Recently, South Park aired an episode in which they attempted to image the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) both visually and audibly. Further, they also ridiculed him by beeping out his name in the second episode in the two part series. Shortly after the airing of the first episode, Revolution Muslim issued a statement, which, according to this article from Fox News, was a death threat against the creators of South Park. I have purposely chosen this article because two things become readily apparent here. First, a so-called "radical Islamist organization" has issued, supposedly, a death threat. Next, we can see from the article that the media appear to have blown things way out of proportion. I will present evidence first, and then give you something to think about afterwards.
In response to the media's outburst, Revolution Muslim posted a statement on their blog clarifying the situation. Zachary Adam Chesser, the man who issued the initial statement, was the one who wrote the clarification. There are things I agree with, and things I do not agree with. We will start with the former.
One of the major reasons there is such little opposition to American domination today is the reality that the principle of free speech, as envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States and by wise men and women throughout the ages, is a universal principle that may protect citizens from political, economic, or religious persecution. Today it is understood much differently; today “free speech” is interpreted as the right to promote pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred.
This could not have been said better. We see examples of this everywhere; I have written several posts in the past about Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer. I guarantee you, if I turned around and insulted their faiths (whichever faiths they follow,) they would have problems with it. However, they feel it is no problem to go on undisturbed attempting to squash Islam. Wilders even had guts enough to speak IN THE SENATE against Islam, and rally politicians to remove Islam from America. Robert Spencer did his part by becoming a trainer for the FBI; he trained people on Islam, and later launched jihadwatch.org.
Indeed, it is in the shifting away from this conceptualization that America first deviated from its position as republic and assumed the role of global empire.
Is there a purpose, other than evil, in insulting something someone holds sacred?
While insulting Jesus, Moses, or any other prophet would remove someone from Islam, we Muslims are also forbidden to insult the deities that other religions hold in high esteem. Allah says in the Qur’an:
"Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance."
Revolution Muslim touched on a very valid point here. You are correct that a Muslim is forbidden to make fun of another sacred figure. In fact, we can see from the Quran how the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) responded to people who resisted Islam: "To you your religion, and to me mine" (Quran 109). Yet we see, time and again, people like Pope Benedict XVI ridicule Islam. I myself have been challenged, and Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) has been called a warlord and rapist right in front of me when they knew I am Muslim.
Revolution Muslim's intentions become apparent when they mention that even the Prophets Jesus and Moses were insulted by South Park. In other words, this is not an isolated case against the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH); all these prophets are considered prophets of Islam and they are to be respected.
I agree completely with your statement and your reasoning. Indeed, I too did not appreciate what they did to portray Prophet Muhammad (SAWH.) However, this is where we differ:
As for the Islamic ruling on the situation, then this is clear. There is no difference of opinion from those with any degree of a reputation that the punishment is death. Ibn Taymiyyah a great scholar of Islam says, “Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) -a Muslim or a non Muslim- then he must be killed…and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.” Likewise Ibn Mundhir, another classical scholar, said, “It is the consensus (ijma’) of our scholars that the one who curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be executed!” This is also the opinion of Imams Malik, al-Laith, Ahmed, Ishaq, Shafi’i, and Numan Abu Haneefah. This shows that taking this stance is virtually obligatory, but it does not mean that our taking this stance is in some way an absolute call toward the requirement that the creators of South Park must be killed, nor a deliberate attempt at incitement, it is only to declare the truth regardless of co sequence and to offer an awareness in the mind of Westerners when they consider doing the same thing.
This is where you fall into the same trap so many Muslims have in the past. I noticed you quote several scholars. However, may I ask you one thing: where are the teachings of the Prophet himself? By teachings I do not mean any old narration from Al-Bukhari; rather, what you left out from your description of Islamic jurisprudence is that narrations we use must be authentic. It is a known fact that during the time of Abu Bakr's regime, he hired scholars to distort narrations. In fact, this is how Ayisha, the wife of the Prophet and who you call the mother of Islam, made her living. She, along with several other people, were paid to fabricate narrations, and I know that all these opinions were gathered from these fabricated narrations. I have written an extensive paper on this topic, and you can read it by clicking here. These ideas you get of executing people for insulting the Prophet are mainly from the Arab Radical population. They would use Islam, just like they are today, to justify hanging people from different tribes. Further, I see no quote from a member of the Ehlul Bait in your posts, so this further leads me to dismiss the opinions you have gathered as insufficient evidence. In other words, Islam does not appear to command Muslims to kill people who insult the Prophet. Instead, like you mention several times, we encourage dialogue.
Zach goes on to post a quote from Osama Bin Laden: "If there is no check in the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions."
I honestly do not see how we can let you be free in your actions if you insist on blowing up innocent people, holding journalists hostage and beheading them, and turning your women into suicide bombers because you believe you will get 72 virgins in Heaven. Further, you beat your women publicly (refer to the paper above,) and you prey on innocent children and turn them into terrorists. I agree that America has its own goals; to overthrow you and put a corrupted democracy in your place, but at the same time you cannot say that you did any justice to your people at all. Therefore, I stand by America when they crush you. At least when a woman gets raped, the law, at least ideally, should stand by her. In your government, you would stone the woman for BEING raped, which, again, Islam itself is against; a proper Islamic state would stone the criminal, not the victim.
I would now like to turn your attention to the article I posted above from Fox News, and leave Revolution Muslim for a bit. We will come back to them later.
As is always the case, the media's goal in all this is to perpetuate the misconceptions about Islam. I have criticized USA Today previously for being very one-sided in their articles, their bias readily apparent and, I may add, not free from religiously influenced thoughts and objectives. You can read the post on a USA Today article here. This time, Fox News was very guilty of this, and I am ashamed that these are the reporters in my country.
"He [Zachary Adam Chesser] was definitely sort of weird," the classmate told FoxNews.com. "He was very into violent industrial music, borderline Satanic bands and stuff like that. He had dark undertones in his interests."
Are these qualifications for a Muslim?
Two years later, Chesser is literally a changed man. He now uses an alias and has a new set of hobbies. He now likes to be called Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, and his primary interest in this world appears to be Islamic radicalism.
His interest is "Islamic radicalism." I have written several times on how those two words, when put right next to each other, do not make sense. In fact, my initial writings on this was because of a documentary by this same news agency. You can find my post here, entitled "Foes of the Friends." Once again, I see Fox attributing "radical" with "Islam"; in fact, this time they even went as far as to call it an interest!
Chesser's background offers nothing to suggest that he would recently have eloped and married a Muslim woman he met in college, a woman who has given birth to their baby boy, according to neighbors.
Marrying a Muslim woman is suddenly radicalization? What about marrying a Jewish, Christian or Hindu woman? What does him marrying a Muslim woman have to do with anything? Although, it seems from your article that you are pointing fingers at the general Muslim population; this becomes VERY evident as we look further. I was completely shocked by your decision to include the following paragraphs.
While there is no evidence that Chesser became radicalized while at George Mason, there were "dark overtones in his interests" for years, dating back to his years in middle school and high school.
Chesser's longtime classmate, who requested anonymity, said he did not overtly express an interest in converting to Islam while in high school. But given Chesser's past as a loner who sought to create conflict, she said she was hardly surprised to learn what's become of him.
May I ask you again, what about converting to Islam is significant here? I think you are suggesting that a conversion to Islam is somehow Satanic and wrong. It was not Islam that influenced Zach's actions; it was his desire for conflict. That is really obvious to me, so why are you avoiding and manipulating the truth?
The article worsens as we read on. The next few paragraphs are a DIRECT attack on Islam by a Christian. I rarely, if ever, have sided with an ideology and downplayed other ideologies here, but these paragraphs leave me no choice at all.
The neighbor, a devout Christian, said she was scared and surprised to learn that Chesser has posted messages calling for the murder of Jews and, most recently, the deaths of Parker and Stone.
You are quick to call people "devout Christians," but when it comes to real Muslims who follow Islam how it is supposed to be followed, you call us "moderate," and not "devout." Am I to gather that a "good Christian" is "devout" where as a "good Muslim" is "moderate" and, therefore, ignores the parts of his or her religion that "suggest radical leanings?" This is exactly what I've written about in the Fox rebuttal I linked earlier. I am shocked that this very thing is happening again.
"You have me sweating here," she told FoxNews.com. "I think he's really brainwashed to even think something like that. His family is not violent at all.
"I am so shocked. I really think he had to have been brainwashed into something like that. Zac was a very nice boy. I would never have even associated him with something like this, to do anything harmful."
She said she will maintain more of a distance from the Chessers now, "because we're Christians…. It's kind of sad that American people are falling into this. It's sad that he would be influenced to try to hurt people."
There is the direct slam on Islam I was talking about earlier. I see an obvious link to the "good American Christian" ideology here, and Fox News was quick to capitalize on it. Make every religion except Islam look good; what type of face-saving is going on here? I am disgusted by this article--although, I would like to add--I am not at all surprised. I was expecting something like this, especially from an agency like Fox.
Fox goes on to interview Zach, with some comments from CAIR as well. However, I do not agree with all of Zach's comments in the E-Mail interview with Fox:
Reached by FoxNews.com via e-mail on Thursday, Chesser said one of his goals in writing for the group is to "raise awareness of the correct understanding of key Islamic beliefs." But he also warned: "If you kill us, then we kill you."
"I seek to help the world understand that neither the Muslims in general nor the mujahideen including Al Qaeda are abject to peace...
I find it difficult to believe Al-Qaeda will like peace. I know them as an organization who would sacrifice innocent children and women for political gain. When the Taliban held control of Afghanistan, your women were beaten for not covering themselves. While the hijab is required in Islam, Islam also says "cover yourselves so that you may be modest." If a woman does not cover herself, it is up to the man to "avert your gaze." Although, I venture to say, I think your jurors whip the women for sexual pleasure themselves, so why would they pay any attention to the actual treatment of women anyway?
Basically the formula works like this … if you kill us, then we kill you. If you do not kill us then we can have peace. 9/11 had nothing to with freedom or democracy. It had to do with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world by American and other powers.
I agree with you here that so-called Muslim countries are being occupied unnecessarily. However, since I do not consider them Muslim countries because of how they treat their citizens--with terror and complete oppression--of both men and women--I will call them Arab states.
Your Arab states are being occupied by our resources. Believe me when I say this, we do not want them there either. That is our money, which we earn through hard work; those are our tax dollars, going to help fund your Opium plants and corrupt thought. Americans want the soldiers out of your Arab countries as much as you do--if not more. May I remind you that Americans did not vote, as a whole and unanimously, to go to war with your Arab countries? In truth, I could not care less about your Arab countries. What is happening there is not OUR fault, it is our GOVERNMENT's fault. How can you possibly justify 9 11 when you yourself know this? Most of the people in that building would firmly oppose the wars. I agree that thousands of innocent citizens are being killed at the hands of America in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not like it any more than you do. I am against this as much as I am against the historical battle between Muslims and the Byzantine Empire simply because they had ideological differences. The attacks on the World Trade Centers cannot be justified, just like America's ruthless and endless killing of innocent Muslims in Arab states. No Muslim would support such an action. If you look at Islam's history (authentic history and narrations,) you will see how kindly Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) treated prisoners of war. You will see how peaceful he was with the citizens of Mecca when his resistance group conquered their government. Islam is completely against killing innocent citizens, and I cannot believe you actually call yourself Muslim and support 9 11.
As a final statement, I agree with your reasoning completely. Yes, America is pushing a political ideology and structure that is right because it thinks it is right; yes, America is killing thousands of Muslims overseas. However, please look at the actions of the Arab states as well. Ask a citizen there how they feel. I guarantee you, they will feel oppressed and hopeless. The governments rule with an iron fist. Indeed, because of America Israel has taken part of Palestine, but this is not the fault of Jewish people. Again, it is their government.
As to your statement about the death threat. I understand that you were just suggesting something; it was a friendly warning--I see that. I ignored all the media opinions and agree with you that South Park will be in the back of the minds of many Muslims. I do not see your statement as a death threat at all, so I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the ignorant and entertainment-run media. I empathize with you, since I myself have been a victim of this by people I used to know. As Muslims, even if we are friends, people find fault with us. However, this does not give us a ticket to support Al-Qaeda. I was disappointed when I saw statements on your Web site supporting them. Why? Again, it is because they kill innocent people. Journalists, in the end, are only doing their jobs.
In summary, I stand by you on your reasons but completely disagree with your methodology. You posted the following three questions on your blog. I will answer them now.
1.) Given that the Koran clearly and unambiguously calls for killing anyone who insults the Prophet, would you personally kill Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker given the chance? If your answer is no, how do you justify your answer in light of your insistence on adhering to the letter of Islamic law?
The Quran does not clearly and unambiguously call for killing of non-Muslims and people who insult the Prophet. If this were the case, the entire Kuraish tribe would have been killed during the lifetime of the Prophet. We all know they would throw stones at the Prophet, and feed lies to their kids to make them hate the Prophet. Why, then, did he say "To you your religion, and to me mine?" Also consider Prophet Moses' interaction with the Egyptian king. Quran tells him to "Speak softly to him; he raised you." The Fir`on definitely insulted a prophet of Islam. Why does the Quran not command Moses to kill him then?
2.) What if Matt Stone and Trey Parker expressed a willingness to engage in peaceful dialogue with Muslims regarding the matter of free speech, but stopped short of repenting for their depiction of the Prophet? Would Koranic law still require that they die?
Given that Quranic law does not require them to die anyway, my answer to this one is "No."
3.) What is your opinion of depictions of the Prophet in general, as in art works that attempt to render him respectfully?
We do not portray images of the Prophet because we do not wish to idolize him. Therefore, there is no "respectful" imaging of him. Anyone who knows this will adhere to it out of respect; they do not need to draw pictures to show their respect.
Ma'a Sallamah
7 comments:
Sallams, my comment comes more than a week late, so for that I apologize. I agree with all that you have said. It seems the western countries (those that claim to be democratic and free) intend to force such ideologies on nations they have deemed communist and socialist, governed by dictators who probably do not know the first thing about freedom. I believe every government on the whole has been subjected to some form of corruption at one time or another. The leader who wishes to lead must first be led, and his sincerity in this regard should be apparent. The problem is, however, that those who lead (as in the form of contemporary government officials) have become so self-opinionated that they seem to forget how they arrived in office, who among their subjects (or those who are governed) gave them the right to rule, the fact that they have been voted by the people and are therefore accountable to those people, and what it is that they must do to improve their nation and the lives of its citizens. Muslim rulers (or shall I call them dictators?) are no exception. Take the Taliban, for example. The president of Afghanistan aims to combat extremism by issuing death threats to Taliban fighters and carrying them out. I think that this president has adopted Chesser's view: you kill us and we kill you. As smoke and oxygen fuel the fire, so does violence beget more of itself. There is no water that is being thrown on the fire to extinguish it. Likewise, terrorism is used in the attempt of eliminating terrorism. It presently seems as if western countries survive off of the hatred of Muslims. And yes, I believe it is a hatred, because, as you have said, followers of other religions who observe the practices of those religions in the ways they are supposed to be observed are perceived as "devout", but Muslims can never be included in this group. Devout Muslims are too often believed to be radical and supportive of organizations like the Taliban, that deny women their right to an education, that prey upon disabled people and convince them to become suicide bombers, that choose to define Jihad as "holy war" instead of the real struggle it actually is for a person to be closer to his Creator by sincerely obeying the commands revealed in the Quran and exemplified by prophets, that would rather engage in terroristic actions as opposed to peaceful dialog, that preach a martyrdom that arises not in or from the act of peacemaking but rather in the act of taking one's own life and the lives of others who are innocent and not at all accountable, that choose to begin the hostilities rather than attempt to avoid them. As Almighty Allah says in the Quran (2:190-193): "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." (Yusuf Ali’s translation). Violence may be necessary in this world, but definitely not before the peaceful means have been exhausted. As Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said in his last sermon, we must not oppress and we must not be oppressed. ** CONTINUES!**
**CONTINUED!**
Now I should return to what I was talking about earlier, radicalism and extremism. The idea of "radicalism" being associated with religion is ludicrous! My opinion is that radicalism refers to something non-existent — a rightly-guided Muslim who properly observes the commandments of Allah, no more (to be extreme) and no less (to be a non- or lukewarm believer), and being associated with members of organizations supporting terrorism in any form. Rather than radicalism", I prefer the attributive term "fundamentalism [or fundamentalists]" as the latter depicts, in a stricter sense, the basics encompassing the views of such people as are included among Taliban's and Al-Qaeda's members. There is absolutely nothing in Quran, authoritative Hadith, or elsewhere to suggest that Allah's will should be blown out of context and practised in the extreme as people like them have so fervently been known to do. They have taken the Words of our most Gracious and Merciful Lord as well as exemplary actions of His Messengers whom we revere most for their piety and unwavering faith in the face of much hostility, adversity, ridicule, denial, mockery and hypocrisy, interpreting them beyond the literal scope into a realm of deception and misguided notions. Such incorrectness permeates like wildfire, and once wildfire spreads, it is difficult to stop and perhaps even more impossible to contain. These days, our world is governed by the West versus the Rest, and the West is further influenced by its mass-media. Once the media perpetuates stereotypes about the Rest, especially stereotypes which encompass Muslims, such stereotypes become as embedded in our everyday reality as the breath we must breathe in order to survive. I must also acknowledge that stories of Muslims become head-lines due to the mere fact that they involve Muslims. Muslims are frequently implicated as a result of their frustration which arises from incomprehension on the part of Muslims together with those seeking to destroy the faith of Islam and the way of life it teaches. That frustration eventually leads to the development of a fundamentalist notion — kill or be killed — and nothing else in-between. I am not at all condoning the actions of Taliban and Al-qaeda fighters who transgress limits by unnecessarily taking their own lives and those of others; I am simply saying that Muslims are not puppets to be led around on strings by those disapproving of their religion or way of life so they must, therefore, defend themselves in this regard. It has been earlier qualified what I meant by "defend" — the exhaustion of all peaceful means before violence erupts, which cannot be stopped or as easily controlled. **CONTINUES!**
**CONTINUED!**
And this brings me to my final point. "Arab states" as you have called them, which are led by those whom I have called "Muslim dictators" (also attributed to leaders of organizations such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda) have a stake in the matter since both sides must share the blame. These leaders usually fail to abide by one simple Quranic principle (Quran, 3:103-105): "And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided. Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity. Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty". (Yusuf Ali’s translation). Clearly, Muslim dictators have divided the entire Muslim community, causing some of its members to end up ridiculing and mocking that which they intended to uplift and protect — Islam. Rather than join hands and hearts of brethren, they separate them, causing the formation of rifts and animosity. I hope this comment has not been irrelevant or too extreme and apologize for its possibly being as long as the original blog-post.
Ma’a Sallamah,
Nafisah.
Sallams,
Thanks for your views. I agree with everything you have said and no problem about the length of the comments; I enjoy reading others' thoughts on these subjects.
Yes, today the "war on terrorism" has become a war of "the West versus the Rest." In fact, some people are so convinced about the war on terror that they believe it can be won. As if we are two armed forces with finite numbers waiting to wipe out the other. Unfortunately, America will not rest until Western Democracy is prevalent in all Arab countries and those countries become strongholds for Missionary activities.
At the same time, however, we cannot expect this to change with organizations like Revolution Muslim, run by angry depressed loners like Zach, running full speed. Because of the terrorist ideology, Western Muslims have now used Islam as a vessel to channel their anger; like the East, the West is also exploiting Islam to seek revenge on the world for not giving it a fair life. Meanwhile, other faiths are swallowing good words aimed at them as they become mighty off of the slamming of Islam.
The problem today is Muslims are made up largely of angry people--people looking for any excuse to commit "violent jihad" as the media calls it. As you said, this is one of the most misconstrued ideas of these angry so-called Muslims. I will be posting next time there is a discussion by Revolution Muslim and I'd like you to join me just to see how angry they are. The last discussion I attended consisted them of spewing loads of hatred about the Shia, calling them "deaf dumb Shiateen" among other things. I see the Arab rendition of a Muslim-hater Western polotician or activist like Robert Spencer in these people. Yet both sides consistently persist they are correct. The way I see it, neither of them is correct because they are using their anger to fuel the fire, and both parties--West and East--are working in a "kill or be killed" notion like you said.
This is why the subject of Revolution Muslim is so difficult to tackle. I understand their anger; in fact, I agree with it when it comes to the West. However, they have not exhausted all means of peaceful dialogue. Al-Qaeda is the same way, and Revolution Muslim is a supporter of both Al-Qaeda and Al-Mujahideen.
Thank you for the article. I totally agree with you and I feel the same.
I'm about to create a website dedicated to the islamocaust which is how i found your website. it will be islamocaust.org and i was wondering if you can join and post up this article.
Thanks
Abdel
Sallams,
This is a good idea and I will definitely join. Please keep me posted on its progress, I will be happy to post my article there also, though you can also directly link it which will probably be better since it will not be posted in two separate places and everything will be consistent. I will let you know what I recommend once I see the site. Thank you for taking this initiative, inshallah we will talk soon.
Ma'a sallamah.
Post a Comment