. It was not the whole community that did this, it was one individual. Now for the part which I know you were waiting for

If you want me to criticize his actions, I would need more information. If he is muqallid of Imam Khomeini((رضي الله عنه)) and he is acting based on his fatwa, I have no basis to criticize him because he is acting based on the fatwa of his marjaa'. If he is not muqallid of Imam Khomeini then I would say his actions are reckless, as they are putting his own life and health at risk for something which is not worth it (i.e. Rushdie). In Jaafari fiqh, such actions can only be taken when one is acting on a clear fatwa of a marjaa' taqleed that is applicable to that individual. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[VoidVortex]

4 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

If you want me to criticize his actions, I would need more information. If he is muqallid of Imam Khomeini((رضي الله عنه)) and he is acting based on his fatwa, I have no basis to criticize him because he is acting based on the fatwa of his marjaa'. If he is not muqallid of Imam Khomeini then I would say his actions are reckless, as they are putting his own life and health at risk for something which is not worth it (i.e. Rushdie). 

its beyond that, if he believed in wilayat al faqih and had a different marja he would still be acting based on the order by the wali al faqih and we would have no basis to criticise him

[Abu Hadi]

6 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

its beyond that, if he believed in wilayat al faqih and had a different marja he would still be acting based on the order by the wali al faqih and we would have no basis to criticise him

Yes, if he believes in Imam Khomeini's interpretation of the concept of Wilayat Al Faqih. 

[Ethics]

53 minutes ago, Northwest said:

 

I appreciate the commentary but I hard disagree with many of your viewpoints and understandings and I do not feel as if responding to your points will change your viewpoints. So I will leave it at that.

[Hasani Samnani]

14 hours ago, It's me hello said:

This would justify killing just about any atheist that has significant problems with Islam and that writes or speaks about it. If you're okay with vigilante killings of every single outspoken atheist, then that's cool. You should just admit to that. Just say that you want outspoken anti-Islam advocates to get stabbed to death.

That's a strawman argument, saying something so exaggerated to persuade to your side.

It's also intriguing abd ironic that you changed your display pic from a Hezbullah flag to a Bugs Bunny colleague. As I pointed out its very ironic on one hand to support a protector of women,  children and the elderly who operate as not sanctioned  militia and some of their supporters are zealous in the their support no public negative speech towards their leader or their Organization,  maybe you now  only like fuzzy cuddly rabbits.

@Northwestmakes an several important, logical and rational arguments regarding the fatwa and the diametrically opposed enlightenment and libertine values, which some Muslims have adopted, and I agree mistakenly.  Hence they are forced to condemn such barbarity, as proper non savages and to distance themselves from their so called "Savage" brethren, to keep their spot in polite society.

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

By no means am I defending Rushdie or his ilk, but I think the atheistic libertines have long sought to pit religious communities against one another, and to encourage lines of thought that undermine all basis of authority and solidarity, especially communal. By constantly attacking the Christian right and its allies, Muslims have left themselves vulnerable to Rushdie and his ilk. So there is plenty of blame to assign.

@zainu and @Abu Hadi have both raised the point of redlines. This is an essential principle for any faith or movement, otherwise like weak kneed neo-Christian and liberal Judaism doctrine there are no guiding principles, it's all dependent on political and social expediency.

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

I suspect that Imam Khomeini’s fatwa was based on Rushdie’s intentions and associations. Rushdie was being promoted by elite-level forces in order to attack a certain religion’s core principles. Rushdie’s handlers may have sanctioned his activity in order to see whether Muslims (or others) would respond to an attack on their honour, or would merely remain passive and tacitly permit similar actions in the future. Perhaps Rushdie’s controllers felt so confident in the weakness of their foes that they exhibited a bit of chutzpah.

Thus is like the Barbri Masjid and Masjid Al aqsa issue, the opposing side will push in order to feel out the defensive strategy, its classic Clausewitz doctrine used endlessly in the west.