Ansar Al-‘Adl “What?! I can't believe you would make such a blatantly false statement - did you think that the thread had disappeared and no one could verify this??”
I do my very best to not make blatantly false statements.
You may feel that everything you have posted on this thread is “the” logical conclusion that anyone would come to, but I would beg to differ:
From the link in post #2 on this thread;
“Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr”.
As for the argument you presented supporting your own conclusions:
“No doubt Islam has forbidden attacks on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh but no one is authorized to take action except the government authorities”.
“The man was not an agent of the state so the Prophet Muhammad pbuh summoned all the people together for proper investigation of this incident. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the head of the state. After suitable investigation, the Prophet gave the ruling that no blood money was due and he dismissed the case”.
Those two statements are not reconcilable.
Muhammad blessed the actions of an ordinary citizen killing another person for insulting Muhammad. This incident was thoroughly looked into by Muhammad.
You did go on to offer so examples of defenses, but you failed to show which one Muhammad cited in forgiving/endorsing what the man did:
“Under most legal systems there are legal defenses, eg. Automatism, provocation, insanity, self-defense, defense of a third party, duress etc. A man may kill another under 'defense of a third party' and after proper investigation the courts may choose to discharge the accused”.
Your citing of possible defenses, without relating how those defenses were used in the mans defense leaves a lot open to interpretation.
Which legal defense did you have in mind that might apply to the case at hand?
What would keep the same defense from being used in the case of Theo Van Gogh’s murderer?
What I meant by this; “the question then becomes, why couldn’t/shouldn’t have the offender been left alive till the offense was reviewed in the correct manner?”, is what was the pressing need for the woman to be killed in her sleep, rather than brought before Muhammad and then dealt with?
Finally you post “She was the servant girl of the man and thus under his authority. Yes, he killed her and took matters into his own hands. And for that he was called to account before the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, he was subjected to the law as well. After an investigation of the matter, he received discharge”.
All you are saying there is that the killer of Theo Van Gogh was even more justified in the killing. At least the woman’s killer had access to the proper Islamic authorities, yet he was ruled justified in taking the law into his own hands. Theo Van Gogh’s killer didn’t have that same option, so if he took the law into his own hands he was even more justified.
As to why the post of mine you moved was related to this thread:
If you incite actions (such as Van Gogh’s death) by marching in the streets with signs calling for a person’s death then (According to Christian values) you are just as guilty as the one who did the killing.
If you preach hatred and use the Qur’an to endorse the flying of airplanes into buildings then you are just as guilty as those who fly the planes.
Calling for death is just that, calling for someone’s death, even if it is done in the name of Islam.
Both actions are the same in the above examples; it is just a matter of degree.
If Islam is truly against such things, it should be more vocal in condemning it.
Perhaps now you can understand why I would not want my country to become a country where as simple insult to Muhammad would “one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir”.
Never mind the slippery slope of exactly what is and what isn’t an insult to Muhammad.
I saw the cartoons. They were for the most part pretty mild compared to what other subjects have been subjected to.
I highly doubt your arguments on this thread would be very convincing to a non-biases’ person.
Thanks
Nimrod
I do my very best to not make blatantly false statements.
You may feel that everything you have posted on this thread is “the” logical conclusion that anyone would come to, but I would beg to differ:
From the link in post #2 on this thread;
“Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar’i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr”.
As for the argument you presented supporting your own conclusions:
“No doubt Islam has forbidden attacks on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh but no one is authorized to take action except the government authorities”.
“The man was not an agent of the state so the Prophet Muhammad pbuh summoned all the people together for proper investigation of this incident. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the head of the state. After suitable investigation, the Prophet gave the ruling that no blood money was due and he dismissed the case”.
Those two statements are not reconcilable.
Muhammad blessed the actions of an ordinary citizen killing another person for insulting Muhammad. This incident was thoroughly looked into by Muhammad.
You did go on to offer so examples of defenses, but you failed to show which one Muhammad cited in forgiving/endorsing what the man did:
“Under most legal systems there are legal defenses, eg. Automatism, provocation, insanity, self-defense, defense of a third party, duress etc. A man may kill another under 'defense of a third party' and after proper investigation the courts may choose to discharge the accused”.
Your citing of possible defenses, without relating how those defenses were used in the mans defense leaves a lot open to interpretation.
Which legal defense did you have in mind that might apply to the case at hand?
What would keep the same defense from being used in the case of Theo Van Gogh’s murderer?
What I meant by this; “the question then becomes, why couldn’t/shouldn’t have the offender been left alive till the offense was reviewed in the correct manner?”, is what was the pressing need for the woman to be killed in her sleep, rather than brought before Muhammad and then dealt with?
Finally you post “She was the servant girl of the man and thus under his authority. Yes, he killed her and took matters into his own hands. And for that he was called to account before the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, he was subjected to the law as well. After an investigation of the matter, he received discharge”.
All you are saying there is that the killer of Theo Van Gogh was even more justified in the killing. At least the woman’s killer had access to the proper Islamic authorities, yet he was ruled justified in taking the law into his own hands. Theo Van Gogh’s killer didn’t have that same option, so if he took the law into his own hands he was even more justified.
As to why the post of mine you moved was related to this thread:
If you incite actions (such as Van Gogh’s death) by marching in the streets with signs calling for a person’s death then (According to Christian values) you are just as guilty as the one who did the killing.
If you preach hatred and use the Qur’an to endorse the flying of airplanes into buildings then you are just as guilty as those who fly the planes.
Calling for death is just that, calling for someone’s death, even if it is done in the name of Islam.
Both actions are the same in the above examples; it is just a matter of degree.
If Islam is truly against such things, it should be more vocal in condemning it.
Perhaps now you can understand why I would not want my country to become a country where as simple insult to Muhammad would “one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir”.
Never mind the slippery slope of exactly what is and what isn’t an insult to Muhammad.
I saw the cartoons. They were for the most part pretty mild compared to what other subjects have been subjected to.
I highly doubt your arguments on this thread would be very convincing to a non-biases’ person.
Thanks
Nimrod
eath for Insulting the Prophet
