Rilek1Corner

Tag: Prophet Muhammad

  • Why I Admire Muhammad: A Response To Islamophobes

    Why I Admire Muhammad: A Response To Islamophobes

    Islamophobes have attacked me because I’ve written positively about Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. Because I am a Catholic, they consider me to be a heretic and feel that my interfaith activities are sacrilegious. Islam, to these critics, is evil and Muhammad is nothing but a terrorist. I see Muhammad very differently from these fanatics. This short piece highlights his exemplary character and challenges Islamophobes to think differently about the Prophet.

    One reason why I admire Muhammad is that he was an advocate of equality. In his Last Sermon at Mount Arafat, he declared: “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” The Prophet’s sermon ensured freedom for all people in society. His democratic message could be seen as a precursor to the American Constitution, which stands for similar egalitarian values, and to the pluralist outlook of the Founding Fathers, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.

    I also admire Prophet Muhammad because he advocated for religious tolerance,particularly towards Jews and Christians. In the Treaty of Maqnah, the Prophet told followers of Judaism that “[you] may be in peace… you are in security [under my rule]… Towards you is no wrong and no enmity.” As in his relations with the Jews, Muhammad wanted to protect Christians, who are also considered to be revered people to Muslims. In a covenant he made with Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Muhammad ensured the monks that Christian judges would be protected and churches preserved. The words of the covenant state that Muslims should look to Jews and Christians as their brothers and sisters who are children of the Almighty. In light of these treaties and covenants, the recent attacks by the Islamic State against religious minorities in Syria and Iraq are particularly striking because they blatantly contradict the Prophet’s call for tolerance within the Abrahamic tradition.

    By extending religious tolerance to non-Muslims, Muhammad stood for human rights. The Prophet wanted women to have liberty so that they could live the kind of life that they desire. Two of his closest female companions demonstrate this point. His first wife, Khadija, was a successful merchant who ran a thriving caravan trade. Another of the Prophet’s wives, Aisha, became a leading Muslim scholar and jurist who was the first ever-female scholar of Islam. The relationship that he had with his wives showed that the Prophet believed that women should take leading roles in society and partake in important matters related to law and politics. The integration of these women into Arab society demonstrates that Muhammad did not want women to live in isolation, but rather he wanted them to become active members of society.

    Smaller things outside of equality, religious tolerance and human rights also make me appreciate Prophet Muhammad. The Quran, as revealed to Muhammad, tells Muslims not to defame or be sarcastic towards other people. The Prophet believed that name-calling was wicked and he encouraged his followers to be civil in their interactions with others. He also taught us the importance of humility, and he encouraged Muslims and non-Muslims to be humble and pray.

    The Islamophobes who do not see the value in Muhammad’s qualities are simply being close-minded. If the Prophet were alive, he would show them mercy and compassion in spite of their actions. He would also tell them to seek more knowledge.

     

    Source: www.huffingtonpost.com

  • President Mahmoud Abbas Orders Investigation Into Official Palestinian Newspaper Cartoon Depicting Prophet Muhammad

    President Mahmoud Abbas Orders Investigation Into Official Palestinian Newspaper Cartoon Depicting Prophet Muhammad

    RAMALLAH, West Bank – Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has ordered an investigation into a cartoon apparently depicting the Prophet Mohammad in an official Palestinian newspaper.

    The move came less than a month after Abbas joined world leaders in a march for free speech in Paris following a deadly attack by Islamist gunmen on the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, which had caricatured Mohammad.

    A drawing in the West Bank-based newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadidah on Sunday showed a robed man standing astride Earth and reaching into a heart-shaped pouch to sow seeds of love around the world. The caption reads: “Our Prophet Mohammad”.

    Artist Mohammed Sabanneh, a Muslim, said he meant no harm. The figure was not Mohammad but “a symbol of humanity enlightened by what the Prophet Muhammad brought,” he wrote on Facebook.

    Islam frowns on any depictions of its most revered prophet. Strict interpretations of Islamic scripture ban drawing any sentient beings, although court artists in past centuries drew Mohammad in illuminated manuscripts.

    In a report late on Monday, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA said Abbas had ordered “an immediate investigation.”

    It quoted him citing “the need to take deterrent action against those responsible for this terrible mistake, out of respect for sacred religious symbols and foremost among them the prophets”.

    Sabaaneh, one of the most prominent Palestinian cartoonists in a society that has long prized them as incisive critics of Israel, has faced free speech controversy before.

    Imprisoned by Israel for five months and fined last year for “being in contact with hostile parties”, Sabaaneh and his backers said Israel sought to silence his mordant cartoons.

    No public threats have been made against Sabaaneh, who thanked his supporters online. “Despite facing a committee of inquiry, I love this country,” he wrote on Tuesday.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Maidin Packer: Ignore Charlie Hebdo Cartoons As They Are Not That Of Prophet Muhammad

    Maidin Packer: Ignore Charlie Hebdo Cartoons As They Are Not That Of Prophet Muhammad

    Cut out the unnecessary riff-raff in our lives…

    Dear Brothers and Sisters. Charlie Habdo published more than a million cartoons of what they called Prophet Muhammad. Do you believe the cartoons are of our Prophet? The answer is No!!! You cannot draw a cartoon of a person you have never seen. What is drawn by those people whose aim is to frustrate a billion Muslims in the name of freedom of media, is not but an element of provocation. The best advice to all Muslims is: IGNORE the cartoons; they are not of our Prophet.

    What is the best way forward? Please practice the following:
    1. Never look at those cartoons.
    2. Never forward the cartoon to anybody by email, whatsapp, etc.
    3. Keep your frustration in your heart.
    4. Follow the way of good Muslims. Never frustrate people of other religions.
    5. Always remember – Islam is a religion of peace; so promote peace.
    6. Contribute more to Islamic dakwah (walaw karihal kaafiruun)
    7. Our best weapon – the truth & good manners so as to attract others to Islam.

    Whenever the prophet (SAW) was called by different names, he ignored them & say it doesnt befit him. “I am not that which they are naming me with, for I am Muhammad ibn Abdullah.”

     

    Source: Maidin Packer

  • How Would Prophet Muhammad Have Reacted To Charlie Hebdo Caricatures?

    How Would Prophet Muhammad Have Reacted To Charlie Hebdo Caricatures?

    The level of freedom of expression in the early centuries of Islam would put much of the current Muslim world to shame.

    After the brutal assassination of two visitors and eight of its staff members, the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has vowed to continue its trademark irreverence and secular iconoclasm, which critics have accused of being Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian.

    Its first issue since the tragic massacre features a cartoon of a tearful Prophet Muhammad holding a sign showing the famous twitter hashtag “Je Suis Charlie.” The turbaned figure stands under the slogan “All is forgiven.”

    As a staunch advocate of freedom of expression, I believe the publication has every right to run such a cartoon, even if their decision would upset the religious sensibilities of some Muslims such as Egypt’s grand mufti, Shawqi Allam, who blasted the cartoon as racist.

    The caricature drove me to consider some hypothetical questions: What would Muhammad make of this? Would the prophet forgive Charlie Hebdo’s lampooning of him and his religion? If he were alive today, would he tweet his solidarity with the slain cartoonists?

    My own reading of Muhammad’s life and history leads me to conclude that although the prophet may not have tweeted “#JeSuisCharlie,” he would have condemned these savage murders and even forgiven French satirists no matter what insult was directed his way.

    While some might find my assertion hard to believe, it is backed up by Muhammad’s own actions and convictions. Although the prophet’s contemporary self-appointed defenders take offence on his behalf and believe they are doing his will by protesting perceived insults or punishing those who commit them, their actions could not be further from the truth.

    During the vulnerable early years of Islam, the Islamic prophet endured and tolerated mockery and disdain. Even in victory, Muhammad wisely advised to exercise tolerance. Upon his triumphant return to Mecca, he forgave the inhabitants of the city which had been home to his fiercest enemies. He even pardoned a member of his inner circle, Abdullah Ibn Saad, who denounced the prophet as a charlatan.

    More importantly, the Islam Muhammad preached recognised the pluralistic nature of society and guaranteed freedom of belief. Surat al-Baqara of the Quran reminds Muslims: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”

    Significantly, the constitution Muhammad drew up in Medina included in its definition of the “umma” all the oasis’ inhabitants, not just its Muslims. These included both the “people of the book”, ie: Christians and Jews, but also, perhaps surprisingly, pagans – all of whom were granted equal political, cultural and religious rights as Muslims.

    There was so much freedom of thought and expression in the early centuries of Islam that it would put much of the current Muslim world to shame. Although many contemporary Muslims are convinced that ridiculing Islam and rejecting religion are western innovations, this is closer to wishful thinking than historical fact.

    In Christendom, Muhammad and Islam was derided from a rival religious vantage point; that the prophet of Islam was believed to be the false prophet of a fake religion. He was even condemned to the ninth circle of Dante’s inferno where he supposedly stands “rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind”.

    Within the Islamic world itself, Muhammad and Islam were criticised and mocked from a secular, rationalist, anti-religious perspective.

    One example is the religious sceptic and scholar Ibn al-Rawandi (827-911) who, despite his rejection of religion and Islam, lived a long life in the 8th-9th centuries.

    Rawandi, who spent a significant part of his life in Baghdad, believed that intellect and science supersede all else, that prophets were unnecessary, that religion was irrational, that Islamic tradition was illogical and that miracles were a hoax.

    In neighbouring Syria, a few decades later, the Richard Dawkins of the Abbasid era was born. Abu al-Ala’ al-Maarri (973-1058) was so contemptuous of religion that he divided the world into two types of people: “Those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains.”

    Maarri also lived to a ripe age. Rather than being visited by assassins, he attracted many students and engaged with scholars of various persuasions, even when he decided to return to his hometown of Maarra to live ascetically in seclusion.

    Although this tradition of free thought and scepticism has shrunk over the centuries, it still exists. It even witnessed resurgence in the 20th century – and included the “Dean of Arab Literature”, Taha Hussein – until the conservative Islamist current started to block it in the late 1970s/1980s.

    The years since the revolutionary wave in 2011 have seen secularists, sceptics and atheists mounting a comeback. But with some countries equating non-belief to terrorism and arresting atheists, theirs is a risky venture.

    But these efforts are essential. Freedom of thought and expression were vital components of Islam’s golden age and lifting Arab and Muslim countries out of their current plight will require a return to that era of free inquiry.

    Khaled Diab is an award-winning Egyptian-Belgian journalist, writer and blogger. He is the author of Intimate Enemies: Living with Israelis and Palestinians in the Holy Land. He blogs at www.chronikler.com

     

    Source: www.aljazeera.com

  • I AM NOT CHARLIE HEBDO

    I AM NOT CHARLIE HEBDO

    Je suis Charlie?

    Well, not quite. I really am not Charlie Hebdo.

    Nothing – no cartoon, no book, no song – justifies the kind of shooting rampage that happened in Paris. As Hassen Chalghoumi, the imam of Drancy mosque in Paris says, “These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their souls to hell.”

    And he is not talking about the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo. He is talking about those who mowed them down and fled.

    But the spontaneous outpouring of the #JeSuisCharlie hashtags also elides over the really thorny issue of free speech. While we want free speech to be absolute, in the real world, it is not. And even as we stand with Charlie Hebdo we cannot pretend not to understand that.

    Today, as a tribute to Charlie Hebdo, outlets in India like Mint and NDTV have published a sort of collector’s edition of some of their cartoons. It’s a respectful gesture but it’s also somewhat misleading.

    Assuming most readers in India are not regular consumers of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, it gives them a more sanitized, PG-rated impression of their fare. As Jacob Canfield writes in the Hooded Utilitarian, “its cartoons often represent a certain virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally’, the cartoons they publish are intentionally ‘anti-Islam’ and frequently sexist and homophobic.”

    And that’s putting it mildly.

    In reality, some of Charlie Hebdo’s most offensive cartoons would not be published in most parts of the world. Few media outlets would print a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad crouched on all fours with his genitals bared or show the Father, Son and Holy Ghost sodomizing each other. For that matter, most will balk at a cartoon like the one Onion put out showing a Lord Ganesha, Jesus, Moses, and Buddha all naked with erect phalluses having an orgy in the clouds? Now, that’s being equal opportunity offenders but that remains way outside the pale for most of the world. Anyway, in a freedom of expression absolute, it should not matter if you are an equal opportunity offender or a one-sided offender.

    Let’s make no mistake – these cartoons are offensive to most people. And they are meant to be that way. They exist almost as a way to test freedom of expression to its limits rather than to make a satirical point. “This is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good,” writes Canfield. “Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist and remains racist.”

    But that does not mean they deserved it. Not at all. The true mettle of freedom of expression is always tested against what we consider offensive or hateful or repugnant. That’s where the protection of freedom of expression actually means something. It’s easy to stand up for freedom of expression when we agree with the view point being depicted or do not care about it one way or the other. It gets far trickier when we are called upon to defend the right of someone to say what offends us deeply – whether it’s about our religion, our mothers, or our national leaders. The right to offend always butts up against the right to be offended.

    In India, the latter routinely trumps the former. We prescribe to the thumb rule – when in doubt, ban. A publication putting out something like the cartoons Charlie Hebdo was infamous for would be picketed and shut down in double quick time. Our laws protecting “communal harmony” have far more teeth than our laws protecting freedom of expression. That’s why an NDTV or a Mint has to be careful about what images it selects from the Charlie Hebdo cartoons even as it wants to show solidarity.

    As much as we might want to say “Charlie Hebdo tum aagey badho, hum tumharey saath hain” we cannot pretend that freedom of expression in India is the same as freedom of expression in France is the same as freedom of expression in the United States.

    In an ideal world, the response to a cartoon that offends should be another cartoon. The response to a book that offends should be to not read it. The response to a film that offends could be a #BoycottPK social media campaign.

    But the reality is there is no absolute right to free speech.

    And yes, we forget that even France, which has become the embattled bastion of freedom of expression today, wears its own limits on its sleeve. Its staunch defense of freedom of expression did not prevent it from passing a ban on the niqab even though it was deliberately veiled as a ban on “clothing intended to conceal the face.” “Bans like these undermine the rights of women who choose to wear the veil and do little to protect anyone compelled to do so, just as laws in other countries forcing women to dress in a particular way undermine their rights,” says Izza Leghtas atHuman Rights Watch. Between April 2011 and February 2014, French law enforcement fined 594 women for wearing the niqab.

    A Reuters report points out that many of the cartoonists in Charlie Hebdo got their start in another satirical magazine called Hara Kiri which proclaimed its aim to be “inane and nasty.” That magazine was banned in 1970 after printing a mock death notice for General Charles de Gaulle. Its reincarnation after the ban was as Charlie Hebdo.

    Everyone will read the lesson they want into the tragedy in Paris. Some will see it as proof that Muslim immigrants can never be truly French because they do not get what former President Nicholas Sarkozy called an “old French tradition, satire.” Some will see it as evidence of France’s xenophobic attitude towards immigrants coming home to roost. Salman Rushdie sees the attack as “the deadly mutation in the heart of Islam” and how “religious totalitarianism combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedom.” Of course, that “threat” is not news in many parts of the world. People being killed in Iraq and Syria by Isis or in Afghanistan by the Taliban have known that for a long long time. It just hits us harder when it hits us in Paris. Or Sydney. Or London.

    And very ordinary Muslim immigrants minding their own business will probably bear the brunt of the backlash as Arabs and Sikhs in the US did post-9/11 for as Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo once told Le Monde while defending his right to offend that “when activists need a pretext to justify their violence they will find it.”

    But that argument offers us no answers to the knotty question of freedom of expression, an idea to which we all think we subscribe. Those JeSuisCharlie profile pictures on Facebook, perfect little squares all of them, create an image of geometric uniformity as if we subscribe to that right in equal measure. But if anything this tragedy forces us to admit that when it comes to what constitutes freedom of expression, most of us are not even close to being on the same page.

    I think of myself as a staunch supporter of freedom of expression but I realize the disquieting truth that I could never publish some of the cartoons Charlie Hebdo did. It would go against every fiber of my being. But I will defend their right to exist and condemn what happened to them with every fiber of my being as well. But I just cannot say #IAmCharlieHebdo.

     

    Source: www.alternet.org