[ad_1]
What interests me here is first to briefly review the subject of insulting the Prophet, then to move on to the crime of Nice and conclude with some reflections on the concept of freedom of expression.
Muslim jurists have unanimously agreed, over the centuries, that “whoever insulted the Prophet was killed” (the text of the consensus book of Ibn al-Mundhir). We can compare this consensus with what came first in God’s Book (So discredit the orderly and stay away from the polytheists, I am your scoffers). Second, we can compare it with an interesting historical example about the behavior of some Muslim judges in cases of insults. The question now is this: Was the cartoon that caused the storm an insult or a mockery? Since murder is a very dangerous matter, and should not be underestimated under any circumstances, we can find among Muslim jurists who tend to regard this caricature as a kind of mockery emitted by lack of manners, ignorance or indecency, therefore that this magazine is famous, I mean “Charlie Hebdo”. . Here, some may see that there is no need to go down and correct such indecencies, especially since the communication platforms of the western right are full of daily likes. We can even remember the saying of the poet:
If every dog howled on top of a stone
For a dinar to weigh the rock
When I looked through the first biographies of the Prophet, I discovered the existence of a large number of narratives that these sources have preserved over time, containing mockery and insults to the Noble Prophet. Of course, it was not the intention of these veteran authors to offend their prophet, but what prompted them to include these offensive narratives was their extreme eagerness to convey everything that came to them from the messenger, with his chastity and fat, with total fidelity . After them, another generation of biographers came, and cut and erased from the Messenger every narrative that offended him in the previous sources. However, we do not find that the followers demanded that the works of the former be burned, did not intend to atone, and did not ask their disciples not to resort to their deeds. So today we bring Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Saad, Al-Baladhari, Al-Tabari and others and demand that they be sacrificed or that their books be burned in a public place?
As for insulting the Messenger, and how some Muslim judges dealt with this matter leading to murder, the most prominent example is the example of a Cordoba judge between 851 and 859 AD, when some forty-eight Christians appeared before a judge. from Córdoba and publicly insulted the Prophet, knowing for sure that the punishment is death. They are the “martyrs of Córdoba”, some of whom were later ordained by the Church. Did the judge take a knife and kill them on the spot? The judge spared no effort to explore the reasons for this behavior and question them on this matter. Did they have all of his mental powers? Did Satan touch and draw you with this work? Did they really mean to offend? Is there a chance to regret or return from this speech? And with his great insistence on what they did, the judge did not find, after exhausting all their chances of survival, except to order their execution. Thus, we see that the resort to murder in the case of insult does not occur until after an extensive investigation into the conditions of the insult, what prompted him to insult, and what are his true intentions, and after he repents and refuses to repent with persistence, deliberation, and prudence.
It seems that Europe desperately needs to rethink its definition of freedom of expression.
We arrive in Nice, where a young “Muslim” walks into a church and stabs two women and cuts off the head of one of them, then stabs a man to death and wounds others. The horror of this act is multifaceted, since it is firstly the slaughter of defenseless innocents whom the murderer does not know, and whose opinions are not known, and secondly, it is the slaughter of believers and believers in a place of worship, and it is third and above all, a crime against Christ, who is the closest of the prophets to our Prophet, who was His love for the literature of Islam is only compared to the love of the Messenger, to which we will return later. Therefore, this is not just a premeditated murder of innocent people, but a civilized crime in the sense that it is a crime against the civilization, history, heritage of Islam and its great respect for divine religions and its historical record. In this regard. If this person attacked a French army camp, for example, seeking revenge for what colonial France did and is doing, he would have considered the matter, as for his crime which is a despicable crime that is only committed by the terrible coward or the who kills the poor sheep and is not afraid of their access. And I am sure that the vast majority of Muslim jurists and people of reason and consideration do not regard this criminal idiot as a Muslim, as such an action would remove him from the Ummah of Islam immediately.
Is it correct, then, to attribute this crime to what many Western media outlets call “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamofascism”: these “softening” labels that barely hide their clear hostility towards Islam itself? So if we were to deal with these names after today, should we say about the criminal who killed the faithful in New Zealand, that he belongs to Christian fascism? And the one who killed dozens of worshipers at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron? Was he affiliated with an organization we call Jewish – Fascist? As for limiting this nasty label to Islam only, this is nothing more than an intensification of hatred. So isn’t it really strange that these crimes, especially if committed by an individual “Muslim”, receive unrivaled Western media coverage, while the entire Palestinian people are under the yoke of a brutal occupation in which such crimes are committed. individual crimes and, what’s worse, every day we don’t even hear a faint echo of it in the West?
We finally achieved freedom of expression. Just over a year ago, Emmanuel Macron stood as a speaker in a public place in France, and next to him was with a smile, Bibi Netanyahu, who is known for his cleanliness, honesty and detachment from racism, and Macron addressed the audience, saying that anti-Zionism means anti-Semitism. And since anti-Semitism is a crime in French and European law, we have to conclude from this statement that any criticism that we may direct towards any Zionist idea, individual Zionist or Zionist law, and indeed, any law enacted by the State of Israel it is considered a punishable crime in their opinion. Macron managed to persuade the French Parliament to enact such a law, so his words were not just a gesture of cordiality and kindness towards his beloved guest.
Let’s consider what this means for free speech. With his statement, and later with this law, Macron slammed a door wide open on the doors of freedom of expression. If one of them stood today and remembers, for example, Bishop Desmond Tutu (who said, “The apartheid system in Israel” – which is at the center of Zionist thought – “is worse than its counterpart in South Africa ‘), Macron prevented him from speaking and referred him to court for the crime of anti-Semitism.
It seems to me that Europe desperately needs to rethink its definition of freedom of expression. What many in Europe do not understand, and at the forefront of them are the television “experts of Islam”, whose number is constantly increasing, day by day, that love for the Messenger, as the great thinker Muhammad Iqbal says, “runs like blood through the veins of your nation. ” So should we prevent “Charlie Hebdo” magazine or other magazine from denying the Nazi Holocaust, or suspecting some aspects of it, which are specifically prohibited by French law and, unlike all other types of racist speech and bigotry? So we give you the freedom to mock a prophet whose love runs through the veins of a billion and a half people? ? This and other questions must be stopped by all who care about freedom of opinion.
* Palestinian academic
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
