tolerating the intolerant?

For your very thought provoking thread, and your tolerance and forgiving my hijacks..Jazakhallah Khair!

Hold fast to forgiveness and enjoin goodness and turn away from the ignorant." (7:198-199).

Yes we need a PM notification facility pronto!

And a huge thank you for all your advice and sharing of knowledge. Always always appreciated.

Sorry for the hijack Marco!

"..Have you received mine? .."

YEs i received but I saw them only today...thanks for yr advise.

Actually there should be some provision on this site to notify if there is a new message...

I don't have any PMs from you bro...in fact I have been wondering if my PMs are working. Try sending it again please. Have you received mine?

Edit: Ok just got it,Jazakhallah Khair!

Kindly check your PM...

Regards,

I personally have nothing against freedom of religion, a Christian myself, even though it may seem weird to some, I will have to remind you, that many millions of Muslims have made USA their home,some for generations, and have nowhere else to go to. The term of being a Muslim doesn't mean automatically being an immigrant and coming from a certain country. If one takes a look at US history, the only original Americans are the Indians, who occupied those territories for thousands of years. All the others are occupants, including Christians. So please, if anyone takes a careful look at the photo above, it can be really considered as an unnesessary assalt.

Allah knows best what is in the hearts of others, but I know personally of many non Muslims and even Muslims who have been even more misguided by the internet and media,as far as knowledge of Islam goes.So many sites, so many sects, so many ideologies, and each sounding convincing and offering what seems like solid proof. Who do we believe? Who can we trust?

That's why I pray night and day for God to guide me, my family and indeed all of his creation to the true and straight path!

"...I will also try my best to repel all those false notions they have for which reason they did what they did, by educating them with authentic proofs..."

The people who come up with such slanders more often than not already know all the proofs; They do this out of their inherent wickedness. That is the reason the prophet did not send the companions to preach Saad Bin Ashraf and understand what his problem was.

Similarly, in todays world of internet do you think that the Salman rushdies of the world are ignorant about the truth ??

I believe in freedom of speech and I believe everyone has a right to hold their opinions. However, I wish people would become more vocal about standing up for their beliefs, especially liberals and moderates. I feel the only people we ever hear from are the bigots.

I feel I am not authorized to answer this question. As a laywoman I would leave it to the ruler and lawmakers alone to make that decision. And whether I agree with their decision or not,I will then abide by the law.

Privately,if I knew this individual personally, I would call them to a side and ask them first what prompted their actions. I will then advice them, with the best of manners, of how harmful and hurtful such actions are, and how as peace loving citizens, it should be upon us to behave with respect towards other faiths and cultures and promote tolerance.

I will also try my best to repel all those false notions they have for which reason they did what they did, by educating them with authentic proofs.And if they accept it from me I will be by far happier then than I would to see them punished and humiliated.

I believe this is my duty, as a Muslimah and as a woman who wishes to see peace and tolerance in any society.

"...The bottom line is the Prophet never would have condoned all those violent protests carried out in the name of Islam..."

I agree with you, by protest I did not mean street protests and demonstration which causes nothing but confusion.

What I meant is that muslims need to register protest to such things which are in poor taste. There are ways to agree and disagree but if someone starts open slander then it need to be stopped.

Now if this happens in a country where Islamic Shariah is not implemented we can protest through different channels like articles in newspapers etc.

However if there is Islamic shariah implemeted and if a person says such things then what should be the punishment according to you....

From my research into the subject, based on both the Sahih hadiths and studies, the reason Ka'ab was ordered to be killed was far more serious than him only verbally insulting Muslim women.

One study shows:"He then rode to Makkah where he started to trigger the fire of war, and kindle rancour against the Muslims in Madinah"

So he actually waged war against the Prophet first.

Sahih Al Bukhari only mentions that due to him waging war against Allah and the Prophet, was he ordered to be killed. It doesn't mention that it was ONLY due to him insulting Muslim women.

As for how he insulted the women, was it merely verbal or bordering on sexual harassment as well?

The bottom line is the Prophet never would have condoned all those violent protests carried out in the name of Islam, which resulted not only in much bloodshed and mayhem, but also confirmed what haters had to say about our religion. Truly an evil predicament!

Wrong answer! He was not only tolerant and forgiving towards them but he even prayed to God to forgive them. Your answer though was probably based on all the misinformation and negative notions people have about Islam.

"...From my research, he would generally form his followers into an army and destroy all those who disagreed with him!..."

Where did you do your research from ??

I believe you did it from anti-islamic sites on the internet ...

"How did he,Peace be Upon him, react in these situations?"

From my research, he would generally form his followers into an army and destroy all those who disagreed with him!

You can read the historical background info which will help you understand the hadith:

http://www.4muhammed.com/Raheeq_Al-Makhtum-EN/71-Ka‘b-bin-Al-Ashraf,-killed

Kindly visit the site http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/

and search for "Ashraf" and you will get 4 hadith related to the same...

One of the links is mentioned below:

http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dsphadeeth&HadeethID=2828&txt=ashraf

funny how you all think the universe's health revolves around us and our way of thinking!

-The world is owned by a bunch of people who were/are smart enough to have brained washed the rest.

-Freedom of speech is Nothing. It simply does not exist anywhere on this planet.

-Nothing you say or think about is quantised. Drawing the line and determining what is right and wrong will NEVER be clear to all in the same time.

- If religion never existed, I think we would have been way more technologically advanced and maybe the killings would have been less..

-Rules are not set to be the most logical but to be most efficient and reliable for authorities who set them, so those talking about drinking and driving and what is right.. well until you get a micro chip plugged up your *** synchronised to any car you ride in and all police stations around, then nothing will sound fair...

You think the way Traffic light signals work is the most logical solution for traffic?

I agree with everything fatimah says I don't see how others muslims can't agree with her point of view

I repeat, Not in QL. Practice what you preach! So many! Tsk Tsk Tsk!

Do not tolerate the intolerant

And again I have mentioned it in many places of how the Prophet tolerated insults against himself and even his family.Tell me this was the drawing of some character and calling him Muhammed worse or was it stoning our beloved Prophet till he bled, or calling him a madman etc. How did he,Peace be Upon him, react in these situations?

The protests were not in accordance to the sunnah, and this was a fact. Had they actually wanted to even ask for justice etc there would still have been peaceful ways of doing so. Instead when they protested the way they did, those protesters only reinforced the ideology that Islam was a religion of hate and intolerance. So who then was the looser?

Well Marco, that I guess that depends on who is looking at them. For you it is one thing, for somebody else it may be another.

"...With regards to the Danish joke I was honestly one of those who found the entire turbulence unnecessary. ..."

You must have read about prophet muhammad SAWS command to kill Ka’b Bin Al-Ashraf (a jew) who was writing poetry against muslim women which were insulting in nature.

So, if prophet himself commanded to kill a person who was writing immoral poetry against muslim women then how can you say that protests against the mocking cartoons of the prophet saws himself was unnecessary ??

NM: I have seen some of those Holocaust cartoons and really didn't see any anti-Semitism in these depictions. Instead most of them were legitimate political commentaries equating the Holocaust to Israels occupation of Palestine.

besides Actually to me looking at them seems like another one of these Holocaust sympathizing events where photos from the 2WW are hanged up on walls for people to look at and then write some short notes about the eye opening experience in the gallery's gusts book.

Fuel Rod, you might have misunderstood what I meant to say.

I am not making fun of the Holocaust, neither am a Holocaust denier. I have seen the evidence of it with my owm eyes, unfortunately.

What I meant to say is, albeit it being a very serious and horrid issue, there are still sarcastic jokes about it, cartoons, if you will.

That is what I meant with "not so sacred"..maybe not a good choice of term.

Are you saying 6 000 000 people weren't exterminated like vermin because of their religion?

Please present evidence before making such claims.

If you think I've just presnted you with a strawman argument, then let me rephrase the position:

Where is your evidence "the Holocaust not as "sacred" as they may want you to think?"

Thanks.

Marco, there have been such cartoons. Not only in newspapers, but also jokes told by people...the Holocaust is not as "sacred" as they want to make you think...trust me.

NM: Well you are absolutely right. Insulting speech, as annoying as it is, is protected by International laws if it is not accompanied by incitement to violence.

Often times things that are not intended as insults are often taken out of contest/twisted and played with to be perceived as insults so proposing to ban (insulting) speech are basically potentially setting loose and uncontrollable lock of censorship.

And is likely to be used heavily used to shut people up especially whenever govt/ personal interests and the political are at crossroads. however in my opinion and since the modern world is such a big fan of Freedom of Speech/freedom of the press yata yata yata, And we all claim o be so goddamn liberal about it then why cant the media people around the world and specially in the country in which the controversial cartons were drawn go out publishing cartoons depicting the Holocaust?

I'm not an anti-Semite but I think the world and especially in the West is very sensitive towards the Holocaust and its denial. So how would Europe react if the Polish/German or Norway Muslims published Holocaust parody cartoons

Some normal arguments are presented.

The example given of someone having an alcoholic drink then driving home is a perfect example of how things get messed up between perceived as "offensive" and what is the "right way to treat and care" for others.

It shouldn't matter if someone chooses to have an alcoholic drink with their meal, or even if they want to get blind rotten drunk. But they should be able to make that choice for themselves, not because it's a rule or law. What they do once they start drinking is something they then need to become responsible for. Driving after drinking is utterly stupid. The worst alcoholic in the world knows that.

So that's where the law should draw the line, not take away people's opportunity to choose. That's how you end up with a "Nanny State." Think of the USA, or a lot of Europe, or Australia. Increasingly behaviour choices are being stripped from us all, until we become slaves to the corporations, religions, or even a political point of view. We can then no longer function as mature, thinking human beings. We become dependant on others to make the rules for us, especially if they "sweeten the deal" with money, houses etc.

Is anyone picking up what I'm putting down?

Alhamdulillah..Means a lot to me to hear you say that...truly! In all honesty I too wish those people I take knowledge of my religion from were in higher places. Specially loved those scholars who asked the hot blooded protesters during the whole cartoon incident, that how come they are taking offense to what some non Muslims are saying in jest to our Prophet, when all around the world Muslims are harming the religion of Muhammed, for real, by spreading falsehood and deviations hence insulting him and his message far more,and no one's saying anything!

Ultimately even a person's taking offense,and finding things intolerable can be for more selfish reasons and selective,than they actually wanting good for society, which is why pleasing everybody will never be possible. It is upon a lawmaker to decide where to draw a line and be more general in applying laws in a manner that will be just,whether everyone accepts it or not!

Marco, you are right! But you see, what one deems as deliberately inflammatory, another deems as stating an opinion.

well the ones who created the cartoon knew there would be a reaction. And that was what they wanted. It was nothing about fun. the intention was to insult.

I believe in both are correct in your statements. And Birt has made a very good point.

We as inhabitants of the modern world have every right to express our opinions / views, and/or beliefs.

Just as long as we are doing it a proper manner.

But NM, there is no need to be deliberately inflammatory or to say things specifically to upset those around us or to start fights.

let's say for example that I'm a vegetarian ye, If someone offers me a burger for instance the right way to respond is to simply state that I simply do not eat meat. Not to say that meat is disgusting and rant rave and basically lose it.

But then again, what If that person repeats the same offense over and over again? And he/she claims it's his right and freedom of speech to express his opinions however disturbing to me?

By all means people can say whatever they want but they had better be prepared if others decide to react

Fathimah, if I could, I would make you "Head Mullah/Imam" for the whole Ummah....the world would be a better place for it. That I am certain of!

I am so glad i know you. Seriously! (Even if it is only on line)

must be among the hardest decisions lawmakers must face with day in day out. But ultimately the truth is you can never please everybody every time.

On a side note:

With regards to the Danish joke I was honestly one of those who found the entire turbulence unnecessary. Cos if Muslims were to get offended about the cartoons itself then how is it that they were not as upset when Jesus, Moses, and other Prophets were also being joked and made satires. We Muslims are commanded by God to ".. make no distinction between one another of His Messengers" Yet only when Muhammad was caricatured did folks react.

With regards to the reactions itself a truckload of un Islamic acts were committed by the Muslims themselves!

I for one sat and concluded: If while he was alive the Prophet was patient and tolerant even towards those who harmed him physically then how dare we behave otherwise? And besides as for the drawings themselves they couldn't have possibly been of our Prophet, cos except for a few descriptions, there are no pictures of him existing anywhere so no one is to know how he actually looked like. The artists have simply drawn some random Muhammad not The Muhammad! At least that's how I saw it.

And then, let's not forget the other side of the coin. Those who were offended. As per their law and culture, it is perfectly ok to issue fatwas asking for punishment of those who made/published the jokes. Perfectly ok for who they are.

So, where does that leave us?

Fathimah, well, yes and no.

It again depends on the people.

If we stay with the example of the Danish jokes...where they were created, this kind of thing is perfectly tolerable , as per law and culture.

BUT....others do not adhere to the same laws and culture,even IF they happen to live in the country where those are tolerated.

So...and you know what happened after those jokes were published.

Difficult situtation...does one go 100 % pc, or does one stick to one's laws and culture?

This is true. I think we all may pretty much will agree with obvious physical violations/tangible violations, it's those psychological or non physical violations that we differ upon.

People are different, their expectations,needs and wants will always be different, which is why I always stand for justice more than equality alone. Justice should always prevail. As long as laws and sanctions are put in place and applied fairly societies will always have some kind of grip over what is tolerable and what is not.

Fathimah, I think the problem may be that different people have different ideas about what "crosses the line", or is a violation /causes harm.

For example, the danish joke thing...some people thought it funny, others found it was causing them harm and violating them.

Difficult to find balance with so many different people.

Freedom of speech is well and good, but when it is then translated into actions and the said actions cause harm and violation to another's being and/or rights, then it crosses the boundaries necessary for any civil societies.And justice to me means more than merely declaring equality and freedom.

freedom of speech itself is just a misnomer.

why do you think this message was painted?

is democracy the rule of law and equal rights?

democracy is the rule of the people. the "majority".

Sorry, I might not have made myself clear, I agree with Brit, what happened in the picture above is a violation. NOT freedom of speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I would defend the right of the person to voice his opinion, but daubing on the walls of any institution is wrong - IMO

Everyone is entitled to their views however repugnant. However once their actions infringe the rights of others you have to draw the line.

For example a man having a glass of wine at the Pearl with his meal does not hurt anyone else. His choice.

However if that same man wanted to get in his Land Cruiser and drive home he becomes a danger to others and should be penalised.

Well, depends on the situation. In some places one is between a rock and a hard place...either one leaves or one puts up with it.

The example you posted above gives those who are violated a chance to speak up and do something about it. And that they should do.