Note: You will find more options there on the top right corner, inshaAllaah.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Is the Prophet Muhammad (S) synonymous to forgiveness?

This post has been written in response to the article “Pakistan should ban extremism, not Facebook” which was published on the CNN International website on 20th of May.

Why is it that when it comes to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (S), the views of some Muslims are similar or, in some aspects, even worse than that? Why is it that these people think that the Prophet Muhammad (S) did nothing all his life except forgiving people left and right?
Why is it that when it comes to their own honour, they use every possible means to defend it and when it comes to the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (S), they do not do anything claiming that the Prophet Muhammad (S) would not do anything to defend his honour?
These are usually the people who, after an in-depth study of Islam, deviate from the Sirat al-Mustaqim (the straight path) by following some deviant sects, establishing a new sect and in some cases, migrating from Islam to kufr (disbelief).
We advise such people to first research on what they are going to say and then go and speak their mind to other people, informing them whether it is the Islamic view which they are expressing or their own view.

An example is the article “Pakistan should ban extremism, not Facebook” which was recently published on the CNN International website.
Even the author, a Muslim, does not know about the Islamic ruling on the matter he wrote about, he still does not feel ashamed to humiliate himself by taking exactly the opposite stance.
Come, let us counter his arguments from the Islamic point of view.
The article stated:
In a recent piece I wrote for The Washington Post, I highlighted a well-known Islamic parable that tells the story of the Prophet Mohammed and his interactions with an unruly female neighbor, who would curse him violently and then dump garbage on him from her top window each time he walked by her house.
This incident occurred during the early days of Islam when only a few people had become Muslims. It would have been foolish to execute people without having any authority. Moreover, the commandment of Jihad had not been issued yet. Instead, Muslims were instructed to refrain from fighting back even in defense. The logical explanation for this might be the same reason which was just mentioned that it would worthless to take such action without having any authority.
Furthermore, it also stated that:
If we ask ourselves the simple question "What would Mohammed do?" about this, the even simpler answer would be two words: "Absolutely nothing."
We would advise the author to go through history again and verify this claim that the Prophet Muhammad (S) would do nothing. We are sure that the author will be shocked to find out that his claim is nowhere near the truth.
Let us take such an example.
The conquest of Makkah in the 8th year of Hijra (8 years after the migration of the Prophet Muhammad (S) from Makkah to Madinah) is considered by almost everyone to be the most peaceful of the conquests because it is commonly known that the Prophet Muhammad (S) forgave everyone, including the murderer of one of his daughter. However, that was not the case.
When Makkah was conquered without force, the Prophet Muhammad (S) forgave the Makkans in general. However, there was a blacklist of people who were to be executed even if they were found hanging onto the clothes of the Kabah. The Arabs regarded the Kabah as the most sacred place on the Earth and would leave anyone who was clinging onto it alone.
This list included a few names. Among them were the names of Abdullah ibn Khatal, his two slave girls and the Sarah, the slave girl of Abu Lahab. Now, what was their crime? Abdullah ibn Khatal would organize concerts in which his two slave girls would sing against the Prophet Muhammad (S).
Let us take a glimpse of how Abdullah ibn Khatal was killed. He was actually holding onto the clothes of the Kabah. One of the Sahaba (the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (S)) rushed towards him and killed him. This shows that the order of killing in the most sacred place was no joke thus implying that this is a very heinous crime indeed.
Coming to the case of the two slave girls, we find it to be very interesting and unique. Firstly, these were women and the Prophet Muhammad (S) has prohibited the killing of women. Secondly, women are only killed if they participate in physical fighting against the Muslims. However, neither of them did that. Thirdly, these were slaves and freewill plays an important part in the rules and regulations of Islamic punishments. The punishments of slaves are reduced for this reason. Finally, the Prophet Muhammad (S) had given peace and security to the people of Makkah. Yet, he had singled these women out even after the aforementioned reasons.
Shayk-ul-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (a great Islamic scholar) while commenting on this unique incident in his book, “The Drawn Sword against the one who curses the Messenger of Allah”, says:
This is clear and strong evidence that the greatest crime of all is blasphemy against the Messenger of Allah (S) because with all these factors, the fact that he gave security to the people of Makkah, the fact that they are women, the fact that they did not fight and the fact that they were not slaves, they were still singled out for capital punishment.
Similarly, if we study the life of the Prophet Muhammad (S), we will find that there were many such incidents in which the Prophet Muhammad (S) either employed the technique of assassination or approved the actions of his Sahaba (companions) when they killed people who committed such blasphemy and instead of apologizing to the people whose man had been killed and “condemning such acts of violence”, as many would say, he would tell them that such a person’s life is not guaranteed even if they are in a peace treaty with the Muslims.
For those interested in finding more about such incidents, you might find an earlier post of mine Response to Everyone Draw Muhammad Day: The Dust will never settle down helpful.
What would these “modern, moderate” Muslims say to such actions of the Prophet Muhammad (S)? If blocking a website such as Facebook and YouTube etc. is deemed extremism by these people, then what would the actions of Prophet Muhammad (S) be considered? Obviously, they would consider it much more than that. What would they consider more than extremism? Violating human rights? Indeed, these people understand not.
Therefore, when these people raise the banners against “extremism” etc., they are actually helping the kuffar (disbelievers) in their mission to promote the view that, in fact, Islam should be banned and that this stance, against Islam, is the only solution to the problems of this world!

Get my updates delivered into your inbox :

Click here to Subscribe news feed from "IslamicB", so that you do not miss out anything that can be valuable to you !!


Ibrahim said...

Although I agree that the guy who wrote that washington post article is wrong, you're equally wrong: how the hell can we execute people not in our jurisdiction? all ur doing is spreading the popularity of this stupid cartoon day

Ammar said...

i have to say i agree with Ibrahim.. KHUSRO PERVEZ, EMPEROR OF FARS disgraced our Holy Prophet SAW.. but since he was not in the Islamic jurisdiction, he was not assassinated.. now if he had been within the limits of the Muslim realm.. that wud have been a different case.. im not saying im infallible.. this is just wat i think is right..

Imad-ud-din Saqib said...

Yes, I do say that we cannot implement it in situations where it is not possible. That's what I emailed Cuckoo too.

Post a Comment