I’m not justifying anything. I think people should do whatever they please, just so long as they don’t get into my own territory.
The point is that whatever you do, know that it will have effects, sometimes on a level and dimension that you may never have thought otherwise.
This is the same reason why I wouldn’t want to “mess around” with artifacts that the Catholic Church may hold in high spiritual esteem; or get on the wrong side of Native American witchcraft. I recognize the supernatural forces in those objects- no, I do not discriminate.
However, Europeans and Western Christendom don’t seem to understand that this also extends to Islam and the Prophet. Indeed, you guys may believe him to be a charlatan; a pimp; a blood-thirsty mad-man trying to convert everyone to his crazy moon religion, but again, that’s what you believe. It has no bearing on Reality, however, hence why cartoonists keep finding themselves hacked to death.
Ergo, when a cartoonist publicly denigrates the Prophet in the most heinous of ways, he’s basically trying to prove a point. It’s his idea about the Prophet VS Reality.
Reality always wins!
The Prophet is the perfect reflection of mankind.
If you think “he sucks,” it only proves that you believe your own self sucks.
Thank you bro for admitting my leadership position over @Rafidi and @elAshtar.
About the teenager Chechen who lately killed a teacher in Paris suburbs, first of all Allah yer7amon tnanineton, they died for an awful question of Me7n stupido.
About the Islamic Legal POV on this dramatic and regrettable event, give me some time and I'll answer you, in case the others don't answer.
But to make you analyze the question, is it justified in Christian religion that a teacher shows to his 12-15 years old classroom porno blasphemous sketches?
No, that doesn't justify your admittance either. Said act, which mirrors Muhammad's, is not something normal or essential to us, as is say breathing or eating, that wouldn't otherwise need much of a justification and is thus to be accepted by us as such. For this you have to demonstrate that every human is bound to live like Muhammad, that it is essential to their nature of being human to live like he did, that it is the only 'living way' human nature is capable of (rather than 'living like him' not being a consequence of a compromised human nature). For your equation to be valid, the subject in question must satisfy a comprehensive reflection of mankind, which isn't the case in reality. You are only shoehorning and reducing humanity to fit your prophet, sadly enough. The world is brimming with human beings (including proclaimed Muslims, ironically) living in ways that would be considered to be diametrically opposed to those of Muhammad, or more so with people who may have had (and may have) similar bloody public career as Muhammad at one point in their life before renounced it at a later point and going on living oppositely. Does Muhammad's life account for these, does it reflect it? So no, butchering people for drawing you in a cartoon is not a reflection of mankind or of something humans normally (ought to) do (you yourself is a testament).
Is it by willing or by missing that yo didn't answer my question : "But to make you analyze the question, is it justified in Christian religion that a teacher shows to his 12-15 years old classroom porno blasphemous sketches?"Take as much time as you like to provide an answer, but I expect it to come with an official reference especially if your answer denies that said act is justified in Islam.
Also it's not an issue hoping God's mercy be granted to both subjects (including the murderer) so long as we include in our hope that the subject (namely the murderer) be seeker/accepting of God's mercy that is being offered him, lest he ends up in Hell.
The Prophet is the perfect reflection of mankind.
It makes no difference (mostly in response to the bolded part). The Prophet only saw the Divine potential in people, and how one lives and what one does (or says) may have no bearing whatsoever on the state of his spiritual integrity.
In other words, you yourself- being the average human whose perception cannot see beyond the material- may regard an individual who happens to be a drug-dealer as a demonic reprobate. However, God- who doesn't see the physical actions of a person but only the ethereal state of his heart- may have a totally different view of what you or society thinks of the man.
Was Jesus not considered by public opinion to be a wicked person? Indeed, humanity has always attempted to grab the most holy man out there and proceed by denigrating and demonizing him; casting all sorts of malign aspersions on him; doing all that they can do to snuff him out.
Clearly, Western Christianity does not attempt to see past the physical criteria of personalities and attempt to detect the light that is within all humans. How can it do so, when most of its teachings are drenched in ego, precluding any attempt at spiritual enlightenment (which is why Westerners keep running to Hindu India).
Henceforth, those cartoonists are only projecting their own egoic perceptions onto the Prophet, to invariably have those same ideas bounce off and hit them right back. This also hold true for the Quran, which only reflects back the preconceived notions and personal expectations that one has regarding Reality and Islam, which is why Christians are always harping about the violence and sex supposedly found in the religion.
Yes, although the Quran only has a few handful of verses related to violence, that’s all that’s on their minds, and the Quruan simply reflects back their own egoic state. In other words, they need Islam to be violent and perverted. They need the Prophet to be a sex-crazed criminal. They need all this because it makes themselves feel more secure and confident in their own beliefs and state of existence.
Do you think that modern humanism put Islamic violence under microscope, so you had the whole faith not practiced as should because it is deemed barbaric?
In sense, a century ago, you wouldn't be probably as confused about beheading those who insult the Prophet because it is the shar3. Islam wasn't under criticism and human rights were still premature.
Do you think that Islamic violence today can coexist with the world's current achievements of human rights?
This is not justified and I condemn it and I disassociate myself as a Muslim from such act.
This is condemnable. Also, insulting and defaming the holy Prophet Muhammad (s) is condemnable and unjustified. You cant hide behind freedom of speech to offend, provoke, incite, harass, embarrass, bully and humiliate others by assaulting their faith and beliefs and trying to make them feel belittled, and helpless. That is not culture and that is not civilisation. That is rudeness that people want to make the face of western civilisation.
You started by admitting that the act of butchering the cartoonist is justified in Islam.
No, I do not, because it has nothing to do with “rationality.” It has everything to do with the unseen and mystical dimensions of the universe, that which is not perceiveble to minds that are rooted in a mostly ego-based outlook, one inundated with the thought-concepts of past and present mental frameworks!You then tried to justify this admission (of justifying said act via Islam) by stating that the cartoonist 'brought it upon himself', sort of like 'the cartoonist murdered himself by his own decision' in much the same way a human being burns his hand by willingly putting it in the fire in disobedience to a rightful/rational opposite command. However, for this analogy to apply, we pointed out that you had to demonstrate that the cartoonist's act was indeed opposite to a rightful/rational command,
Instead of going that route, quite expectedly you decided to resort to claiming that said act of butchering another human being for criticizing and ridiculing another human being (or their prophet) is normal after all, all humans do it you said, and that therefore it needs no more or no different a justification to start with than say casually eating food or breathing. That (the need for) Islam justifying it is no different a task/need than (the need/task for) justifying casually eating food and breathing in general. Said act is reflective of all humans, you opined.
But then after we pointed out that said act is reflective of the prophet and his faithful followers, and of their likes, only, rather than of mankind as a whole, with counter examples starting with Muslims themselves (including yourself, presumably) and going all the way up and down through history and into our modern world with droves of peoples behaving and living in direct/indirect contradiction to the way Muhammad behaved, lived and preached. After this, you immediately backtracked from that stance right into an even more absurd one (going min el delef la tahet el mizreb) in a final absurd attempt at salvaging Muhammad and that act of his, namely by admitting that while, after all, it is correct that said act is not reflective of mankind as a whole, it is however reflective of the divine potential of humanity, .. of what humans are ought to do or are best off doing, reflective of what humans are destined to do to be fulfilled, .. to be the best and complete version of themselves.
( now, based on how this discussion has been going so far, it is easy to predict where and how it will end; what is divine and what is not has no rational/objective basis or definition whatsoever, it is based and defined solely on and by what Muhammad did and preached. This is the equivalent of someone saying 'what i say or am told is true and correct irrespective of anything' before shutting down unexpectedly and restarting. Nevertheless, i am going to carry it on for charity's sake, aalla wa aasa, at worst i will have proved this very point )
To validly equate or relate Muhamad's ways to the divine/full potential of humanity you will have to demonstrate that Muhammad's ways ultimately fulfill human nature or its most basic longing, or serve in that direction rather than being a hindrance or an opposing force in this regard. However, so far as the written and tapped-into human history goes, we see a humanity (on the individual-human scope as well as on the overall-humanity scope by extension) growing up and advancing from a state brought about by what can be described as Muhammad's ways, to a fuller or more mature, developed and enlightened state brought about by ways that essentially go either in contradiction to or above and beyond Muhammad's ways.
Knowing and admitting this and having anticipated it subconsciously, quite expectedly you went straight into denying objective truth or objective judgment of right and wrong in relation to the topic of Muhammad (and the divine by extension), or straight into detaching the divine (and Muhammad by extension) from objective truth/judgement. However, starting from the last one;
A/ we know that humans come to know, discern and judge a cause by its effect. With God being the ultimate and uncaused cause as you yourself admit, it follows that we come to know God by His (caused) effect (i.e. the world in and of which we live and are part). This entails that objectively knowing and discerning good/evil human actions is intrinsically tied to objectively knowing and discerning God and vice versa, and that thus the two cannot be detached, given the mentioned premises.
B/ Being judged as innocent/righteous or wicked/guilty by someone or a group of people at some point, doesn't by itself automatically or necessarily make the judgment objective or correct. The fact that some err like you in judging right and wrong or intentionally blur the lines in this regard, doesn't affect nor nullify objective truth and morality. While erroneously condemning an innocent person as wicked and praising a criminal person as righteous doesn't actually make of the condemned a guilty/wicked person deserving of that condemnation nor of the praised criminal an innocent/righteous one deserving of that praise, it also doesn't nullify the act/existence of correct/objective judgment.
[ going on a quickly assembled tangent with regard to point A, the honest and curious individual that is looking at all the evil in the world would rightly wonder that since evil is in the effect, doesn't that mean evil is also in the cause? The answer to this is a resounding no, based on what and how evil has been traditionally held and defined, with evil being a privation rather than a positive reality; by starting to draw a circle and not completing it, with the resulting figure looking like a C, a bad or defective circle, i would have caused something that exhibits badness or defect. But strictly speaking, the badness does not amount to some positive feature I have put into the circle. Rather, it amounts to the absence of some feature that I could have put into it and that a complete circle would have had. The badness is a privation rather than a positive reality. So, in that sense I have only caused what is good. The honest and curious individual would further inquire 'wouldn’t it have been better still to cause the rest of the circle to exist?' it indeed would have been so but not if for example the reason i refrained from completing it is that i judged that doing so was necessary in order to explain to my audience the notion of a privation. Then there would be an overall good situation that was brought about in part precisely by my refraining from putting into the circle all the goodness that could have been in it. The defective circle, though bad, was an essential part of some larger good. And that is why I willed to refrain from completing it, rather than willing the defect in the circle for its own sake. Strictly speaking, then, I have not caused any badness to exist. Rather, what I have done is simply refrained from causing all of the goodness that I could have caused to exist. The circle is good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go all the way. So, in that sense I have only caused what is good ]
Do you mean to say that Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Khamenei, for instance, both erred in issuing a fatwa ordering the assassination of Salman Rushdie after having deemed his book to be blasphemous against Islam, and that you find this act of theirs to be unjustifiable, condemnable and disassociated by and from you and the Islam you claim to adhere to, and that the Lebanese Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh who died in his failed attempt at carrying out the assassination in London is in fact a murderer rather than the martyr they made him out to be and for whom a revered shrine has been erected in Iran? Can Islam validly support not assassinating Rushdie?
The fact that the western world now has laws for defamation and insults (none of which calls for the death or elimination of the subject) ascertains that while freedom of speech or freedom of expression is indeed not absolute, summary execution or jail a la Islam is indeed wrong.
I don't understand why people are SO SHOCKED and APPALLED when someone gets killed for disrespecting the prophet in any way.
Pickup a book and invest some time reading, it's all on the internet for free!
Here's a small sample:
الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) - السيد جعفر مرتضى - ج ٦ - الصفحة ٣٧
وقد بدأ اليهود قبل بدر بالتحريض على الرسول الأعظم (صلى الله عليه وآله) والمسلمين، والتعرض لهم بمختلف أنواع الأذى، فكان (أبو عفك) اليهودي يحرض على رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، ويقول فيه الشعر، فنذر سالم بن عمير أن يقتله، أو يموت دونه، فذهب إليه فقتله (1).
ويبدو أن قتله كان قبل حرب بدر، كما سيظهر من العبارات التالية:
2 - قتل العصماء بنت مروان:
فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الاسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، وتقول الشعر في هجوه (ص)، وتحرض عليه، واستمرت على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر.
فجاءها عمير بن عوف ليلا لخمس بقين من شهر رمضان المبارك، فوجدها نائمة بين ولدها، وهي ترضع ولدها - وعمير ضعيف البصر - فجسها بيده، فوجد الصبي على ثديها يرضع، فنحاه عنها، ثم وضع سيفه في صدرها حتى أخرجه من ظهرها، ثم ذهب إلى النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، فقال له (ص): أقتلت ابنة مروان؟
قال (ص): لا ينتطح فيها عنزان. أي لا يعارض فيها معارض (1).
same story, different source
السيرة النبوية - ابن هشام الحميري - ج ٤ - الصفحة ١٠٥٢
قال: وكانت تحت رجل من بنى خطمة، يقال له يزيد بن زيد، فقالت تعيب الاسلام وأهله:
باست بنى مالك والنبيت * وعوف، وباست بنى الخزرج أطعتم أتاوى من غيركم * فلا من مراد ولا مذحج ترجونه بعد قتل الرؤوس * كما يرتجى مرق المنضج ألا أنف يبتغى غرة * فيقطع من أمل المرتجى قال: فأجابها حسان بن ثابت، فقال:
بنو وائل وبنو واقف * وخطمة دون بنى الخزرج متى ما دعت سفها ويحها * بعولتها والمنايا تجي فهزت فتى ماجدا عرقه * كريم المداخل والمخرج فضرجها من نجيع الدماء * بعد الهدو فلم يحرج فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين بلغه ذلك: ألا آخذ لي من ابنة مروان؟ فسمع ذلك من قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عمير بن عدي الخطمي، وهو عنده، فلما أمسى من تلك الليلة سرى عليها في بيتها فقتلها، ثم أصبح مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فقال: يا رسول الله، إني قد قتلتها.
فقال: نصرت الله ورسوله يا عمير، فقال: هل على شئ من شأنها يا رسول الله؟
فقال: لا ينتطح فيها عنزان.
Abou 3afak was making fun of the prophet with his poetry, the prophet sent someone who killed him for it.
This bothered Asma2 so she started to criticize the prophet and his followers. She got killed too.
The beautiful part is that when the killer told Muhammad he did it, what did the prophet answer? (see red above for arabic)
You have made Allah and his prophet Victorious ya 3amir!
Allahuakbar brothers! Good thing 3amir killed her or else Allah would've been defeated.....
There is AMAZING islamic literature just waiting to be read.....
No my friend, the chechen guy and all those that are like him are the perfect reflection of the prophet.
Is this incident authentic? You should do your research.
Ayatollah Khomeini was a grand jurist of Islam. Rushdie was an agent of British Intelligence and his provocations were well calculated and intended. More or less, in light of Khomeini's fatwa, Rushdie was "an enemy combatant" or a renegade. In this case of a youth acting on his own without any fatwa, it is condemned. And that school teacher may have had no premeditated reasons for his ignorance. He may just have been innocently ignorant. Here I am drawing contrast between the two cases. I dont necessarily have to support the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini. Otherwise, in normal cases of rude provocations by westerners, I dont support any form of murder or death or violence.
I did and here are 2 more sources for the same story:
إمتاع الأسماع - المقريزي - ج ١ - الصفحة ١٢٠
قتل عصماء بنت مروان وكان عصماء بنت مروان من بني أمية بن زيد تحت يزيد بن زيد بن حصن الخطمي، وكانت تؤذي رسول الله وتعيب الإسلام وتحرض على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وقالت شعرا (2)، فنذر عمير بن عدي بن خرشة بن أمية بن عامر بن خطمة (واسمه عبد الله بن جشم بن مالك بن الأوس) الخطمي لئن رد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من بدر إلى المدينة ليقتلنها. فلما رجع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من بدر جاءها عمير ليلا حتى دخل عليها في بيتها (وحولها نفر من ولدها نيام، منهم من ترضعه في صدرها، فجسها بيده - وكان ضرير البصر - ونحى الصبي عنها) (3) ووضع سيفه على صدرها حتى أنفذه من ظهرها، وأتى فصلى الصبح مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. فلما انصرف نظر إلى وقال: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟ قال: نعم يا رسول الله (قال: نصرت الله ورسوله يا عمير، فقال:
هل علي شئ من شأنها يا رسول الله؟ فقال) (4) لا ينتطح فيها عنزان
البداية والنهاية - ابن كثير - ج ٥ - الصفحة ٢٤١
فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين بلغه ذلك: ألا آخذ لي من ابنة مروان؟ فسمع ذلك عمير بن عدي فلما أمسى من تلك الليلة سرى عليها [في بيتها] (3) فقتلها. ثم أصبح فقال: يا رسول الله قتلتها فقال: نصرت الله ورسوله يا عمير. قال: يا رسول الله هل علي من شأنها. قال: لا تنتطح فيها عنزان.
That makes a total of 4 sources, if all 4 are wrong, then there is clearly a VERY BIG problem with your books.
Until it can be proven otherwise, 3amir made Allah and his prophet victorious by murdering 3asma2 عصماء بنت مروان in her sleep by a sword that came out of her back. She was an unarmed woman breast feeding her child. She was murdered on order of the prophet because she voiced her disgust with the assassination of a Jewish poet who made fun of him. This is a fact لا تنتطح فيها عنزان as the prophet would say.
You can find all the sources mentioned on this site:
In both cases the subject's summary execution was ordered. It makes no difference at this point by whom it was ordered or executed. Whether it was the Chechen guy, the Ayatollah, or Muhammad himself, it is the same order that is based and driven ultimately by the same original justification, instruction and will.
Labeling it fatwa, in the case of Ayatollah, doesn't change this reality or acquit the Ayatollah's act from being identical (in nature, actuality and justification) to that of the Chechen guy (pending the execution part). Nor does - merely labeling the victim (often after the issuance of the order of execution) an 'enemy combatant' (eligible/justified as such for getting killed by Muslims as if in a formal battle) for criticizing or even mocking the prophet - changes the fact of it being a summary execution. This would only serve in indicating that criticizing or mocking the prophet is equivalent to inciting war and to automatically becoming an enemy combatant awaiting to be justly killed in self-defense at any moment by faithful Muslims to defend Islam.
So logically, unless you are practicing taqiyya or nifaq, condemning the Chechen guy on that act of his must mean you are also condemning Ayatollah's, as well as Muhammad's by extension. If I were you now I would openly praise the Chechen guy, for honesty and consistency's sake at least.
Your stupid post is summarized in the first sentence. And such an approach is not only stupid but complete injustice. It is like saying a judge who sentences someone to death and a thug who kills someone by the roadside are both killers. This is your point of view and it doesnt make sense.