Mocking the Prophet, How Should We React?

[StopS]

As Ibn Taymiyyah (r) also said: the one who doesn't enjoin the good and forbid the evil is either weak or he is a coward.

I refuse to accept the fact that people should be given a licence to insult our Messenger, especially due to our passiveness and silence. This in itself is a form of approval of these acts.

It is not befitting for a Muslim to remain silent and become passive when his religion, his Messenger and His Lord are in the frame of discussion. Iman in Islam is belief in the heart, statements on the tongue and actions of the limbs. You are obliged as a Muslim to stand up and confront these situations, to denounce them and fight against them in your the heart, in your words and in your actions. It is not permissible for any Muslim to stand down and withdraw when he has the ability to fight back.

You can either grab the bull by the horns and stand up for what you believe in, or take your place among the weak and incapable who are the most useless of people in every society.

Humanity has moved on since the days of Ibn Taymiyyah. Humanity does not function on the basis of the sword any longer, but the brain.

If some idiot makes a video clip about someone he does not like who is long dead, does that mean others need to automatically agree and accept this idiotic view? Is tacit rejection a form of approval? Do I approve of being charged too much by a restaurant or tax authorities because I don't immediately kill them? Hardly. So why not use a more sophisticated view than violence and wrestling with bulls - which you will loose, by the way.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

I think that Muslims should of course show that they are upset by what has happened. libel and insult is not freedom of speech and it is not accepted in the law of any country. In my business law book i read that defaming another's character is a criminal offense. it does not fall under freedom of speech. so how can anyone justify the debasing of the character of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who had the best and purest character?

This is what I'm talking about sister. One can use one's education to one's benefit. You can use this knowledge to restrict or block access to any such defamatory material in the country you live in. If you feel you are not able to do it yourself then I'm sure there are other Muslims whom you can work together with to make this happen.

 

[GuestFellow]

The worst thing a Muslim can do is turn a blind eye and become passive as this will do nothing to solve the problem.

I doubt you understand how this works. These videos needed publicity. They require attention. That is what this video needed and Muslims gave it to them. How is protesting going to solve the problem? Last time I checked Muslim protested over those cartoons and nothing happened. In fact, things got worse and more people began to insult the Prophet (P.B.U.H).

There is one way of resolving this problem and that is by ignoring it. That is how you prevent something becoming famous.

 

[GuestFellow]

Humanity does not function on the basis of the sword any longer, but the brain.

You must be asleep for the last 12 years. Afghanistan war? Iraq war? Air strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Libya? Torture in Guantanamo bay and Uzbekistan?

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Humanity has moved on since the days of Ibn Taymiyyah. Humanity does not function on the basis of the sword any longer, but the brain.

If some idiot makes a video clip about someone he does not like who is long dead, does that mean others need to automatically agree and accept this idiotic view? Is tacit rejection a form of approval? Do I approve of being charged too much by a restaurant or tax authorities because I don't immediately kill them? Hardly. So why not use a more sophisticated view than violence and wrestling with bulls - which you will loose, by the way.

Ibn Taymiyyah remains an authority in Islam, as far as the authority of a scholar in Islam is concerned. Therefore, his views hold as much weight today as they did the day he was alive and in the moment he expressed it. And this will never change as his views are largely in accordance with the two sources of Islam: the Qur'an and the Prophetic teachings.

Humanity may not live by the sword, but it certainly lives by the bullet. The war in Iraq, Afghanistan and continuous bombing in Pakistan till the present day is all too evident of that seeing as their targets are either captured or dead. As some of the news sources like the BBC and The Guardian have rightly quoted: the presence of NATO/foreign troops in Muslim lands is seen as a war against Islam to Muslims, not as liberation from oppressiveness as they wrongly believe.

In case you haven't it registered yet, the one who is 'long dead' is still the most important and revered human being that ever lived to Muslims. I believe the vicious and fierce protests in recent days are again evidence that some people still hold on to their principles. Therefore, this 'idiotic statement' is still put into practise. In fact, I find it deeply insulting that you refer Prophet Muhammed as 'long dead'. Therefore I will advise you from now to avoid referring to him as this unless you are planning a very short stay here.

 

[StopS]

I believe that everything should be done in a peaceful manner.

Finally, I am very happy to hear that the website of the french magazine has been downed.

I am happy for you that you are happy that fathers will not bring home a salary to feed their families and the entire existence of families is in danger. If you think that a drawing of something justifies that approach I am sure you have thought this through and you think this is adequate.

You, no doubt, also feel the killing of an innocent person from the US in Libya makes you happy. Because the making of a bad movie justifies the killing of a human 1000s of kilometres away, no doubt.

What you don't seem to understand is that your claims about Muhammad is why people react so strongly. You take only one view and deny the full picture.

You make claims regarding scientific accuracy of the Koran, ignoring that these have been long refuted and are no longer brought up.

You claim that the personality of Muhammad is x - ignoring the ahadith which say that it is y. This is the problem. Some humans prefer the truth and not comfort. So your absolute claim triggers a reaction. You don't like that reaction and we are in the middle of an argument. Why can't you refrain from making these absolute and one-sided claims and just accept the big picture - without denigrating any description? Is that so difficult?

 

[StopS]

You must be asleep for the last 12 years. Afghanistan war? Iraq war? Air strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Libya? Torture in Guantanamo bay and Uzbekistan?

I hate when others are right!! Yes, indeed, I must admit that the frontal cortex is hopelessly overrated and I was wrong. I can explain some things but Guantanamo Bay remains the stain in my wishful thinking.

 

[جوري]

Humanity has moved on since the days of Ibn Taymiyyah. Humanity does not function on the basis of the sword any longer, but the brain.

You mean humanity deteriorated since the days of ibn Taymiyyah. You're right no more swords now we have carpet bombing.. your point being?

If some idiot makes a video clip about someone he does not like who is long dead, does that mean others need to automatically agree and accept this idiotic view? Is tacit rejection a form of approval? Do I approve of being charged too much by a restaurant or tax authorities because I don't immediately kill them? Hardly. So why not use a more sophisticated view than violence and wrestling with bulls - which you will loose, by the way.

This is the usual drivel and not very smart drivel either not that I was expecting pearls from you.
If you're charged too much at a restaurant you've every right to say you're being ripped off, and warn your friends and stand there at the door if you so choose to warn others, no law against that. Obviously if every Muslim in the world were to 'immediately kill' there would be no westerners left as there's 1.86 billion of us to your impotent population. However, not enough people are irked or respond in the manner that you've suggested.. as to who is losing, well hmm let's see, your economy is in the dumps, your can't get out of the mess you're in either in Afghanistan or Iraq, your boys are coming home in body bags everyday in lieu of dropping a couple at the g strings of some hooker and you pretty much have resigned to third world country style despots whether dems. or repuke cons. and you redefine what it means to be bankrupt yearly...
so I guess it is all relative what your definition is of a win or maybe you just have very low standards!

 

[GuestFellow]

I hate when others are right!!

I love it when I'm right.

I was wrong.

Of course your wrong. No need to state the obvious.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

I doubt you understand how this works. These videos needed publicity. They require attention. That is what this video needed and Muslims gave it to them. How is protesting going to solve the problem? Last time I checked Muslim protested over those cartoons and nothing happened. In fact, things got worse and more people began to insult the Prophet (P.B.U.H).

There is one way of resolving this problem and that is by ignoring it. That is how you prevent something becoming famous.

As I've said many times in the past and I will repeat again here: I do not personally encourage protests, or violent protests, nor the killings of the innocent, even if these were the people in the US embassies. If they are innocent then I do not see why they should be subject to an attack. However, if (non-violent) protesting pressures the government and produces a change then we must protest.

What I've been suggesting, and what I've always suggested, is not protesting but more productive steps in countering these insults.

 

[StopS]

Ibn Taymiyyah remains an authority in Islam, as far as the authority of a scholar in Islam is concerned. Therefore, his views hold as much weight today as they did the day he was alive and in the moment he expressed it. And this will never change as his views are largely in accordance with the two sources of Islam: the Qur'an and the Prophetic teachings.

Humanity may not live by the sword, but it certainly lives by the bullet. The war in Iraq, Afghanistan and continuous bombing in Pakistan till the present day is all too evident of that seeing as their targets are either captured or dead. As some of the news sources like the BBC and The Guardian have rightly quoted: the presence of NATO/foreign troops in Muslim lands is seen as a war against Islam to Muslims, not as liberation from oppressiveness as they wrongly believe.

Exactly my sentiment. And that's why I maintain it's time to change that. Get away from a one-sided view and bring the facts together to create a realistic and un-emotional view. If that is possible.

Elesewhere I have posed the question: should the UN intervene in Syria? An immensely difficult question if you want to avoid the mistakes of the last decade.

In case you haven't it registered yet, the one who is 'long dead' is still the most important and revered human being that ever lived to Muslims. I believe the vicious and fierce protests in recent days are again evidence that some people still hold on to their principles. Therefore, this 'idiotic statement' is still put into practise.

No, I am aware of this. I also see that this is exploited from within the Muslim society.

In fact, I find it deeply insulting that you refer Prophet Muhammed as 'long dead'. Therefore I will advise you from now to avoid referring to him as this unless you are planning a very short stay here.

Ooops, I see you are capable of misinterpretation. And that you don't take opinions as a challenge, but a disturbance. Pity.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

I am happy for you that you are happy that fathers will not bring home a salary to feed their families and the entire existence of families is in danger. If you think that a drawing of something justifies that approach I am sure you have thought this through and you think this is adequate.

You, no doubt, also feel the killing of an innocent person from the US in Libya makes you happy. Because the making of a bad movie justifies the killing of a human 1000s of kilometres away, no doubt.

What you don't seem to understand is that your claims about Muhammad is why people react so strongly. You take only one view and deny the full picture.

You make claims regarding scientific accuracy of the Koran, ignoring that these have been long refuted and are no longer brought up.

You claim that the personality of Muhammad is x - ignoring the ahadith which say that it is y. This is the problem. Some humans prefer the truth and not comfort. So your absolute claim triggers a reaction. You don't like that reaction and we are in the middle of an argument. Why can't you refrain from making these absolute and one-sided claims and just accept the big picture - without denigrating any description? Is that so difficult?

Really? So when the Qur'an said 1400 years ago that a large portion of this world, in fact universe, including humans, is made from water is an invalid scientific fact? So why have scientists been searching for sources of water on the moon and on Mars?

Or what about the Qur'an also mentioning 1400 years ago that the plants/stars etc have their own orbit?

You're worried about me losing a bull fight when you can't win against the apparently scientifically-deprived Muslims.

Please don't educate me about my religion, I can assure you I know and understand far more than you. It's why I call myself a Muslim.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Exactly my sentiment. And that's why I maintain it's time to change that. Get away from a one-sided view and bring the facts together to create a realistic and un-emotional view. If that is possible.

Elesewhere I have posed the question: should the UN intervene in Syria? An immensely difficult question if you want to avoid the mistakes of the last decade.

In case you haven't it registered yet, the one who is 'long dead' is still the most important and revered human being that ever lived to Muslims. I believe the vicious and fierce protests in recent days are again evidence that some people still hold on to their principles. Therefore, this 'idiotic statement' is still put into practise.

No, I am aware of this. I also see that this is exploited from within the Muslim society.



Ooops, I see you are capable of misinterpretation. And that you don't take opinions as a challenge, but a disturbance. Pity.

I might be capable of misinterpretation, or you're just not very clear in your message. Pity indeed.

No, I don't take opinions as a challenge because I don't feel obliged to argue with every opinion that is thrown at me. If it was a matter of principle and belief that one wanted to challenge me in then I'd engage. I don't think this is the case here.

 

[DavidK565]

point being?

The point being that there are going to be people who dislike you, no matter who you are, and people are sometimes going to express it. It is not reasonable for people to fly off the handle every time their feelings get hurt. Muslims are not perpetual victims. They are victims as well as aggressors, just like every other group.

Indeed there shouldn't be violence however, we've every right to respond!

Right.... but respond with what? A boycott? Does that mean you do not believe that these people should have the right to speak their mind (even if they are wrong)? What that demonstrates is intolerance. Look at the Chick-Fil-A situation in America. The owner said he supports only heterosexual marriage. The gays tried to organize a boycott of the restaurant. They COULD have done it, its within their rights. But they came off looking like jerks, because even if they disagree with the owner of Chick-Fil-A, he is entitled to state his opinion.

What sort of logic is that? should we do away with the Judaical system because God will judge? God gave us the system with which to carry out justice in this life. So we're not going to re-write fundamentals to suit your point of view, especially a point of view that supports only vice. I have never seen a culture so promoting of rottenness, weed and vice and making it so audacious to point out what's wrong with that line of thinking!

Your insults are unfounded. I did not insult you, so try to be a little more courteous.

I was not suggesting that God's ability to pass judgement on others is a suitable replacement for the judicial system. However, this is not a judicial matter. There is no justice that needs to be carried out. Free speech, even if people find it offensive, is not a crime (at least, not in the U.S.). Perhaps it would be a judicial issue if he lived in Pakistan, for instance. But since its just a matter of a private citizen expressing his opinion (wrong as they may be), there is little that can be done. If it were a business that had supported these views, then a boycott would be fully reasonable. But what kind of action can be taken against one man? That is why I say that if your god wills it, he will see to it that he serves his proper punishment for making fun of the prophet.

 

[StopS]

Really? So when the Qur'an said 1400 years ago that a large portion of this world, in fact universe, including humans, is made from water is an invalid scientific fact?

This shows me you have no scientific background. There is no "invalid scientific fact".

And the answer to the question the way you meant it is: yes, it is scientifically inaccurate.

So why have scientists been searching for sources of water on the moon and on Mars?

Because water is essential for life.
Because water on another planet would point to life having a chance of developing there.

Or what about the Qur'an also mentioning 1400 years ago that the plants/stars etc have their own orbit?

Look, face it, you are 20 years late. Bucailleism started this, Yahya and Naik spread it and now we know it is false. Live with it. And why should it be important anyway? The Koran is for spiritual guidance and not to learn astronomy.

You're worried about me losing a bull fight when you can't win against the apparently scientifically-deprived Muslims.

Please don't educate me about my religion, I can assure you I know and understand far more than you. It's why I call myself a Muslim.

Exactly right! But you are trying to mix science and religion.
You are also ignoring parts of the sunnah, when talking about Islam. But if you prefer to remain ignorant, so be it. I will shut up and leave you thinking what you do.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

This shows me you have no scientific background. There is no "invalid scientific fact".

And the answer to the question the way you meant it is: yes, it is scientifically inaccurate.

Are you kidding me? Bro, I'm sure your not incapable of understanding the language I'm using so please don't get into petty arguments about the words 'invalid scientific fact'. I'm sure this statement makes sense in the way it was said.

And I do encourage you to prove to me that it is scientifically inaccurate. I do not accept disguised facts that are actually personal and uninformed opinions.

Because water is essential for life.
Because water on another planet would point to life having a chance of developing there.

That's exactly my point. Human beings are made from water and water signifies a presence of life. This is what the Qur'an says.

Look, face it, you are 20 years late. Bucailleism started this, Yahya and Naik spread it and now we know it is false. Live with it. And why should it be important anyway? The Koran is for spiritual guidance and not to learn astronomy.

Seems like I'm winning the bull-fight. Eh, torero? (Please search the meaning of this word in case you don't know before commenting!)

I don't want opinions. I want facts. I don't care what your view is, prove it to me from a fact.

I don't know who Yahya is and I hardly listen to Zakir Naik but thanks for telling me. I'll be sure to check them out.

In case you still haven't learned, Islam is a complete way of life. It is not just a vague and ambigous belief in God. Islam discusses astronomy in some length (bet you didn't know that) among each and every other aspect of you life you can think of.

Exactly right! But you are trying to mix science and religion.
You are also ignoring parts of the sunnah, when talking about Islam. But if you prefer to remain ignorant, so be it. I will shut up and leave you thinking what you do.

;D

Accept it. Islam and science mix. Shocking news eh? :nervous:.

Again, either explicitly state your proof or avoid trying to educate me.

 

[جوري]

The point being that there are going to be people who dislike you, no matter who you are, and people are sometimes going to express it. It is not reasonable for people to fly off the handle every time their feelings get hurt. Muslims are not perpetual victims. They are victims as well as aggressors, just like every other group.

The point is to every action there's a reaction, and as the cliche goes if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

Right.... but respond with what? A boycott? Does that mean you do not believe that these people should have the right to speak their mind (even if they are wrong)? What that demonstrates is intolerance. Look at the Chick-Fil-A situation in America. The owner said he supports only heterosexual marriage. The gays tried to organize a boycott of the restaurant. They COULD have done it, its within their rights. But they came off looking like jerks, because even if they disagree with the owner of Chick-Fil-A, he is entitled to state his opinion.

It is inconsequential what you deem tolerance or intolerance, we don't all have to push ourselves out for $2 near the min mart to meet with your approval or your style of thinking. Who are you to tell people what the cap is on what they should find acceptable or good?

Your insults are unfounded. I did not insult you, so try to be a little more courteous.

How have I insulted you? or are you being intolerant and denying me my right to free speech?

Best,

 

[DavidK565]

The point is to every action there's a reaction, and as the cliche goes if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

Absolutely fair point. And to that end, if there are Muslims within the population who choose to overreact, create havoc, become violent, boycott random establishments, etc. then they too will have to deal with further consequences. This is what I am referring to when it comes to this downward spiral. Someone is going to have to stop it, so why shouldn't it be Muslims? It can do nothing but prove to be good PR for the faith.

It is inconsequential what you deem tolerance or intolerance, we don't all have to push ourselves out for $2 near the minomart to meet with your approval or your style of thinking. Who the hell are you to tell people what the cap is on what they should find acceptable or good?

I am expressing my thoughts on how these matters should be handled. Who are you to tell me that I can not? I am not putting a "cap" on anything. Nor did I say anything about "goodness". To put it simply, there has to be a greater amount of restraint on the parts of all people to not behave irrationally when one gets offended. The only way to prevent certain people from expressing hatred is to take away their freedom of expression. And this is something that is not acceptable. The only other alternative is to learn to live with it. Certainly, you can be angry. But beyond that, actions that are taken can set a bad precedent. Freedom is not easy when you have to deal with people who do not share your beliefs, but ultimately its a worthwhile sacrifice.

How have I insulted you? or are you being intolerant and denying me my right to free speech?

"So we're not going to re-write fundamentals to suit your point of view, especially a point of view that supports only vice. I have never seen a culture so promoting of rottenness, weed and vice and making it so audacious to point out what's wrong with that line of thinking!"

I'm fairly sure that this falls under the category of "insult". But of course, I would never deny you the right to say it. It would just be nice if we could have a conversation without such barbs. But if we can't that's ok too.

 

[جوري]

then they too will have to deal with further consequences

not really.. not having everything makes you resourceful and self sufficient!character and true genius is borne out of not having, not out of being a person of excess!
I can give numerous examples of this..All we need to do is let our face toward the east.. they have what we want and we've what they want.

best,

 

[Muhaba]

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel :

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. (See: defamation, slander, libel per se, public figure)