[ad_1]
Suleiman Judeh wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat:
The worst thing about the accident of the murder of a history teacher in France on Friday afternoon is that the victim died at the scene of the accident, and that the perpetrator also died, and if they survived after the incident, we would have had to understand from them! why both did what they did against the other!
The other one I am referring to here is not the teacher Samuel Patti, who drew insulting cartoons of the Prophet of Islam in front of his students at his school in the Conflans municipality north of Paris, nor is it the young Abdullah Abu Yazid Fitch, who waited the victim on his way and then slaughtered him in public.
The other is the general meaning of the word, which refers to all those who profess the religion of Samuel on the one hand, as well as all those who profess the religion of Abdullah on the other. Each party is called to respect the sanctity of the other party and not harm it under any circumstances.
If a history teacher were to live, we would have to argue with him about what is better, as the religion of Islam advises us in an explicit verse from the Noble Quran. We would have done it to him even if his demon had at one point adorned him with that freedom of expression, which is an inherent human right. It can be achieved by insulting the sanctities of the other … If he lived, he would surely argue that what he presented to the students in the classroom is a kind of freedom of expression that he believes and believes in, and that no one is allowed to confiscate it. or deprive it. We would have heard everything he said about him, and we would have done well to tell him and all those who believed in the same idea, that freedom of expression is safeguarded in every sound law, and in every constitution that addresses the human being in human terms, but it is a freedom that is not absolute in nature.
We would have listened to what he says, and we would have said in his ears, as well as in the ears of all who could share his opinion and thought, that freedom of expression is a basic human right everywhere, and it is a right that is not absolute by nature, because it is liberated without organized rulers and controls. It inflicts harm on the person who exercises it as a right, before doing the same harm to others who demand due respect for the sanctities of religion.
We would have discussed it with the mind and not with the other, because the language that the mind speaks is the language that Westerners understand, and it is the one they understand, and it is the one that they are convinced and the meanings and connotations that it carries. It is a universal language that everyone receives with full understanding if they divert their whims and desires.
We would have told him in front of him as a general advice, that the details of what happened in the classroom say that when he decided to show the offensive drawings to the students, he asked those who could not bear what he would show them if they left their places if they wanted, and we would say that this is precisely his, if any. He stopped him, because he would have realized through him that what the little disciples could not tolerate, could not be tolerated by normal human nature either.
We would have told him that the noble messenger who had been offended by the drawings had a hadith narrated about him saying what it means, that the evil that is not allowed to be committed or done, is what has been woven into your chest and you were afraid that people will see you. The meaning is that when the history teacher asked the students who could not tolerate the fees to leave, he knew between him and himself, even relatively, that the meanings included in the drawings are something like the owner fears people will. see. We would have told young Abdullah that there is a verse in God’s book that he believes that it says, “And tell the truth from your Lord, whoever wants to believe.
This is a verse that reaches in the clarity of its meaning to the point that the sun appears in August (August), and makes faith and unbelief a matter between God and the servant, who if he believes that he is free in what he chooses, and if he does not believe, he has what he chose, and in both cases he will bring it before his Creator. Consequences of the selection.
We would have told the young Chechen that what he did against the history teacher is the worst propaganda that a person can carry about his religion that he believes to the people, in addition to that this religion is the religion of Islam, which does not adopt violence and does not invites his followers to violence, except that it will be in self-defense, otherwise in the cases that he specified and told, and it is forbidden to pass it completely. We would have said that Samuel had made a mistake when presenting the offensive cartoons, but dealing with the mistake he made is not making another major mistake in return, nor assaulting his life, nor of course shaving his head in the street, so only ISIS that it has offended religion more than it does this. Incorrect messaging rates.
Offensive fees of the kind that the history teacher offered in his school will not harm the position of the Prophet of Islam in anything, so his position, peace and blessings be upon him, before presenting the cartoons is the same after that, and it will continue to be the case no matter how irresponsible the newspapers published in the West are for fees, and whatever their abusive circulation, but the problem is that these drawings arouse the emotion of anger among those who do not know how to argue with the good , those who do not know how to control their nerves when they are angry and those who do not know how to present the essence of religion to people. The essence of religion, which is based on tolerance even with its critics, and does not abandon the call to spread peace, on the basis of which people meet and meet.
We would have told young Abdullah, that if he had returned to the Quran before carrying out his crime, he would find out that it explicitly said that “whoever kills a soul without a soul is as if he kills all people”, and he would have noted in the wording of the verse that speaks of killing the soul in general, without specifying a religion. Its owner, and if the perpetrator Abdullah had viewed the meaning of the verse from this angle, he would surely have withdrawn from killing Samuel, in accordance with the morals and principles of the Book of God.
We would say and say, and we would have told them a lot together, but they happened together. The question is: what should we do to avoid finding ourselves in front of the same scene again?
I believe that action is what Al-Azhar initiated by placing the crime in its proper context, and then when he offered a practical solution to ensure that what happened did not happen again. Al-Azhar took the initiative in a statement issued hours after the incident, describing what happened as a “heinous crime” and that the murder “is a crime that cannot be justified in any way”, and asked everyone to “adhere to the morals and teachings of religions that affirm respect for the beliefs of others. ” It then also initiated the call for the drafting of binding global legislation. Legislation that “criminalizes insulting religions and their sacred symbols” without separation.
This legislation is enough to deter everyone if they come across someone who adopts it, because everyone thinks of offending religions and their sanctities, he will know in advance that transcontinental legislation awaits him, and that legislation will punish everyone who offends any religion and then you think you will get away with it.
Legislation of the type of “Document of Human Fraternity” sponsored by the UAE government in Abu Dhabi in February before last, and signed by Dr. Ahmed Al-Tayeb, Sheikh of Al-Azhar, and Pope Francis I, Pope from the Vatican. Legislation that puts everyone in front of their responsibility, so that religions and their symbols do not become dispossession of any kind.
[ad_2]
