Those who insult the Prophet ( SAW)

[Arsalan]

The Fiqh Concerning Those Who Insult The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace

by Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir

INTRODUCTION

Allah the Exalted has said in Surat al-Ahzab (33:57):


As for those who abuse Allah and His Messenger,
Allah’s curse is on them in the dunya and the akhira.
He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them.


In the Fiqh, as we shall see, there are absolutely no opinions, no variants, no exceptions. The matter is a clear one inside the Deen of Islam, that is, within the clear and active Fiqh as defined by our four Imams, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’ and Imam Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with all of them. Outside the unified and powerful fortress of the Islamic Shari‘at there is of course, in matters that should be definitive and non-negotiable, that very descent, diminution and longing to dismantle the Deen that is the mark of the kafirun. In this latter category can be found that other religion, Shi‘ism, which wears the cloak of Islam while cursing its Khalifs and denying its people, as well as the Modernists, who, under the cloak of Islam, secretly long to adhere to the contract of Western scepticism, and their mark is their utter disdain for the Law of a taken Zakat, an Islamic currency, and an acceptance of the Imams.

Central to this issue is the significant failure of the kafirun to recognise what the key to the whole affair is. It is this failure that renders meaningless the triviality of their response on the one hand, and the malevolent hostility towards us on the other. The key of this affair is - that we, the Muslims, love the Messenger of Allah, may Allah be pleased with him. With us the whole affair is a matter of love. Millions of Muslims sing Al-Busairi’s famous song ‘Al-Burda’ which pours out a flood of blessings on the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and which brings tears to the eyes of the Muminun. Equally, millions recite the Dala’il al-Khayrat of Shaykh Jazuli. There are thousands more to be found written through the centuries by our Muslim community, expressing our love and gratitude for his existence.

Let us look again at Surat al-Ahzab. The ayat preceding the one which is foundation to the legal judgment which concerns us here is the Ayat indicating the higher, superior and more exalted community, those who love the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We find Allah distinguishing the Muslims over and against the pagan hordes of ignorant people who insult the Messenger, and significantly, in the ayat which follows, indicates that the ones who insult the Messenger do not end there, but unjustly degrade the Muminun. Surat al-Ahzab (33:56-58):


Allah and His angels call down blessings on the Prophet.
You who have iman! call down blessings on him
and ask for complete peace and safety for him.

As for those who abuse Allah and His Messenger,
Allah’s curse is on them in the dunya and the akhira.
He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them.

And those who abuse men and women who are muminun,
when they have not merited it,
bear the weight of slander and clear wrongdoing.


Much of the aggravation that has resulted from the recent incident has in fact come from media both owned and operated by people who have a militant, and indeed military, opposition to the Muslim peoples. The man who re-launched the affair by publishing the cartoon in ‘France Soir’ was one Arnault Levey. The notoriously prejudicial BBC TV rushed a man to the Central Masjid in London. The interviewer was a jew, and he deliberately picked out to interview the wildest and most incoherent in the crowd to confirm that silhouette which they are instructed to expose to the world. At Jumu‘ah prayers he could have gone among the hundreds of highly cultured and educated Muslims, and could easily have picked out academics, barristers, and businessmen who would have put another face on the affair. Nevertheless, what the world has seen is that the World Muslim Community, who have tolerated the quotidian barrage of insults by the media, governments and military, this same community that has shown their sacred tolerance up to the chin - will not tolerate an attack on our beloved Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Maybe, this time, they may find that THEY have to exercise tolerance. A tolerance which recognises that there is a vast world community of men, women and children who do not worship what they worship, and will never worship what they worship, and it is part of the reality of existence, and the sooner they come to terms with it, the better for them.

However you wish to configure and interpret the fury and the outrage of hundreds of thousands of Muslims across the world, there is another spectacle which the kuffar have to face up to - and that is the miserable emotional and spiritual bankruptcy of the Danish people, and indeed the crushed and bewildered denizens of the European Union fortress. From a human point of view, from a psychiatric point of view, the spectacle of the Danish bourgeois, living in their heavily subsidised reality, holding their silly candles, clearly revealed that they were all dismally unable to realise that living among them were a people for whom unseen realities were greater, more important, and indeed, a matter of life and death. The Danish people have come a long, long way from the christian writer, Kierkegaard. They have no fear and trembling for the Divine Lord of the Universe, only a fear and trembling of their bland, characterless existence of material welfare, purveyors of alcohol to the whole world, especially their own children.

In this affair, there is also a dimension for which we have to take responsibility. While a complete analysis of causes must be done by all of us, it is outside the remit of this Hukm. We are nevertheless obliged to indicate it in order to give us a clear view of the matter at hand. It is that the Muslims, who are a community of Law, can only live under an Amir, who, on behalf of his people, upholds that Law. It is the absence of an Amir which prevents this matter being dealt with, properly speaking, in a legal manner. This does not mean, however, that in the absence of an Amir the matter will simply go away. It certainly means that it must be dealt with in relation to this primary absence of the commanding authority. To understand this better we should look at two examples. One being the response of a weak Muslim leader. The other being the response of a non-Muslim leader, Shi‘a.

Some years ago I was in Abu Dhabi. A few years previously I had initiated a Conference of Maliki Fiqh. It had been in Granada, Spain. The then Chief Qadi of the U.A.E., the late Shaykh Aal-Mubarak, himself a renowned Maliki scholar, offered to host a second Conference the following year in Abu Dhabi. At the opening Reception for the very impressive array of scholars expert in the School of the ‘Amal of the Ahl al-Madinah, Shaykh Zayed, the then President of the U.A.E., made the Speech of Welcome. In it, he announced publicly his intention to govern the U.A.E. according to the Shari‘at of Islam.

Now, during my stay, the English-speaking paper of the Emirates published an article by an Indian doctor in which he clearly insulted the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as well as the Qur’an itself. Outraged, I took the newspaper to Shaykh Aal-Mubarak. He responded immediately. He ordered a translation into Arabic of the text. When he received it he confirmed that it was legally actionable. The man was arrested and charged with insulting the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Qur’an. The man was a modernist Muslim, but significantly the outrage came from the normally happy hindu community in the Emirates. The Court found him guilty, but delayed the judgment. The Indian government which declares it is secular, but in reality worships at the temples of monkeys, elephants and a little blue man, intervened in the name of their notorious ‘Tolérance’. As a result, the miserable doctor was bundled off to India before judgment could be carried out. That he had lost a lucrative job, a high salary and a fine villa was not considered by the Muslims to be a satisfactory end to the affair.

This was a direct result of the weakness of an Arab ruler, yet he could not be expected to defend the honour of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he had already assumed power on the understanding that he would accept payment for Abu Dhabi petrol in paper currency, while his father had been assassinated for insisting that it be paid in gold bullion.

The other example is the already forgotten matter of the Indian Shi‘a novelist. At that time the posture of the Iranian government was that “We were all Muslims together”. Perhaps in order to appear, as it were, the Defender of the Faith, Imam Khomeini issued a Fatwa calling for the execution of the miserable author. The result is well known. Effectively, it set a cordon sanitaire around the criminal which, at a cost of millions of dollars, absolutely guaranteed not only his physical safety but his elevation to an icon among the atheists. As if that were not bad enough, a later Iranian government rescinded the Fatwa. Later, again, it was announced that, no, it was still operative, but was not to be activated.

It is very clear from this that the action of the Shi‘a Amir, devoid of the application of Islamic Fiqh, did not accomplish what he at least stated was his primal intention.

The Ikhwan al-Muslimun’s Shaykh al-Qardawi has called for what apparently he calls ‘An International Day of Anger’ - this, of course, is beneath contempt.

True to their traditional position of shame, the President of Palestine went on television to condemn the insult, but then hastened to instruct his people that nevertheless, in the light of it, they should not commit any acts of violence. In other words, it was alright for Palestinians to kill Israeli women and children and send their sons off to commit suicide in order to recover land that had been stolen from them, but in the matter of the commanded defence of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, they were not to raise a finger.

What we see from this is that lack of Muslim leadership, compounded by a false leadership claiming to be Islamic while it is not, has placed us all in a very vulnerable position. As far as the Fiqh on the matter is concerned, there is no doubt. No doubt whatsoever.

* * * * *

HUKM

The judgment of the Shari‘ah regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet. QADI ‘IYAD IBN MUSA AL-YAHSUBI, one of the greatest of the Fuqaha of the School of the ‘Amal of the Ahl al-Madinah, which has been called the ‘Umm al-Madhahib (and which was given precedence in its judgments over all the Madhhabs by Ibn Taymiyya in a renowned book), DECLARED:

“Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.

Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi‘i school. Qadi Abu'l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza‘i about the Muslims.” [...]

“Ibn al-Qasim said in the ‘Utbiyya, ‘Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed.’”

“The fuqaha' of Andalusia gave a Fatwa that Ibn Hatim, the scholar of Toledo, be killed and crucified because there was testimony that he made light of what is due to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and claimed that his zuhd was not intentional, and similar things”

“The fuqaha’ of the Qayrawan (the great Masjid and early Islamic university near Tunis) and the companions of Sahnun gave a Fatwa for the killing of Ibrahim al-Ghazari, a poet and master of many sciences. He was one of those who attended the assembly of Qadi Abu'l-‘Abbas ibn Talib for debate. He was accused of objectionable things like mocking Allah, His Prophets and our Prophet. Qadi Yahya ibn ‘Umar and other fuqaha’ summoned him and commanded that he be killed and crucified upside down. One of the historians related that when the post to which he was tied was lifted up, the body turned around away from qibla. It was a sign to all and the people made Takbir. Then a dog came and licked his blood.”

“Habib ibn Rabi‘ al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions (that is, the School of Madinah) is that anyone who says anything insulting about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.”

“We have already mentioned the consensus. As for the traditions, al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali related from his father that the Messenger of Allah said in respect of this matter, ‘Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him.’ This is found in at-Tabarani and ad-Daraqutni.”

“In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, ‘Who will deal with Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.’ He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, as distinct from other mushriks. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than Shirk. It was for causing harm.”

“In another hadith about a man who used to insult the Prophet, the Prophet said, ‘Who will save me from my enemy?’ Khalid said, ‘I will,’ so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.”

It is at this point important to understand that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in having these enemies killed, was in the defence and protection of the Divine Revelation, and his obligation to preserve himself for the completion of his task. It is now, in the light of these hadith, that we can recognise the grave error of Khomeini in the act of issuing his Fatwa. An Amir is obliged to issue a public Fatwa immediately in the defence of the Muminun, but we observe a distinction between endangering the Muminun and an attack on the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. An attack on him is an attack not only on the Divinely appointed Messenger, but also upon the Revelation itself, therefore our ‘ulama distinguish it from any other form of attack. It is considered an act of war. In a well-known hadith the Prophet has said, ‘Strategy is part of war.’ We derive from this that in the event of a direct attack by insult against the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, a strategy must be applied which guarantees that the enemy is eliminated. For this reason, the one who attacks is identified. An executioner or executioners are sent to carry out the authorised sentence of execution. Then and only after the assassination is the order declared, to warn off others from similar action. It was the failure of Khomeini that he made the Fatwa prior to the execution of it, which rendered that Fatwa meaningless. There remains the possibility that that was the purpose of his Fatwa in the first place.

“In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, ‘One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men.’ The man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa'i went to him and said, ‘Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!’ He said, ‘Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’”

“Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, ‘No-one disagreed with him.’ So the Imams take this as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or insult the Prophet in any way should be killed.”

“There is also the letter of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdu'l-’Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed ‘Umar. ‘Umar wrote back to him, ‘It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful.’”

At this point Qadi ‘Iyad makes a significant observation: “Anyone who insults or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the sickness in his heart.”

Our ‘ulama have all confirmed that this judgment comes down on the Muslim, the Dhimmi, that is someone under the protection of the Muslims, and the kafirun. All are liable to this legal judgment.

“In ‘The Book of Muhammad’, the companions of Malik have told us that he said that whoever curses the Messenger of Allah, or any other Prophet, be he Muslim or kafir, is killed without being asked to repent. Ibn Wahb related from Ibn ‘Umar that a monk made a verbal attack on the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Ibn ‘Umar asked, ‘Why did you not kill him?’”

“In ‘An-Nawadir’, written by Ibn Abi Zaid al-Qayrawani, author of the renowned ‘Risala’, from the version of Sahnun, from Malik, we find that any jew or christian who reviles the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in other than the normal way by which the jews and christians reject him is beheaded unless he becomes a Muslim.”

Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him. This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law, for while their laws are inspired by fear, ours are inspired by love. Qadi ‘Iyad gives an interesting narration on Malik that could be said to represent exactly the emotion of the millions of Muslims across the world that have been so disturbed by this affair.

“Ibn al-Qasim said that Malik was asked about a christian in Egypt against whom there was testimony that he had insulted the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The evidence was very distressing. They asked whether they should kill him so that people would be saved from him. Finally Malik said that he thought the man should be beheaded. After that, Imam Malik added, ‘I almost did not say anything about it, but then I realised that I could not remain silent.’”

* * * * *

The Fiqh is clear. There is no debate. There can be no opinion. The judgment has to be that the kuffar have to realise that we exist, and what is sacred to us we will never tolerate that it be violated. The kuffar must realise - perhaps, if they are intelligent, realise with a shock - that nothing matters to them in the same way, because they are outside the great circle of those who love Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

The puffed-up indignity of those who rabbit on about free speech, itself an invented fantasy, has to cool down. We are not fools. We know, and they know, that there is not and never has been free speech in any society. From California to the Carpathian Mountains, if you say one word against the jews, even if you propose historically indefensible ideas about the non-existence of Nazi genocide, you are flung into prison. Europe used to fling into prison people who made the equally preposterous claim that the earth was flat. Perhaps the Danish newspaper would care to hold a competition for the best cartoon on Auschwitz, just to demonstrate that what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

There is a strong argument that the whole matter was resurrected in France to draw attention away from the disastrous situation in Israel, where the people huddle helplessly round the dead, zombified figure of the old general who has left them leaderless. The matter is certainly not finished. The weak and strangely silent governments of the kuffar would be well advised to call off their dogs. The governments of Muslim countries, who are to blame for this in the first place, would be well advised to reflect on the counsel of Ibn Khaldun, inspired by his reading of the Qur’an - they too, shall pass away.

Allah the Exalted said in Surat al-Kafirun (109:1-6):


In the name of Allah, All-Merciful, Most Merciful
Say: ‘Kafirun!
I do not worship what you worship
and you do not worship what I worship.
Nor will I worship what you worship
nor will you worship what I worship.
You have your deen and I have my deen.’

[Arsalan]

Supporting The Messenger (Sallâ Allâhu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam)


By: Ash Shaykh ‘Ali Al Hudhayfee
Source: Jumu'ah Khutbah delivered at al-Masjid an-Nabawee on Friday 27 January 2006

Taken From: http://www.madeenah.com/

.|. Download and listen to the Khutbah in Arabic/English .| (http://www.fatwa-online.com/audio/0060207.rm).


http://www.fatwa-online.com/audio/0060207.rm
http://www.fatwa-online.com/audio/0060207.rm


Excerpts from the tape:

“O Muslims, indeed your religion, the religion that Allaah Ta’aalah chose for us, is built upon two great principals in which the whole religion revolves around…”

“Allaahu Ta’aalah, has legislated for him the most perfect of legislations, as well as perfecting his morals and his character (صلي الله عليه و سلم)…”

“Will not those who acquired this tremendous sin take heed, those who ridiculed the best of mankind (صلي الله عليه و سلم) in their papers…will not these arrogant people benefit from the example of those who ridiculed the Messenger of Allaah (صلي الله عليه و سلم) before them..”

“Indeed the mockery of the Messenger of Allaah (صلي الله عليه و سلم) in those papers, in that country, is a crime so great, that not even mountains can carry its weight.”

“The mockery of the Messenger of Allaah (صلي الله عليه و سلم) in those papers is considered to be a crime and we will establish this from a number of angles…”

“The third angle in clarifying that this behavior is a hideous crime, is that ridiculing or mocking the Prophet Muhammad (صلي الله عليه و سلم) is also a mockery of all the Messengers may the peace be upon all of them…”

“…and to stand up against the violation of the sacredness of all the Prophets of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta’aalah, and to clarify internationally as well as in the media the danger of this worthless lowly behavior so that we are not taken by surprise in the future by someone else who thinks with the brain of an animal or that of a rebellious Shaytaan.”

[Arsalan]

As'Salâm Alaikum Wa'Rahmatullâhi Wa'Barakâtuh

In Defense Of The Prophet Muhammad (May Allah Raise His Rank And Grant Him Peace)

By Shaykh Rabee' ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee (may Allah preserve him)
Source: Written by: Shaykh Rabee' ibn Haadee 'Umayr al-Madkhalee 1426/12/28 (corresponding to 2006/1/28)
Translated By: Moosaa ibn John Richardson
Taken From: http://www.salafitalk.net/

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

All praises are due to Allah, and may Allah exalt the status of the Messenger of Allah and that of his family and his companions, and may He grant them peace.

As for what follows:

Some newspapers and other forms of media have spread hurtful, vicious information that could only emanate from the jealous, arrogant enemies of Islam and its Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace).

That conduct comprises a calumniation of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah and a distortion of his message by jealous individuals and Christian organizations, as well as envious and irresponsible columnists, like those who write for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Its writers mocked the best of Mankind and the most distinguished of the Messengers, Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), the likes of whose nobility, honour, justice, and manners the earth has never known of. Neither has it known of a more complete and comprehensive message than his, nor a more just and merciful one.

It is a message that embraces belief in all of the prophets and messengers, honoring them and defending them from calumniation and defamation. It has also preserved an accurate history of the prophets, including Jesus and Moses. So whoever disbelieves in Muhammad and speaks of him in a derogatory manner has disbelieved in all of the prophets and disparaged of all of them.

Recently, some uncivilized miscreants made fun of the Prophet, drawing various pictures of him. Twelve despicable pictures, one of them portrayed him (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) wearing a turban resembling a bomb on his head.

We say to these criminals and their envious supporters in Europe and America: You are accusing others of your very own crimes! (*)

Let it be known that never did Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), nor his righteous successors or any of his honorable companions, ever establish factories for even the most primitive of weapons, like swords and spears, let alone atomic bombs, long-range missiles, or any other weapon of mass destruction.

Never did Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) build a single weapon factory. Rather, he was sent as a mercy for the entire creation, to guide all Mankind towards happiness in their worldly lives and in their hereafter, such that they fulfill their Creator’s right upon them, for it is He who created them to worship Him alone. Whoever rejects this is truly a criminal deserving punishment in this life and the next, by the Lord of all that exists, the Creator of this universe and its Master.

As for you O Westerners, claimants of civilization, you have constitutions and statutes that destroy upright moral character and permit all kinds of forbidden acts, the likes of fornication and homosexuality, as well as usury which destroys the economies of entire nations, and the eating of improperly slaughtered animals (dead meats) and pork, something that causes the loss of concern for women's values, and thus a man does not feel protective of his wife, sister, or daughter, and thus she fornicates with or intimately befriends whomever she pleases. These are some of the means which lead to ruin, and they have been prohibited in all of the prophetic messages.

As for bombs and all other weapons of destruction, war planes, tanks, and long-range missiles, you are the ones who engineered and manufactured them with your satanic minds that only think about transgression, animosity, oppression, attacking, tyranny, conquering entire races of people and enslaving them, spilling their blood, and usurping their natural resources. You think only about annihilating those who oppose you and stand in the way of your greedy aspirations, your oppression and spreading of hatred. All this wrapped up in the name of civilization, human rights, freedom, and justice!

All intelligent people know this about you. For your dark history is overflowing with uncivil and terrorist acts, a history recorded against you by both your enemies and allies alike.

Anyone who does not know this should read about your history and your occupation of numerous nations, or at least read the history and some horrible results of your two World Wars. For example, the number of fatalities in the First World War in Europe reached "More than 10 million, and they were the elite of their nations' youth. And more than twice this number had incurred serious injuries disabling them for the rest of their lives." [Refer to: At-Taareekh al-Mu'aasir: Uruubbaa minath-Thawratil-Fransiyyah ilal-Harbil-'Aalamiyyaith-Thaaniyah, p.505. (Lit: Recent History, Europe from the French Revolution to the Second World War)]

The number of soldiers killed in the Second World War reached: "17 million, along with another 18 million civilian fatalities - all of them killed within a period of only five and a half years. Experts have estimated that the military expenses alone reached $1,100 billion, and that losses caused by the war reached the value of $2,100 billion. Added to this are the number of entire cities destroyed, the amount of earth scorched, the agriculture that was flooded, and the factories and plantations that stopped production, not to mention the number of livestock that were destroyed or lost." [(Al-Harb al-'Aalamiyyah ath-Thaaniyah by Ramadhaan Land, p.448-449) (Lit: The Second World War)]

The Hiroshima Bomb

Stated the author of the book, "al-Harb al-'Aalamiyyah ath-Thaaniyah" (p.446-447) (Lit: The Second World War), "And perhaps it is appropriate to speak about this first atomic bomb. Let us relay what was reported directly from one of the Japanese in his interview with Marcel Junod, a representative of the Red Cross, speaking about the reality of this most frightening explosion. He said: …And suddenly there appeared these intense, muddy pinkish lights, accompanied by an unnatural tremor. This was immediately followed by an asphyxiating wave of heat and violent winds that ravaged everything in their path.

Within only a few seconds, thousands of people who walked the roads or sat in the city's main streets were burned alive. A great number were then killed by the intense heat that spread all over. Others were left lying on the ground screaming in pain with deadly burns all over their bodies. Anything that had been at the point of impact – walls, homes, factories, and other buildings – was completely and totally annihilated, with all traces of these things sent hurling into the sky in a ghastly whirlwind. Trams were plucked from their steel tracks and flung as if they had lost their weight and substance. Trains were lifted off the ground along with their tracks as if they were mere toys. Horses, dogs, and livestock were all befallen with what befell the people. Every living thing had lost its life in one painful turn of events too difficult to describe. Trees were engulfed in blazing fires, rice fields lost their color, and farms crackled and burned away like dry straw.

As for the surrounding areas that escaped instant death: Homes were crumbled and only piles of wooden boards remained amongst bricks and stone foundations. Everything was crushed as if they were cardboard houses in a zone of destruction 10 kilometers in diameter. Those who survived found themselves totally surrounded by raging fires. The few people who managed to get to any type of shelter in time died painful deaths from gamma radiation within 20 to 30 days. By nightfall on the day of the blast, the blaze slowed down and then died out, finding nothing left to fuel it. Hiroshima had passed away into nothingness."

These are some of the landmarks of your civilization that you sing and boast about, and become insolent towards Islam and its Prophet with. Yet you continue intensifying every form of oppression and corruption and you go on inventing more and more weapons of destruction, annihilation, and devastation, and this – by Allah – is the utmost limit of barbaric and animalistic behavior.

( Or do you think that most of them even listen or use their intellects?
There are only like cattle, rather, even more astray than that. )
[Soorah al-Furqaan 25:44]

So crown yourselves with your own bombs, including the Hiroshima bomb and its likes, and crown your leaders with them. Consider all other weapons of mass destruction as your fangs and claws that you use to prey upon wild animals and all of Mankind.

( And those who oppress shall see what kind of outcome overturns them. )
[Soorah ash-Shooraa 26:227]

(*) This was originally translated as, "This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black!" which is similar to the Arabic idiom used, but may indicate that the accused is also guilty of the accusation to some degree (since both the pot and the kettle have been blackened). Based on the advice and concern of some trusted advisors (may Allaah bless them), this figurative idiom has been replaced with a more direct translation of its intended meaning.

[PersianPaladin]

Let them curse the Prophet (SAW). Its their loss.

Allah is probably laughing at those who curse the Prophet now, because he is in His protection. So punishment is hardly going to happen if the insult is down to pure ignorance; Allah gives time for people to repent before cursing them.

[Arsalan]

Let them curse the Prophet (SAW). Its their loss.

Allah is probably laughing at those who curse the Prophet now, because he is in His protection. So punishment is hardly going to happen if the insult is down to pure ignorance; Allah gives time for people to repent before cursing them.
indeed.

Ive read elsewhere in an article on the forum ... that the kuffars cursing of the Prophet SAW , is a sign of their own intellectual and spiritual defeat, and a sure sign of the coming of their physical defeat at the hands of the muslims .

This has been the pattern of events in the past between the forces of kufr and and the forces of Islam. Although it may take a bit longer ( in how we percieve time ) for the complete victory for Islam to be realized !!

[Abdul-Curim]

indeed.

Ive read elsewhere in an article on the forum ... that the kuffars cursing of the Prophet SAW , is a sign of their own intellectual and spiritual defeat, and a sure sign of the coming of their physical defeat at the hands of the muslims .

This has been the pattern of events in the past between the forces of kufr and and the forces of Islam. Although it may take a bit longer ( in how we percieve time ) for the complete victory for Islam to be realized !!

Ameen .

[Arsalan]

HIGHLY recommended reading :

http://www.nuradeen.com/CurrentIssues/PrayerOfTaif.htm

Another article worth reading is given below:

http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=92

WHY SHOULD WE DEFEND THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)?

Allah (swt) says in the Qur'an:

"Verily, Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O Believers! Send blessings upon him and salute him with a
worthy salutation." (33:56)

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said in a hadith:

"None of you becomes a true believer until I am dearer to him than his children, his parents, his life, his wealth, his family and all mankind." (Bukhari and Muslim)

The above verse and hadith are very clear and require no further explanation. If we can't attend a rally, explain to others why the cartoons were an insult, invite a friend or colleague to one of the many events taking place about the life of Prophet (saw), sign a petition or write to the media, then at least hate it in your heart. But that is the lowest of faith ..

Imam Shafi'i is reported to have once said, "Anyone who is angered (for a genuine reason) and does not respond; he is a jackass. As for those who transgress the limits, then let us learn from the following example of the great man who we are supposedly trying to emulate but know so little about:

http://www.nuradeen.com/CurrentIssues/PrayerOfTaif.htm

Another article worth reading is given below:

http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=92


Please observe Islamic etiquettes when attending public gatherings.

If we are going to defend the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then we must ensure that we behave in a way that our beloved teacher whom we are trying to defend would approve of. No flag burning, abusive language, aggressive taunting, and general loutish behaviour, otherwise don't bother going.

[Arsalan]

Taken from link given above post


In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful While many Muslims once again fall into the reactionary trap set for them and confirm the thesis of the offending cartoons by exploding in rage and violence, we would do well to reflect upon the Prophet's supplication in Taif. This is the dua he recited with shoes full of blood, wounds all over his body and after having been insulted, ridiculed and abused by the people of Taif to whom he had taken recourse seeking a place of refuge. Moreover, this occurs after three years of suffering a boycott at the hands of the Quraysh as a result of which Muslims were reduced to eating grass and leaves off of trees.
The Prophet (s) as he walks out of Taif:
http://www.nuradeen.com/CurrentIssues/images/Dua-of-Taif.gif "O Allah! I complain to You of my weakness, my scarcity of resources and the humiliation I have been subjected to by the people. O Most Merciful of those who are merciful. O Lord of the weak and my Lord too. To whom have you entrusted me?
To a distant person who receives me with hostility? Or to an enemy to whom you have granted authority over my affair? So long as You are not angry with me, I do not care. Your favor is of a more expansive relief to me. I seek refuge in the light of Your Face by which all darkness is dispelled and every affair of this world and the next is set right, lest Your anger or Your displeasure descends upon me. I desire Your pleasure and satisfaction until You are pleased.
There is no power and no might except by You."

[a mu-min]

may allah have mercy on him.

[zeena]

The Fiqh Concerning Those Who Insult The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace

by Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir

INTRODUCTION

Allah the Exalted has said in Surat al-Ahzab (33:57):


As for those who abuse Allah and His Messenger,
Allah’s curse is on them in the dunya and the akhira.
He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them.


In the Fiqh, as we shall see, there are absolutely no opinions, no variants, no exceptions. The matter is a clear one inside the Deen of Islam, that is, within the clear and active Fiqh as defined by our four Imams, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’ and Imam Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with all of them. Outside the unified and powerful fortress of the Islamic Shari‘at there is of course, in matters that should be definitive and non-negotiable, that very descent, diminution and longing to dismantle the Deen that is the mark of the kafirun. In this latter category can be found that other religion, Shi‘ism, which wears the cloak of Islam while cursing its Khalifs and denying its people, as well as the Modernists, who, under the cloak of Islam, secretly long to adhere to the contract of Western scepticism, and their mark is their utter disdain for the Law of a taken Zakat, an Islamic currency, and an acceptance of the Imams.

Central to this issue is the significant failure of the kafirun to recognise what the key to the whole affair is. It is this failure that renders meaningless the triviality of their response on the one hand, and the malevolent hostility towards us on the other. The key of this affair is - that we, the Muslims, love the Messenger of Allah, may Allah be pleased with him. With us the whole affair is a matter of love. Millions of Muslims sing Al-Busairi’s famous song ‘Al-Burda’ which pours out a flood of blessings on the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and which brings tears to the eyes of the Muminun. Equally, millions recite the Dala’il al-Khayrat of Shaykh Jazuli. There are thousands more to be found written through the centuries by our Muslim community, expressing our love and gratitude for his existence.

Let us look again at Surat al-Ahzab. The ayat preceding the one which is foundation to the legal judgment which concerns us here is the Ayat indicating the higher, superior and more exalted community, those who love the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We find Allah distinguishing the Muslims over and against the pagan hordes of ignorant people who insult the Messenger, and significantly, in the ayat which follows, indicates that the ones who insult the Messenger do not end there, but unjustly degrade the Muminun. Surat al-Ahzab (33:56-58):


Allah and His angels call down blessings on the Prophet.
You who have iman! call down blessings on him
and ask for complete peace and safety for him.

As for those who abuse Allah and His Messenger,
Allah’s curse is on them in the dunya and the akhira.
He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them.

And those who abuse men and women who are muminun,
when they have not merited it,
bear the weight of slander and clear wrongdoing.


Much of the aggravation that has resulted from the recent incident has in fact come from media both owned and operated by people who have a militant, and indeed military, opposition to the Muslim peoples. The man who re-launched the affair by publishing the cartoon in ‘France Soir’ was one Arnault Levey. The notoriously prejudicial BBC TV rushed a man to the Central Masjid in London. The interviewer was a jew, and he deliberately picked out to interview the wildest and most incoherent in the crowd to confirm that silhouette which they are instructed to expose to the world. At Jumu‘ah prayers he could have gone among the hundreds of highly cultured and educated Muslims, and could easily have picked out academics, barristers, and businessmen who would have put another face on the affair. Nevertheless, what the world has seen is that the World Muslim Community, who have tolerated the quotidian barrage of insults by the media, governments and military, this same community that has shown their sacred tolerance up to the chin - will not tolerate an attack on our beloved Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Maybe, this time, they may find that THEY have to exercise tolerance. A tolerance which recognises that there is a vast world community of men, women and children who do not worship what they worship, and will never worship what they worship, and it is part of the reality of existence, and the sooner they come to terms with it, the better for them.

However you wish to configure and interpret the fury and the outrage of hundreds of thousands of Muslims across the world, there is another spectacle which the kuffar have to face up to - and that is the miserable emotional and spiritual bankruptcy of the Danish people, and indeed the crushed and bewildered denizens of the European Union fortress. From a human point of view, from a psychiatric point of view, the spectacle of the Danish bourgeois, living in their heavily subsidised reality, holding their silly candles, clearly revealed that they were all dismally unable to realise that living among them were a people for whom unseen realities were greater, more important, and indeed, a matter of life and death. The Danish people have come a long, long way from the christian writer, Kierkegaard. They have no fear and trembling for the Divine Lord of the Universe, only a fear and trembling of their bland, characterless existence of material welfare, purveyors of alcohol to the whole world, especially their own children.

In this affair, there is also a dimension for which we have to take responsibility. While a complete analysis of causes must be done by all of us, it is outside the remit of this Hukm. We are nevertheless obliged to indicate it in order to give us a clear view of the matter at hand. It is that the Muslims, who are a community of Law, can only live under an Amir, who, on behalf of his people, upholds that Law. It is the absence of an Amir which prevents this matter being dealt with, properly speaking, in a legal manner. This does not mean, however, that in the absence of an Amir the matter will simply go away. It certainly means that it must be dealt with in relation to this primary absence of the commanding authority. To understand this better we should look at two examples. One being the response of a weak Muslim leader. The other being the response of a non-Muslim leader, Shi‘a.

Some years ago I was in Abu Dhabi. A few years previously I had initiated a Conference of Maliki Fiqh. It had been in Granada, Spain. The then Chief Qadi of the U.A.E., the late Shaykh Aal-Mubarak, himself a renowned Maliki scholar, offered to host a second Conference the following year in Abu Dhabi. At the opening Reception for the very impressive array of scholars expert in the School of the ‘Amal of the Ahl al-Madinah, Shaykh Zayed, the then President of the U.A.E., made the Speech of Welcome. In it, he announced publicly his intention to govern the U.A.E. according to the Shari‘at of Islam.

Now, during my stay, the English-speaking paper of the Emirates published an article by an Indian doctor in which he clearly insulted the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as well as the Qur’an itself. Outraged, I took the newspaper to Shaykh Aal-Mubarak. He responded immediately. He ordered a translation into Arabic of the text. When he received it he confirmed that it was legally actionable. The man was arrested and charged with insulting the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the Qur’an. The man was a modernist Muslim, but significantly the outrage came from the normally happy hindu community in the Emirates. The Court found him guilty, but delayed the judgment. The Indian government which declares it is secular, but in reality worships at the temples of monkeys, elephants and a little blue man, intervened in the name of their notorious ‘Tolérance’. As a result, the miserable doctor was bundled off to India before judgment could be carried out. That he had lost a lucrative job, a high salary and a fine villa was not considered by the Muslims to be a satisfactory end to the affair.

This was a direct result of the weakness of an Arab ruler, yet he could not be expected to defend the honour of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he had already assumed power on the understanding that he would accept payment for Abu Dhabi petrol in paper currency, while his father had been assassinated for insisting that it be paid in gold bullion.

The other example is the already forgotten matter of the Indian Shi‘a novelist. At that time the posture of the Iranian government was that “We were all Muslims together”. Perhaps in order to appear, as it were, the Defender of the Faith, Imam Khomeini issued a Fatwa calling for the execution of the miserable author. The result is well known. Effectively, it set a cordon sanitaire around the criminal which, at a cost of millions of dollars, absolutely guaranteed not only his physical safety but his elevation to an icon among the atheists. As if that were not bad enough, a later Iranian government rescinded the Fatwa. Later, again, it was announced that, no, it was still operative, but was not to be activated.

It is very clear from this that the action of the Shi‘a Amir, devoid of the application of Islamic Fiqh, did not accomplish what he at least stated was his primal intention.

The Ikhwan al-Muslimun’s Shaykh al-Qardawi has called for what apparently he calls ‘An International Day of Anger’ - this, of course, is beneath contempt.

True to their traditional position of shame, the President of Palestine went on television to condemn the insult, but then hastened to instruct his people that nevertheless, in the light of it, they should not commit any acts of violence. In other words, it was alright for Palestinians to kill Israeli women and children and send their sons off to commit suicide in order to recover land that had been stolen from them, but in the matter of the commanded defence of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, they were not to raise a finger.

What we see from this is that lack of Muslim leadership, compounded by a false leadership claiming to be Islamic while it is not, has placed us all in a very vulnerable position. As far as the Fiqh on the matter is concerned, there is no doubt. No doubt whatsoever.

* * * * *

HUKM

The judgment of the Shari‘ah regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet. QADI ‘IYAD IBN MUSA AL-YAHSUBI, one of the greatest of the Fuqaha of the School of the ‘Amal of the Ahl al-Madinah, which has been called the ‘Umm al-Madhahib (and which was given precedence in its judgments over all the Madhhabs by Ibn Taymiyya in a renowned book), DECLARED:

“Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.

Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi‘i school. Qadi Abu'l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza‘i about the Muslims.” [...]

“Ibn al-Qasim said in the ‘Utbiyya, ‘Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed.’”

“The fuqaha' of Andalusia gave a Fatwa that Ibn Hatim, the scholar of Toledo, be killed and crucified because there was testimony that he made light of what is due to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and claimed that his zuhd was not intentional, and similar things”

“The fuqaha’ of the Qayrawan (the great Masjid and early Islamic university near Tunis) and the companions of Sahnun gave a Fatwa for the killing of Ibrahim al-Ghazari, a poet and master of many sciences. He was one of those who attended the assembly of Qadi Abu'l-‘Abbas ibn Talib for debate. He was accused of objectionable things like mocking Allah, His Prophets and our Prophet. Qadi Yahya ibn ‘Umar and other fuqaha’ summoned him and commanded that he be killed and crucified upside down. One of the historians related that when the post to which he was tied was lifted up, the body turned around away from qibla. It was a sign to all and the people made Takbir. Then a dog came and licked his blood.”

“Habib ibn Rabi‘ al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions (that is, the School of Madinah) is that anyone who says anything insulting about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.”

“We have already mentioned the consensus. As for the traditions, al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali related from his father that the Messenger of Allah said in respect of this matter, ‘Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him.’ This is found in at-Tabarani and ad-Daraqutni.”

“In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, ‘Who will deal with Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.’ He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, as distinct from other mushriks. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than Shirk. It was for causing harm.”

“In another hadith about a man who used to insult the Prophet, the Prophet said, ‘Who will save me from my enemy?’ Khalid said, ‘I will,’ so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.”

It is at this point important to understand that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in having these enemies killed, was in the defence and protection of the Divine Revelation, and his obligation to preserve himself for the completion of his task. It is now, in the light of these hadith, that we can recognise the grave error of Khomeini in the act of issuing his Fatwa. An Amir is obliged to issue a public Fatwa immediately in the defence of the Muminun, but we observe a distinction between endangering the Muminun and an attack on the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. An attack on him is an attack not only on the Divinely appointed Messenger, but also upon the Revelation itself, therefore our ‘ulama distinguish it from any other form of attack. It is considered an act of war. In a well-known hadith the Prophet has said, ‘Strategy is part of war.’ We derive from this that in the event of a direct attack by insult against the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, a strategy must be applied which guarantees that the enemy is eliminated. For this reason, the one who attacks is identified. An executioner or executioners are sent to carry out the authorised sentence of execution. Then and only after the assassination is the order declared, to warn off others from similar action. It was the failure of Khomeini that he made the Fatwa prior to the execution of it, which rendered that Fatwa meaningless. There remains the possibility that that was the purpose of his Fatwa in the first place.

“In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, ‘One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men.’ The man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa'i went to him and said, ‘Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!’ He said, ‘Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’”

“Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, ‘No-one disagreed with him.’ So the Imams take this as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or insult the Prophet in any way should be killed.”

“There is also the letter of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdu'l-’Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed ‘Umar. ‘Umar wrote back to him, ‘It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful.’”

At this point Qadi ‘Iyad makes a significant observation: “Anyone who insults or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the sickness in his heart.”

Our ‘ulama have all confirmed that this judgment comes down on the Muslim, the Dhimmi, that is someone under the protection of the Muslims, and the kafirun. All are liable to this legal judgment.

“In ‘The Book of Muhammad’, the companions of Malik have told us that he said that whoever curses the Messenger of Allah, or any other Prophet, be he Muslim or kafir, is killed without being asked to repent. Ibn Wahb related from Ibn ‘Umar that a monk made a verbal attack on the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Ibn ‘Umar asked, ‘Why did you not kill him?’”

“In ‘An-Nawadir’, written by Ibn Abi Zaid al-Qayrawani, author of the renowned ‘Risala’, from the version of Sahnun, from Malik, we find that any jew or christian who reviles the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in other than the normal way by which the jews and christians reject him is beheaded unless he becomes a Muslim.”

Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him. This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law, for while their laws are inspired by fear, ours are inspired by love. Qadi ‘Iyad gives an interesting narration on Malik that could be said to represent exactly the emotion of the millions of Muslims across the world that have been so disturbed by this affair.

“Ibn al-Qasim said that Malik was asked about a christian in Egypt against whom there was testimony that he had insulted the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The evidence was very distressing. They asked whether they should kill him so that people would be saved from him. Finally Malik said that he thought the man should be beheaded. After that, Imam Malik added, ‘I almost did not say anything about it, but then I realised that I could not remain silent.’”

* * * * *

The Fiqh is clear. There is no debate. There can be no opinion. The judgment has to be that the kuffar have to realise that we exist, and what is sacred to us we will never tolerate that it be violated. The kuffar must realise - perhaps, if they are intelligent, realise with a shock - that nothing matters to them in the same way, because they are outside the great circle of those who love Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

The puffed-up indignity of those who rabbit on about free speech, itself an invented fantasy, has to cool down. We are not fools. We know, and they know, that there is not and never has been free speech in any society. From California to the Carpathian Mountains, if you say one word against the jews, even if you propose historically indefensible ideas about the non-existence of Nazi genocide, you are flung into prison. Europe used to fling into prison people who made the equally preposterous claim that the earth was flat. Perhaps the Danish newspaper would care to hold a competition for the best cartoon on Auschwitz, just to demonstrate that what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

There is a strong argument that the whole matter was resurrected in France to draw attention away from the disastrous situation in Israel, where the people huddle helplessly round the dead, zombified figure of the old general who has left them leaderless. The matter is certainly not finished. The weak and strangely silent governments of the kuffar would be well advised to call off their dogs. The governments of Muslim countries, who are to blame for this in the first place, would be well advised to reflect on the counsel of Ibn Khaldun, inspired by his reading of the Qur’an - they too, shall pass away.

Allah the Exalted said in Surat al-Kafirun (109:1-6):


In the name of Allah, All-Merciful, Most Merciful
Say: ‘Kafirun!
I do not worship what you worship
and you do not worship what I worship.
Nor will I worship what you worship
nor will you worship what I worship.
You have your deen and I have my deen.’


Nothing in your such a long long post reveals that Allah has asked the Muslims to destroy properties and damage embassies and kill people or do the chest beating if somebody insults his prophet. For Allah all of his men are equal in respect and honor.

[Yurt]

Nothing in your such a long long post reveals that Allah has asked the Muslims to destroy properties and damage embassies and kill people or do the chest beating if somebody insults his prophet. For Allah all of his men are equal in respect and honor.

I think he (Abdul Majid) said something to this effect in post 7:

Please observe Islamic etiquettes when attending public gatherings.

If we are going to defend the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then we must ensure that we behave in a way that our beloved teacher whom we are trying to defend would approve of. No flag burning, abusive language, aggressive taunting, and general loutish behaviour, otherwise don't bother going.

[Arsalan]

Peace and blessings on our Prophet, and his fammily and his Companions.

This is a really important article through which we can heed many lessons inshAllah. LINK given below.
How Islamic Workers Can Support and Defend the Prophet
(peace be upon him)|


Dr. Fâlih b. Muhammad b. Fâlih al-Sughayyir|



http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=511

Begins...

Praise be to Allah. And may His peace and blessings be upon the Messenger, his family, his Companions, and all those who follow him.

In the heart of anyone possessing the least shred of faith, the status of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is greater than that of anyone else in Creation. Those who possess religious knowledge and work for the cause of Islam have even stronger feelings. The sense of love and honor that they harbor in their hearts for the Prophet (peace be upon him) cannot be imagined. This is because he is the Messenger of the Lord of All the Worlds and he is the most honored of all the Prophets and Messengers. He is the final Prophet whom Allah chose for His Message. He is the Seal of the Prophets and Allah blessed the Muslims by having sent him to them. "Allah did confer a great favor on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, purifying them, and teaching them the Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error." [Sûrah آl `Imrân: 164]

Allah obliges Himself to mercy for anyone who follows this noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and strives to support him and defend him. Allah says: "My mercy extends to all things. I shall ordain it for those who do right, and practice regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs;- Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Torah and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is those who will prosper."

Allah, moreover, has made it the obligation of every Muslim to believe in him, support him, honor him, and defend him and his Sunnah. Allah says: "We have truly sent you (O Muhammad) as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings, and as a warner: in order that you (O humanity) may believe in Allah and His Messenger, that you may assist and honor him, and celebrate (Allah') praise morning and evening."

continues

http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=511

[Arsalan]

Another article.


Reflections on Hatred and the Defamation of the Prophet Muhammad -
Jamaal al-Deen Zarabozo

When it comes to the relations between “the West” and the “Muslim world,” there is no question that we are currently living in an environment of heightened fear, hatred, anxiety, violence and extremism. We are living in a time in which the prudent and wise person will think about what he will say or do. It is obviously not a time in which we avoid speaking the truth and working for justice—as that is always a given. However, it is a time for reasonable people to avoid anything that can be used in a negative way to further destabilize the situation and cause senseless harm.

In particular since 9/11, one often hears the following question being posed by the people of the West, “Why do they hate us?” It is interesting to observe what behavior is occurring at the same time that they are asking this question—and, in fact, what behavior has been occurring for centuries, as shall be noted later. At the same time that they are, it must be presumed, sincerely asking the question, “Why do they hate us?” many of their societal leaders and many in their media continue to disrespect and ridicule Islam, Muslims and even the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—doing acts that seem to be intended only to hurt the feelings of the Muslims. Most recently, one can point to the cartoons in Denmark that depicted, for example, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having a bomb in his turban.[2] These classless and offensive cartoons were later republished in other newspapers throughout Europe, demonstrating support for the original publishers.[3] Even before these events, one can find Christian leaders and social commentators in the United States making antagonistic and hate-provoking statements about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), calling him a terrorist or even a child molester. The situation has not been much better in Europe, although they have much larger Muslim minorities.

In this environment, beyond asking “Why do they hate us?” perhaps another important question needs to be asked by all: Is our own behavior leading us in a positive or beneficial direction? Maybe the answer to this question may shed some light on the answer to the aforementioned question.



The Legal Framework

Those who engage in the practice of defaming Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have claimed that they are simply exercising their rights of freedom of speech, opinion and belief. Within the Western framework, they may have an argument. At the end of January 2006, the Blair government was defeated in attempting to pass a law that would have made ridiculing faiths and religious leaders a type of hate crime. In an interview with BBC on February 1, 2006, a Member of Parliament who opposed the bill said that the law must protect life and property but need not protect “feelings.” Thus, as long as a person’s “life or property” is not physically attacked, one should be free to express what one wishes. This approach reflects the currently accepted Western emphasis on individual rights as opposed to social welfare. Indeed, in the aftermath of the dispute concerning the cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), some in Europe are proudly—actually, arrogantly—proclaiming that they have the right to insult God if they want to.

Whatever the man-made legal rights may be and ignoring the gravity of the manner in which such insults have been done, what if such statements do eventually lead to harm and attacks on life and property? What is the logic behind permitting “causes” that lead to “harm” while prohibiting the act of harm in itself? For example, is there anything reprehensible about drunk driving in itself or is it prohibited by law only due to the harm that it can result in, the loss of life and property?

In any case, of course, simply because something is legal by law does not necessarily imply that it is moral or even wise. In the current environment, this is the more important issue. One should never invoke one’s “rights” in defense of harmful and hateful actions that could eventually even lead to bloodshed. Thus, it is not a matter of passing new laws, as was attempted in England. Instead, it is a matter of recognizing the morally correct path to follow and the prudent path to follow.



The Dangers of Defamation and Ridicule in the Media

No one can doubt that images and stereotypes presented in the media are very powerful. In many cases, they form a person’s perception of reality. In particular, many of the West, more so in the US than in Europe, do not have first hand experiences with Muslims and therefore they must rely on the media to develop their perception of Islam and Muslims. Nacos and Torres-Reyna write, “Some 55 years ago, before the advent of television, Walter Lippmann observed that what people know about the world around them is mostly the result of second-hand knowledge received through the press and that the ‘pictures in our heads’ are the result of a pseudo-reality reflected in the news.”[4]

Thus, the press bears a great responsibility. What and how the press presents something can ultimately lead to decisions of life and death or war and peace. Indeed, political cartoons and yellow journalism can be sufficient to drive a country into a war frenzy—as they appeal to the emotions of the masses. Anyone familiar with the Spanish-American War is well aware of this fact. There were powerful forces in the United States who were determined to go to war against Spain, fearing the “Spanish threat” on the Americas. The New York Morning Journal (headed by William Randolph Hearst) and The New York World used yellow journalism to depict Spanish oppression in Cuba. Even though President McKinley wanted to follow a hands-off policy, the effect of the media was such that it led to great popular support to come to the aid of the Cubans. This put great pressure upon President McKinley, leading him to send the Battleship Maine to Havana in 1898. The Battleship Maine exploded. The Navy at that time was unable to determine the cause of the explosion—although more recently many have concluded that it was due to mechanical problems. At that time, the Spanish offered to turn the issue of responsibility over to an arbitrator. However, even without being able to identify the exact cause of the explosion, the media pounced on the opportunity, spread the slogan “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain” and continued to depict the evil Spaniards in their cartoons. The United States was now definitely going to war. The lessons of those events should not be lost on the world today.

Another example of the influence of the press is discussed in the following passage: “The racism that led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was created partly by the motion picture industry, which for years typecast Orientals as villains, and partly by the press, especially the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst.”[5] Today, of course, the internment of the Japanese is something that we Americans remember with shame.

The result—if not the goal—of blatant defamation and ridicule is the dehumanization of the enemy. When the enemy is dehumanized, one no longer cares how much they suffer. One can then do things to them that humans would, under normal circumstances, completely shun—such as all forms of horrendous torture and humiliation.



Who Would Want to Participate in or Support Such Defamation and Hate-Filled Actions?

Inexcusable defamation is occurring. Before discussing who may be pleased with such occurrences, I would like to first discuss who should not be participating in such activities.

First, it seems to me—and only God knows—that those who want to display the Christian witness to humanity certainly should shun and oppose any such behavior. It is the Christian who usually claims that Muslims do not understand that “God is love” and that one should love one’s enemy. Thus, they should be at the forefront of putting an end to such harmful statements and defamation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). These shameful acts certainly do not demonstrate grace and love.

Second, those who are truly interested in peace must also take a stand. You cannot simultaneously allow and support hate-provoking messages and ridicule while at the same time claiming to be working for true peace among the different peoples. True peace cannot come without some form of mutual respect and understanding. Certainly immaturely attacking the icons or beliefs that are dear to millions living on the planet could not be seen as a means of respect and understanding.

Third, those who are interested in human rights and human dignity should also be outraged at what is done in the name of freedom and human rights. If the concept of human rights is going to mean anything it should at least mean respect for humans! To unjustifiably ridicule, attack or defame others should be considered a violation of one’s right to a decent life without unwarranted aggression and attack. When will the paradox of humans being dehumanized and humiliated in the name of human freedoms and human rights ever be solved? Indeed, when will secular humans finally realize that such is a paradox for which they may never have a solution?

Muslims also should never engage in false or ridiculing propaganda against others. Even if there is great hatred between the Muslim and others, a Muslim is never allowed to deviate from what is truthful and proper. This is because the ultimate goal of a Muslim is the pleasure of God and God is pleased with truth and justice. The mere ridicule of others resulting only in increased hatred—not to speak of hatred between individuals but, indeed, even a hatred for God’s religion—is not part of the character of a Muslim. The following verses of the Quran should make all Muslims alert to these points:

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice…” (al-Nisaa 135);

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do” (al-Maaidah 8);

“And do not insult those [objects of worship] whom they worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fair-seeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do” (al-Anaam 108).

The question then remains: Who is it that could possibly be pleased with and support such rude and ill-mannered behavior as the defaming of the spiritual leader of almost one-fifth of the planet? Unfortunately, there are a few categories of people who are actively pushing and promoting a phenomenon described as “Islamophobia,”[6] putting the fear of Islam and Muslims in the hearts of non-Muslims. It is hoped that no rational, sincere person would want to be from these different groups of people who foster such hate and, eventually, violence.

First and most obvious are people who are simply racists. These people have a hatred for all “others” and see them as inferior, untermenschen. They want their own people to also hate the “other” and therefore they are happy to spread any slurs or insults. The whole basis of racist thought is that someone is superior not due to anything that he has actually done but only due to something given to him by God and over which the individual himself had no control or choice. It seems that this would appeal most to persons who have no individual redeeming qualities of their own! Be that as it may, it is amazing how prevalent racism and racist feelings are in the West. It is the people of the West, in general, who are saying that they want the Muslims to become modernized, claiming that Islam and Muslims are barbarians, backwards, uncivilized and un-modernized. Is it any wonder that their message has been unappealing to so many Muslims?

Unfortunately, there are also many strong political factors behind the current demonizing of Muslims. There is a political-philosophical belief that one’s country needs a well-defined and dangerous enemy. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that enemy has more and more been identified as Muslims and Islam (sometimes referred to in more politically correct terms as “fundamentalist Islam”). One can return to the example of the Soviet Union to see how an enemy can be created and made as giant as can be. During the 1950s, the children of the United States were repeatedly going through drills in case the Soviets should attack the US with nuclear weapons. Looking back, the reality seemed to be very different. Former US statesman George Kennan, who had originally proposed the policy of Russian containment, admitted that he knew that Russia did not want to go to war. He stated, “The image of a Stalinist Russia poised and yearning to attack the West, and deterred only by possession of atomic weapons, was largely a creation of Western imagination.”[7] A report in the Guardian also states that British military and intelligence chiefs believed that, “The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe,” so said a classified paper marked “Top Secret, UK Eyes Only.”[8] One of the leading proponents of the concept of the clash of civilizations, Samuel Huntington, is himself one of the believers in this outlook. Among the many things he stated pointing to this view of the world is, “We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.”[9]

Finally, those Muslims who might hold some extreme views in regards to the West are also very happy with such practices that demonstrate the West’s lack of respect toward Muslims. In turn, they use this as an argument that the people of the West, therefore, are not deserving of respect. They want no limits to the manner in which they fight—and it is only a small step from quoting non-Muslim disrespect for Muslims to convincing a person that civilian non-Muslims, therefore, are also not deserving of respect. Hence, those people who defend acts of defamation and ridicule in the name of “rights and freedoms” are simply playing right into their hands.

These are the main categories of people who would be pleased with such acts of defamation and ridicule of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), of Muslims or of the “other” in general. As stated earlier, it is hoped that rational and sincere people would not wish to be counted among such groups of people.

However, there is another important point that needs to be made. This has to do with those who defend such hate-producing acts, again probably in the name of free speech, liberty and so forth. What, though, is the difference between defending acts like this—that lead to more hatred and therefore more violence—and directly supporting known terrorists? Yes, one can argue that there is a difference. But to the person who truly wants to take responsibility for the ramifications of his actions (what he does as well as what he advocates), he should consider what occurs when he supports or sees nothing wrong with denigrating and defaming others in such a manner that will only produce more hatred. There is no question that this hatred may easily lead to more violence, bloodshed, turmoil and suffering. Certainly, he cannot truly believe that his hands are absolutely free of any guilt.



[U]Defamation versus Critique

Most of the inhabitants of the West are non-Muslims. Many of them are not Muslim because they feel that there is something unacceptable in Islam. Hence, it is to be expected that they would have thoughts about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that Muslims would not share. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself debated with Jews, Christians and polytheists who did not believe in him and even after discussions with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself they remained true to their own faiths. Thus, no one, Muslim or otherwise, should be surprised if a non-Muslim has a lesser opinion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than a Muslim has.

The Quran welcomes discussion and dialogue with the non-Muslims:

“Invite (mankind, O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and debate with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided” (al-Nahl 125).

In fact, more than once, the Quran even asks the non-Muslim to,

“Produce your proof if you are truthful” (al-Baqarah 111; al-Naml 64; al-Qasas 75).

Thus, the objection is not to non-Muslims—especially in their own lands—expressing their view about the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). If what they state is sincere and rational, then they can be spoken to on a rational level with sincerity. Indeed, Muslims welcome such discussions and, in reality, such discussions are best for Islam, because, to this day, most of the people in the West have distorted views of Islam. If they wish to express their views honestly and discuss them honestly, they can be presented with the truth of Islam. This act in itself may reduce the tension and discord that exists between non-Muslims and Muslims. In fact, after the events of 9/11, many Americans took the effort to find out more about Islam and there was much more exposure of Islam and Muslims. Thus, in comparing surveys before 9/11 and after 9/11, Nacos and Torres-Reyna found that “the American public in general viewed Muslim-Americans more favorable after September 11, 2001.”[10]

One can respond to rational arguments with an honest and straightforward rational discussion. However, there is no real response to something that is meant only to ridicule, insult or harm.

In sum, if non-Muslims want to debate and discuss the real issues of religion and belief, Muslims are more than ready to do that. If they resort to defamation and ridicule, then they should not be surprised if they are in turn responded to with hatred and disrespect. There is no need for them to then ask, “Why do they hate us?” The answer should be clear.

Actually, there is one author who makes the point that those in the past who attacked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did so in an attempt to avoid discussing the real issues. Minou Reeves writes in a work entitled Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making,

The trouble started with early medieval Christian polemicists. They chose not to attack Islamic theology, which was too seductive in its simplicity and clarity, and which raised too many awkward questions about Christian dogma. Nor could they cast doubt on the pious practice of ordinary Muslims. Instead, anticipating the worst excesses of tabloid journalism, they personalized the issue and attacked the Prophet of Islam, dispensing with all but the barest knowledge of any facts and inventing falsehoods. Muslims could not reply in kind, since they are told by the Qur’an to revere Jesus as a holy prophet.[11]

It seems that not much has truly changed over the centuries.



Conclusions


In conclusion, I think all in the world can agree that mutual understanding, mutual respect, peace and justice certainly will never result from defamation, ridicule and insult. Therefore, there is no real benefit from defaming or denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a manner like the recent political cartoons in Europe. The only result that one can expect from such practices is more hatred, violence and fear. Certainly, if you disrespect someone else, you cannot expect that he will show great respect for you in return. If this hatred does turn into more terrorism, the longer term result may simply be more restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms in the West. Those who are supporting such cartoons in the name of rights and liberties may, in the long-run, find their liberties restricted because of what these disrespectful acts produced. In essence, nobody wins in the long-run. There is simply no rationale for such behavior.

At the same time, we have to call upon all interested parties to show restraint and to consider what ramifications anything that they say or do might have. Muslim scholars should take the lead, as they have done in the past, to stress to the Muslims that the actions of the non-Muslims should never anger them so much that it leads them to do something that contradicts the Law of Islam. It is time for leaders in the West to realize that the “freedom” which is very dear to the Western conscience should not be an unwise or harmful freedom. I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, “My freedom to swing my fist stops where your chin begins.” In today’s turbulent environment, perhaps it should be said—not as a law but as moral behavior—“My freedom of speech ends where your personal dignity begins.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] ©2006, Jamaal Zarabozo

[2] It should be noted that the Muslim outrage concerning these cartoons is not related simply to the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is depictured in these cartoons. Although Muslims would not draw pictures of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the essential problem with these cartoons is the defamation and ridicule of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This point is explicitly made here because some news reports have presented the issue as if it were simply a matter of depicturing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

[3] We commend those Western media outlets that refused to show these cartoons, deeming them too insulting.

[4] Brigitte L. Nacos and Oscar Torres-Reyna, “Framing Muslim-Americans Before and After 9/11,” in Pippa Norris, Montague Kern and Marion Just, eds. Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 135.

[5] Nacos and Torres-Reyna, p. 152.

[6] A number of publications cover the manifestations and extent of Islamophobia in recent years. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) published a paper entitled, “Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001.” Another important work was published by The Runnymede Trust entitled, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for us All.” The Runnymede Trust earlier produced a Consultation Paper in which they stated, “Islamophobia is dread or hatred of Islam and of Muslims. It has existed in western countries and cultures for several centuries but in the last twenty years has become more explicit, more extreme and more dangerous. It is an ingredient of all sections of the media, and is prevalent in all sections of society.”

[7] Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2003), pp. 8-9.

[8] Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, pp. 9-10.

[9] Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations, p. 21.

[10] Nacos and Torres-Reyna, p. 152.

[11] Minou Reeves, Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making (Washington Square, New York: New York University Press, 2000), p. x.