This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:17 am I ahev a few questions on this subject. First of all who can issue a Fatwa? Under what authority? Secondly. How can a Fatwa be overturned? Thirdly, is a Fatwa issued by a Shiite valid to a Sunni Muslim? I never did understand the whole Salman Rushdie thing. How can a Fatwa be issued against a Kufaar? And if that's the case, then that ridiculous piece of "art" displayed by the NYC Art musuem, with a picture of dung smeared on the Virgin Mary, should not that have also caused outrage in the Muslim world and requried a Fatwa with death to all of those who supported it? Since lots of Kufaars blaspheme every day, why aren't they also marked for death?
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 02:09 am didn't wanna leave the question unanswered, but cannot answer saxiib, perhaps someone learned may help you inshallah if your intentions are pure
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 09:37 am Me too, would like to answer the question but do not have the knowlegde. Hope someone would get something that matchs some of the words and wold print here???? and I am sure you would lik it since you like the complcate replies then to pick up a word fro that and carry on from there. Am I being nice or again unwanted poster.? I would one day come to Germany and give a little hart attack lol.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:06 am Arawello Walaalo you always behind thi Kaafir he wanna Mislead you be carefully Mad Cow Satan
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:20 am Good Muslimah, Since you know me, you must be one of the sisters on this forums. Why did you change your name??? if you are concerned about your muslim sister should not you be honest with her and let her knwo your ussual user name. BTw what makes you think that I am behind him. at least what I have said here, are to be his disadvantage, ask him??? I amsure he will help you out. And ALWAYS???? well, you must be angary with me but for no reason, at least you should let me know. Me, whenever I have a dispute with someone I say front of them. I do not insult poeple before they do. but I ask. Wy not ask me. He wants to mislead me???/ that is funny. How????? MADMAC, can you tell the sister whether my words are for or against you??
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:38 am MADMAC AND ARAWEELO REVEAL THE SECRETS HERE
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:04 pm Anynomous, You went as far as that??? I am sure you will deal with it soon. I am not the person you think. I cannot understand why someone has to say this. Mm even told you about that and he is a non- muslim. I promise I will not wrote on this forums ver agian.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:52 pm anonymous, Shame on you bro/sis. Arawello, Please don't leave the forums when IGNORANTS speak ignore them and say Peace :-) May Allah protect muslims from the whispers of Satan, Allahuma amiin. MM, I can give you the address of the Al-Azhar in Cairo. You can ask one of the shiekhs over there :-) Even better...go to any local mosque in ur area see if the imam will speak with you. If he agrees...you can take ur booklet of "whys" and ask him till God knows when :-)
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 01:56 pm Salaam Sister Arawello Your Doing great now on insha Allaahu try to build your knowledge and ignore ignore Keep up no one can put you down Insha Allaahu. I have some link for you down here. But When its comes Mad Cow He is Kaafir, so you should now posions to stand Kufaar when it comes to Islam. http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/women/advice.html http://www.angelfire.com/ma/AdhaanulMuminaat/articles.html
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 02:58 pm Some people never grow up. This is not a place where people come to hook up. If that is for you, it is not for everybody, so please don't assume about others what you think about yourself.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 07:11 pm Asalaamu alaikum, I guess everybody kinda knows where the fingers are pointing as far as "GoodMusimah" is concerned following the lil mishap in the TLG folder. Anyway, to anonymous, this might come as a supprise to you but people have feelings. Yes, even in the virtual world. GoodMuslimah, that was very inappropriate to say the least. There is no point in pushing people to the edge of the cliff. Particularly when they are struggling. So, how do we handle people like the above? It would be a shame if we let them succeed in their quest. My advice is don't yield. It is sad to see all our discussions somehow revolve around MadMac and his cohorts. salaam.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 08:20 pm by "people like the above" I meant GoodMuslimah and anonymous. I would hate to be misunderstood gain.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 09:37 pm Ahhhhh does anyone have an answer to the question at hand. We're a little short on Mosques in this neck of the woods (city refused a building permit over the issue of the call to prayer).
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 03:11 am MADMAC You do not have the luxury to worry for salman Rushdie or those who blaspheme the virgin Mary. In Islam, all constitute a mockery and deserve chastisment. But, you have a huge problem, and time is running out, you are heading for hell, and you will request a one day break from the angels of hell, you laugh now, indulge in nonsense, live the life of animals and then die like one, without a purpose. When are you going to wake up and think of saving your soul?. The US Army does not give you as much breaks as Allah gives you, they will court-marshall you for the slightes offense, but Allah is giving you a lifetime, and you are too stupid to think that what you do not see does not exist. Stop your nonsense and repent. Arawelo Do not argue with a fool, people would'nt know the difference.
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 06:47 am Britain, defender of freedom rushed headlong to support and defend this man using as a pretext, the necessity of freedom of expression, which is in this case, the freedom of revile and curse. Even in the west no one has a right to shout fire in a crowded hall and escape the punishment for causing a possibly fatal panic. Yet one month before the publication of Rushdie's book, the partisans of free speech violated freedom of expression when they banned the book, SPY CATCHER by Peter Wright. This inconsistency makes it clear that their freedom is to do as they desire, not as people of other religions earnestly request. And I wonder if we were to complain to the British Judges against a person who falsely accused me of being adulterer, what then their judgment will be?!! Would they defend him and justify his right to slander? And if not, why do they use a deviant standard of justice concerning Rushdie's book which reviled those who are a model to Muslims around the world. Is freedom so holy to them that they scaled the feeling of 1,000,000,000 Muslims worldwide? For what reason? When they protect such a "book" whose manner of expression is so vulgar, it makes a mockery of freedom. It is another misuse of the slogan freedom, with a profound awareness that this is not the only time that the word, "FREEDOM", has been abused. http://www.themodernreligion.com/assault/srushdie.htm
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:17 am Salaams, brothers and sisters. what can I say? I was moved by your responses. It was also a reminder for me to control my anger which we all know it is very difficult. But, as long as you have muslims around you, it is great. And if I add a bit. for me working where I work and living where I live, it always makes me to charesh my muslim brothers and sisters. Idea, sister juzaka allahu kheyran. Sister as ever and for your advice to MM that is great that is what I expected to hear. hope everything okey. find a job? soon insha allah. Formargoust, bro were where you? I really missed your inputs. I was about to ask you Common. But, now, wellcome back. Usman, Bro, I checked the wepage and it is great. Juzaka laahu kheyran. TGL, sister Juza akalahu kheyran for your advice, got the massage. no worries. my adorable sister. Anynomous1, yeah, you are write. Anymous2 that is the answer. I mean the question should not be ' the validity of Islamic fatwa'' but the hypocracy of the Westren democracy. as far as I understand your reply goes to that. hope MM, should reply on this. This is what is important. Are you my British brother by theway? ( do not answer) Good muslimah and anynmous, I must not leave you any doubt or suspicion thus keep sinning. I do not know MM. Ask him. To all, I do not think these poeple are from this forums. may be it can be related to other forumss that a lot of poepe who wrote under there, are not practisisng. I am sure non- of the sisters that I know here would say so. It is when the poeple are ignorant when they do that. ( if you have a problem with me take it where it belongs not under the Islamic forums for God's sake).
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:33 am Asalaamu alaikum, Arawello, thanks sis. I'm quite relieved 
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 05:29 pm Arawelo. Believe me, I am the one who was worried that you would dissappear as you said. Glad you changed your mind and came back. I am proud of your progress in terms of islam. Your storng will to do good for yourself is what made you look into your beliefs and strengthen it. I hope for you the best there is a muslim wishes for another muslim. May you also find a good loving husband who understands the islamic princess in you.
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:42 pm OK, I guess this means no one can actually answer the question at hand. Fair enough. At least Common was straightforward. As for the comparison with Spy Catcher, that was aan issue of national security. Blasphemy is not a crime in securalist societies - you guys know that. Witness that stupid exhibit in NYC with the horse •••• (or whatever it was) splattered over the virgin Mary (Who's considered sacred to Catholics esspecially).
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:43 am MAD. Just wondering, Do you tell us things, believed or practiced by athiests and non-believers as an information or imposition?. Can't separate the two from your posts. I searched the data base of an islamic website to see an answer to your question about who gives Fatwas(edicts). I also found out another issue related to that in islam called Ijtihad "making an effort to understand religious issues on your own" to reach a verdict or some sort of decision. This is what the answer said:, (It might give you the answer you are looking for or teach you another perspective, both of which are beneficial for you assuming you were sincere). Question: When can a young man make ijtihaad and issue fatwas? Some of the young people, when they become religious, indulge in examining and discussing the evidence (daleel) and speak about the rulings on events and issues that happen, in terms of what is halaal and what is haraam. They give their opinions on the rulings of fiqh on some new matters that have arisen in modern times. Answer: Praise be to Allaah. There are conditions attached to making ijtihaad. Not every individual has the right to issue fatwas and make pronouncements on matters, unless he has knowledge and is qualified. He has to be able to know the daleel; the wording and apparent meaning of the texts; what is saheeh (sound) and what is da’eef (weak); al-naasikh wa’l-mansookh (what abrogates what); wording and interpretation of texts; what is specific in application and what is general; what is stated in brief and what is mentioned in detail. This needs lengthy experience and practice, knowledge of the various branches of fiqh and where to look for information; knowledge of the opinions of the ‘ulamaa’ and fuqahaa’, and memorization or knowledge of the texts. Undoubtedly issuing fatwas without being qualified to do so is a grave sin, and means that one is speaking without knowledge. Allaah has warned us against that, when He said (interpretation of the meaning): “And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: “This is lawful and this is forbidden,” so as to invent lies against Allaah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allaah will never prosper.” [al-Nahl 16:116]. In a hadeeth: “Whoever was given a fatwaa with no proof, his sin will go back on the one who gave him the fatwaa.” (Saheeh; narrated by Imaam Ahmad, 2/321). The seeker of knowledge should not hasten to issue fatwas or to speak on an issue until he has found the source and daleel for what he is saying, and who has spoken about it previously. If he is not qualified to deal with the matter, he should pass it on to someone who is better able to deal with it, and he should limit himself to that which he knows, and continue learning and studying until he is qualified to make ijtihaad. And Allaah is the Guide to the Straight Path. Al-Lu’lu’ al-Makeen min Fataawaa al-Shaykh ibn Jibreen (www.islam-qa.com) If that doesn't answer your question someone else who has ssen the answer or knows it can tell us so we can benefit from that. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A MOSQUE? INSIDE A MOSQUE?.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:49 am Mad. That was to educate you about "FATWA" "RELIGIOUS EDICT" in general. If your question concerned the edict given about Salman Rushdie, it is a whole different ball game. Anyway, try to read and understand who can give "FATWA" "RELGIOUS EDICT" so that you won't accept in the Future everyone's Ruling over an islamic religious matter. You need PROOF TO BELIEF and PRACTICE things in Islam. One way to protect Islam from CORRUPTION. Anything goes is not ISLAM.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:52 am Sorry again. The word "FIQH" in the above Q&A means "JURISPRUDENCE" in english. Have fun.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 04:29 am Freedom of Speech, Freedom from speech, and the West's Double Standard: The furious reaction of many German intellectuals to the announcement of the Frankfurt based German Book Publishers Association that the prestigious Book Peace Award for the year 1995 would be awarded to Professor Annemarie Schimmel. Dr. Schimmel is an eminent Orientalist whose academic and literary achievements are extraordinary. She was born in Germany in April 1922. She started to learn Arabic and Persian when she was 15 years old. She got her PhD from the University of Berlin at the age of 20 and became a full professor at the age of 25. Dr. Schimmel taught in German, Turkish, and Indian universities as well as in Harvard. She is a world authority on Islamic Mysticism and her book, The Mystical Dimensions of Islam, is one of the most authoritative references on the subject. She has a good command of 12 languages and has translated many Oriental poems into German. She is the author of more than one hundred books, essays, and articles written in different languages. She was a member of the official delegation that accompanied the German President in his latest visit to Pakistan and Central Asia. After more than 50 years of scholarly achievements, Dr. Schimmel has been chosen to receive the German Book Peace Award for 1995 which she is due to receive on Oct. 15. As soon as it became known that Dr. Schimmel would be the recipient of this important award, many German intellectuals expressed their indignation at the decision. Hundreds of writers, academics, publishers, and book store owners signed a petition urging the German Book Publishers Association not to grant Dr. Schimmel the award. Moreover, some members of the German Parliament strongly protested giving the award to her as a "farce." The German President, who is scheduled to deliver the award to Dr. Schimmel, was put under intense pressure to dissuade him from handing the award to her. "Why are so many people angry at this lady despite her brilliant academic achievements?", I asked myself. Is she a Nazi war criminal? Is she a neo-Nazi? Is she a racist ? Is she a child molester or a drug addict? What crime on Earth could this professor have committed to cause such a wave of indignation in a country like Germany ? I could not find any answer that make sense. The article provided the answer which has deeply hurt me. Dr. Schimmel's crime was that she described Salman Rushdie's book, The Satanic Verses, as an insult to the feelings of millions of Muslims. That is all. Her grievous and intolerable mistake was defending the right of hundreds of millions of Muslims to express their anger at the words that Salman Rushdie had written in his book. The German intellectuals wrote in their petitions against Dr. Schimmel that she provided moral support to Muslim fundamentalists with her criticism of Rushdie. Moreover, granting an award to her is "a slap on the face" of those who are campaigning against terrorism inspired by religion. The fact that Dr Schimmel has expressed her disapproval of the death sentence issued against Rushdie did not abate the criticism against her. The only cheerful news in this sad episode is that the German President is still determined to hand the award to Dr. Schimmel and give a speech honoring her on Oct. 15. He described the protesters as "believers in the theory of clash of civilizations." He also emphasized the need for understanding and having a dialogue with the Islamic civilization. As to Dr. Schimmel, she has been asked lately "Is it true that you have described yourself as a 50% Muslim?" She answered: "This is at least. I love the Islamic civilization and always try to defend it, especially in today's world." The whole affair has bewildered me for a while. Is it a crime to defend the feelings of Muslims ? Is it a crime for Muslims to express their anger at hurtful remarks ? Is it unacceptable in today's world that a religious group get angry when their sacred scripture is described as "Satanic" and the wives of their beloved Prophet are described as "whores" ? Is expressing indignation at offensive books wrong ? Should an outstanding scholar be punished for defending the abused group's right to express their true feelings ? Why did the West insist that Muslims were wrong when they reacted angrily to the publication of Rushdie's book ? Why did Western countries not accept Muslims' requests to put a ban on the book ? Some Westerners would attribute the reason for the West's reaction to the desire of some Muslims to end Rushie's life. However, it is a known fact that so many Muslims have stated that killing Rushdie is wrong as a matter of principle and that attempts to kill him would give him so much credit, wealth, and fame that he otherwise could have never achieved. Furthermore, It is very clear from what happened to Dr. Schimmel that Western intellectuals still consider any person who criticizes Rushdie to be a wrongdoer regardless of that person's disapproval of Rushdie's killing. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of Westerners would justify the West's attitude by citing the magic phrase "Freedom of Speech." If one argues with them "Do you mean absolute freedom of speech even offensive and hurtful speech?", they would proudly affirm: "Yes unconditional freedom of speech. Anyone is entitled to express his/her views regardless of whether others will be pleased or offended by these views." If you ask them: "Is this theory practiced unconditionally in the West today?" So many would not hesitate to give an affirmative answer. At this stage one should say "It is not the first time in history that so many have been so wrong for so long." The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech neither in the West nor any where else. Skeptics would, rightly, demand evidence for this claim. Here are some haphazardly collected examples that I have mostly encountered by chance while reading Western newspapers, magazines, and books in the last few months. Let us start with Germany. In 1991, Guenter Deckert, leader of the ultra-right-wing National Democratic Party organized a lecture at which an American speaker claimed that the Auschwitz gassing of Jews never took place. Deckert was prosecuted and convicted for arranging the lecture under a statute prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. In March 1994 he was tried again. Finally, he was given only a suspended one-year jail sentence and a light fine. The judges were criticized by other judges for the light sentence. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the light sentence and ordered another trial. The public was outraged by the series of events and the law responded. In April 1994, the German constitutional court declared that denials of the Holocaust are not protected by free speech. In order not to be outdone, the German Parliament passed a law declaring it a crime punishable by 5 years in prison to deny the Holocaust whether or not the speaker believes the denials. A German publisher based in Munich withdrew and destroyed the German language version of an American book titled, Eye for an Eye, by John Sack (Basic Book, 1993) because it alleged that Stalin had deliberately chosen Jews to oversee secret police activities in the former German territories of post war Poland. In Austria, one can get a prison sentence for denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. In 1992, the government modified the language of the law such that it would be considered a crime "to deny, grossly minimize, praise or justify through printed works, over the airwaves, or in any other medium the National Socialist genocide or any other National Socialist crime." In Denmark, when a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper describing homosexuality as "the ugliest kind of adultery", she and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosecution. In Japan, a 250,000 circulation magazine, Marco Polo, carried, in its Feb. 1995 issue, an article claiming to present the new historical truth and argue that Nazi gas chambers are historically dubious. The reaction to the article was swift and severe. Major industrial firms such as Volkswagen and Mitsubishi cancelled their advertising in protest. The publishing house of Marco Polo withdrew all copies of the February issue, announced that it was dismissing Marco Polo staff, and shut down the magazine itself. In Australia, any unfair written material that could be described as inciting racial vilification is banned by the 1989 Anti-Discrimination act. The writer and the publisher of such material may be exposed to damages of up to $40,000. In Britain, laws against blasphemy still exist. British Muslims tried to make use of these laws against Salman Rushdie. They discovered that only blasphemy against Christianity is outlawed. That is, one is free to blaspheme against the religion of one's neighbor as long as the neighbor does not happen to be a Christian. Therefore, the Satanic Verses was not proscribed. Ironically, a Pakistani movie ridiculing Rushdie and the whole affair of the Satanic Verses was banned from Britain. In France, the French national assembly, in 1990, passed new laws to toughen the existing measures against racism, "The measures also outlaw revisionism -- a historical tendency rife among extreme right-wing activists which consists of questioning the truth of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II." Many intellectuals were disturbed by the words "measures" that "outlaw ... questioning" included in the French legislation. In June 1995, Princeton University professor, Bernard Lewis, was fined $2,062 for having denied that Armenians were victims of genocide in Ottoman Turkey early in this century. Moreover, Lewis was ordered to publish the court ruling in the daily Le Monde and warned that he risked further judicial action if he repeats his denial on French soil. Professor Lewis did not contest "the terrible human tragedy of the deportation" of the Armenians. But he considers that there was no "systematic annihilation" and that most of the victims died of "famine, disease, exhaustion or cold." That is why, in an interview published by Le Monde in November 1993, when he was asked why Turkey still refused "to recognize the genocide of the Armenians', Lewis replied: "You mean why do they refuse to recognize the Armenian version of that event?" This comment led to a storm of protest from the Armenian community in Paris. Thirty university teachers published an open letter accusing Lewis of "betraying the truth and insulting the victims of Turkish brutality." At first they tried to prosecute Lewis under the Loi Gayssot, passed in 1990, which makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offense. But it was pointed out to the Armenians that the communist deputy Gayssot had restricted his new law to those denying the truth of the Nazi persecution of the Jews. It should be noted that Lewis is a historian whose specialty is the history of Ottoman Turkey. He is recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on the subject. In Aug. 17, 1995, A book published in Switzerland by the "Algerian committee of free activists" has been banned from entering French territory because "Its distribution is liable to affect public order...its underlying tone is anti-French", said the spokesman of the French interior ministry. In the U.S., the government cannot do much to silence obnoxious speech because of the first amendment to the constitution. However, nongovernmental institutions, especially the media and the universities have taken the lead. At the university of Michigan, a student said in a classroom discussion that he considered homosexuality a disease treatable with therapy. He was summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing for violating the school's policy of prohibiting speech that victimizes people on basis of sexual orientation. The case has generated a lawsuit in federal courts. Another student who denounced Dr. Martin Luther King as a communist has been sentenced by his university's judicial board to thirty hours of community service. The American Media has a long history of voluntary censorship. For example, a series of films which explained why Muslims were growing more furious with the West, were taken off-air in the US. Broadcasters were faced with a lobby against them and there was a threat to advertising. The films titled, Roots of Muslim Anger, were made by Dr. Robert Fisk who has received the British Press Award as the best British foreign reporter for "Foreign reporting at its finest." The reason for the intense lobbying against the series was that it considered Israel responsible for many Muslim grievances against the West. An imposing scholar such as Noam Chomsky who has been described by the New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive" has never appeared in any of the US major television networks because his views always upset the American elite. House speaker Newt Gingrich has dismissed a House historian when it was brought to his knowledge that she has once written: "The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and is not presented." In the summer of 1995, The War Veterans Lobby (one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington) has lobbied successfully to remove all the material describing the tragedies caused by the American atomic bombs thrown on Japan in 1945 from a World War II exhibition in Washington. Several historians protested the move as enforcing a kind of "patriotically correct history" which has no thing to do with the "real history." In 1986, author George Gilder (whose book Wealth and Poverty was a worldwide best seller in 1981) had a great difficulty in finding a publisher to republish his earlier book, Sexual Suicide, because of protests from feminists who think (as one of them has recently said on ABC) that "Sexual differences should not even be studied." Oxford University Press rejected Professor John Vincent's book, A Very Short Introduction to History, which it had previously welcomed. The reason was that Vincent had not been politically correct. He had used the word "men" instead of "people", referred to historians as "he" thereby excluding women historians, etc. Michael Jackson's latest album generated a wave of protest because some of the words therein were deemed racist by some American Jews. Charges of anti-semitism prompted Jackson back to the studio to get rid of the offensive words. In Canada, CTV Television network on its popular morning show "Canada AM" has, on Oct. 15, 1994, hosted Josef Lepid, a leading Israeli political commentator, who, on the air, called for "a decent Jew in Canada" to assassinate Victor Ostrovosky (a former Israeli intelligence officer and author of two books exposing Israeli intelligence secret operations). The incident received conspicuous silence in the Canadian media. The very same commentators who had clamored for Rushdie's right of free speech uttered no words in support of Ostrovosky's same right. A couple of years ago, a British historian was giving lectures in Canada in which he denied the Holocaust. He was arrested and deported by the Canadian authorities. Also, a school teacher was relieved of all teaching duties because he taught his students to disbelieve that the Holocaust has ever happened. A university professor wrote on his campus journal that a woman who had been raped by her partner should bear some of the responsibility for the rape especially if she was improperly dressed. His comments prompted a huge outcry on campus. He was forced into early retirement. It seems that the West does not only lack absolute freedom of speech, it lacks absolute freedom of thinking as well. One might enjoy the hospitality of German prisons (for 5 full years) for 'believing' that the Holocaust has never happened. In France, one does not have to be a 'true believer', merely questioning the Holocaust will do. One wonders what should be the punishment if some people deny World War II altogether. Perhaps, they should be executed. In North America, one would 'only' lose one's job for disbelieving in the Holocaust. This 'leniency' is perhaps due to the fact that American jails are overcrowded. Questioning the differences between men and women is a taboo that any 'decent' human being should not discuss. Charges of sexism are used to deter those who contemplate exceeding the acceptable limits. Discussions about homosexuality and race are similarly stifled. The seldom acknowledged fact is that thought control does exist in the West. It is practiced by the governments, the media, the universities, and more importantly by the politically correct crowd. Several insightful Western intellectuals have recognized this fact. For example, Alexis de Tocqueville described America (at a time when America was considered the freest place in the world) by saying: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." George Santayana had this to say about the same theme: "There is no country in which people live under more overpowering compulsions...You must wave, you must shout, you must go with the irresistible crowd: otherwise you will feel like a traitor, a soulless outcast...In a country where all men are free, every man finds that what most matters has been settled for him beforehand." It should not be construed however that freedoms of thought and speech are nonexistent in the West. Such a conclusion would be untrue and unfair. As a matter of fact, the West does enjoy more freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world today. One cannot ignore the freedom to protest, demonstrate, and strike provided by Western constitutions. One cannot disregard the relatively open and free discussions and debates taking place in parliaments and lecture rooms throughout the West. One cannot dismiss the role of Western media in exposing politicians misdemeanor as insignificant. For example, one cannot forget the role of the Washington Post in the Watergate affair. Nevertheless, these freedoms are neither unlimited nor unconditional. Opinions which might irritate powerful groups, important interests, or significant segments of the population are silenced by many 'nonviolent' means. George Orwell in his article, The Freedom of the Press, has eloquently described the status of Western press: "Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark without the need for any official ban...[the] press is extremely centralised and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." Let us now try to honestly address the ticklish question of free speech. Should there be freedom of speech? Certainly. Absolute freedom of speech? Certainly not. Why? Offensive speech have disastrous consequences affecting individuals and the society at large. It leads to the spread of hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. For example, how many human beings would accept others to accuse their mothers of being whores ? Should the society protect the freedom of speech of the accuser or the freedom from offensive speech of the accused ? If one whole group in the society is denigrated as 'niggers' by another group, should the society protect the freedom of speech of the offending group or the freedom from speech of the offended group ? If non-Jews accuse Jews of conspiring to exterminate all other races, whose freedom should be protected ? If men describe women as sources of all evil, whose freedom should be protected ? When a group of women, whom one billion Muslims revere more than their own mothers, have been gratuitously defamed by Rushdie as whores, whose freedom should have been protected ? In general, societies have little to lose and so much to gain by proscribing outrageous speech. In fact, all human societies have, to one degree or another, practiced freedom from speech. However, not all societies have been honest to admit what they practice. The Quran has been unequivocal in forbidding all kinds of insulting speech: "O you who believe Let not some men among you ridicule others: it may be that the latter are better than the former. Nor let some women ridicule others: it may be that the latter are better than the former, nor defame nor be sarcastic of each other, nor call each other by offensive nicknames..." (49:11) However, in limiting freedom of speech for the purposes of social peace and harmony, no society should go to the extreme of "outlaw ... questioning." This is the mentality of the dark ages, the Inquisition, and some ailing dictatorial regimes. The whole world must struggle to wipe out all the traces of this mentality rather than enforcing it by democratic legislation. Objective inquiry must never be banned for any reason whatsoever. If some people, for whatever reason, exploit the freedom of inquiry to incite racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious vilification, then a line has to be drawn between benign and malicious motives without sacrificing the priceless freedoms of thinking, questioning, and inquiring. It is exactly the same line that has to be drawn to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom from speech. The Canadian Supreme Court has recently (July 20) drawn a similar line in its decisive ruling on libel law: "criticism, yes, but accusations rooted in non-facts that do gratuitous damage to the reputation of individuals, no." The Quran does not only guarantee the freedom of thinking and questioning, it considers the act of thinking a sign of good faith. Thinking and reflection are considered among the characteristics of righteousness: "In the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for people of understanding. Those who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth.." (3:190-191) The Quran in its numerous arguments with the unbelievers cites compelling evidence for them; not to make them believe, but to make them think: "...Thus does Allah make clear to you His signs: in order that you may reflect" (2:219) "...Such are the similitudes which We propound to people, that they may think" (59:21) To sum up, the whole Rushdie affair and its protracted aftermath has never been a mere question of free speech in the West as any simple comparison between the fate of professor Lewis in France and the treatment professor Schimmel received in Germany would clearly reveal. The support which Rushdie has received in the West and the defamation which Dr. Schimmel has been subjected to in Germany have more to do with Western "Islamphobia" than with absolute freedom of expression. The Western blatant indifference towards the feelings of Muslims is due to intense Western misunderstanding, suspicion, and fear of Muslims and Islam. Had the West really believed in and practiced absolute freedom of speech, then Muslims would have been very wrong to demand a ban on the Satanic Verses since it would have been a violation of a well-established Western tradition. But the West has never practiced this imaginary absolute freedom of speech and probably never will. It is not at all unprecedented that Western publishing houses have voluntarily ( for fear of fines or of upsetting the public) refrained from publishing a book. Upsetting Muslims, on the other hand, was deemed by the publishers of the Satanic Verses to make the book far more saleable. The publishers realized the simple fact that Muslims in the West are neither powerful nor respectable and that perturbing them would attract the attention of so many readers who would have otherwise never paid any attention to the book. Muslims in the West are the least studied, the least understood, the least trusted, and the least respected minority group. According to a nationwide poll conducted for the American Muslim Council, 67% of Americans had favorable opinions of Roman Catholicism, 52% of Judaism, 39% of Christian fundamentalism and only 23% had a favorable opinion of Islam. Muslims in the West, especially in some European countries such as Germany, France, and Britain, live under conditions that can at best be described as contemptuous tolerance. Therefore, my conclusion is that Muslims should not have reacted the way they did with respect to Rushdie's insults. They must learn how to create a respectable and powerful presence for themselves in the West first before asking the West to be considerate to their feelings. They ought to understand the lesson that something is far more deeply rooted in the Western tradition than free speech and that is: double standard.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 05:28 am strange asalaam aleikum nice article,thanks saxiib
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 09:35 am Fg, Juzakallah for the dua. Strange, that was nice but quite long, learn how to shorter you inputs. MM, I many times got charched with assotioting with you??? and you do not clear up anything, does that mean you stay back and watch. I have been thinking lately. I think, I made mistake when I said, I dod not know him, but I think, I do. do you see what I mean? but again I do not think that imeans knowing you. I dod not know help me out.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 09:58 pm MAD MAC: Bro FG has answered your question about who can issue a fatwa. A fatwa is a religious ruling that a scholar offers after due consideration. The scholar has to back his/her ruling with AHadith, verses of the quran, or opinions of the sahaba and/or other scholar or a consensus. In other words he has to base it on the sources of Islam. A Fatwa offered by a sunni scholar is not binding on every sunni let alone a shia fatwa being binding on sunnis. A fatwa is not as glamorous as you perceive it to be. We have fatwas about all aspect of individual life and communal life. Very often there is more then one fataawa on the same issue/question. The question of overturning a fataawa is a very unusual one. It's like saying who can make him change his mind. Since a fataawa is a scholar’s sincere opinion(and not binding); he is the only one who can have a change of mind (with the will of Allah). If new evidence comes to his attention he is allowed to take back his fatwa. Most scholars dread giving fataawas because it’s a responsibility or burden they put on them! They are responsible for people acting upon their verdict. I hope this helps to demystify the topic. The issue of Salman rusdie and NYC Art museum is totally different. I don’t know what the scholars of ahlus Sunnah (people of the sunnah) say about Salman or the shi’a fatwa. The most important Question to ask about salman is, Is he Muslim? If he is a Muslim then his case a matter of apostasy (riddah). He will be given a chance to repent. If he refuses the opportunity he will be killed. The prophet said, “Whoever changes his Religion, kill him” (reported by Bukhari). If on the other, hand the person is kaafir I’m not sure if blasphemy is an issue Allah says; Indeed they blaspheme, who say that God is the third of the three. There is no god, except the one god. And if they [who are guilty of this blasphemy] do not desist from what they say, a painful punishment shall inflict the rejecters [of this message] among them. Why do they not turn to God and ask for His forgiveness? And [if they do so, they shall find] God is forgiving, merciful. (Al-Maaidah 5: 73 – 74) The kufaar blaspheme even in their acts of worship. I remember reading once There is no sin after kufr (or shirk) Im scared to call it a hadith because I don’t remember Which book I read it in. In other works If you’re a Kafir you cant go any lower. The fact that they associate partner with Allah is worse then any words or actions the commit.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 10:34 pm Arawello: Welcome back sister. I did not read all the posts and was unaware of what happened. Don't let anything anyone says on this form affect you. For all you know they could be non Muslims trying to cause fitna.
|
| | Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 01:40 am Formerguest I see you're talking to me again. Can't resist it can you. That's cool. Glad to hear from you. Allright, first question. I believe that Freedom of speech, including blasphemous speech, is a sacred right that should exist in all countries. When the right to say one thing is impunged, it chips away slowly at the right to make any dissent. Governments (All governments, Islamic or otherwise) are inclined toward self-perpetuation at the expense of their populations. Controlling speech is one of the cornerstones of government power. So while what you say may piss me off, I am willing to fight for your right to say it. Hence I would NEVER say that a Muslim does not have the right to say that the US should alter its constitution and form as Islamic government. I would oppose that, I would argue the guy til he wanted to shoot himself(or me). But I would never say he doesn't have the right to express himself. As for whether or not I've ever been in a Mosque, the answer is yes. On two occassions. I was in the Mosques in Jasira (Frankly I did not want to go in, because it was part of our instruction never to enter a Mosque) but the Elder in question insisteed. The Mosque had been damaged by Marine Cobras and we were assessing the damage for reparations (What on earth this has to do with intelligence I don't know). I was also in a Mosque in Germany. I was invited by a bunch of Somalis (who spared nothing in their efforts to convert me) and we prayed together in the Mosque (It was a converted building so I think technically it was something other than a Mosque that served Moque like functions). The Iman was not happy, but he tolerated it. I have since moved so I'm not living in that area anymore. Strange You want to know what's really funny about your distorted write up on free speech? I find myself in the same boat as this German author oh so often. My son is German and his mother hates Muslims. I asked her why (she lives in a little village, she doesn't know any Muslims). She said that it's a primative religion that discriminates against woman. I asked her if she ever read the Qur'an. Of course she hadn't. I then explained to her in some detail the Islam and Christianity have common roots and are far more similar than dissimilar. I get the same reaction among my fellow soldiers who can't understand why I socialize among Somalis after having experienced such a bitter fight against them. I find myself arguing with you guys in an effort to get you to realize that the west is not all bad and arguing with my compatriots in an effort to explain that Somalis and Islam are not all bad. I understand why Muslims feel insulted, but in my book feeling insulted is worthy of expresing your feelings, not blowing someones head off. To sum up my thoughts, blasphemy is not a crime - not for us to judge anyway. It is in the realm of the allmighty, and we do ourselves a disservice when we try to enforce his will in this area. One mans blasphemy is another mans truth. Arawello Drop me an E-Mail little sister. I'm not sure I'm following you. JB Thanks, that was pretty clear. However, I would mention that Rushdie is not a Muslim, hence his blasphamy should not be punishable. I mean, it's not like I'm a Rushdie fan anyway. I think his work sucks. He's one of those types that Eurotrash like, pseudo intellectuals who get a kick out of challenging thwe status quo and then think they are true intellectuals for it while the rest of us ants crawl around down here on Earth. I thought a Fatwa was binding, thanks for enlightening me on that. Salam all.
|
| | Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 04:58 am MAD. You asked a question and wanted to know the answer. You made a point out of the lack of responses to your inquiry didn't you?. I am flabbergusted at your complaint soldier man. Or it is not a complaint?.
|
| | Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 10:42 pm F.G. It is not a complaint. It is more a recognition of your presence. I'm happy your back. It kind of balances things out. We need a representative from the far right - and that's you. Asad is close, but you've got him beat. With Galool and Pragmatic girl on the left, we have some balance to the discussions. Besides, you do good research. I still can't believe you ski. It just doesn't seem like a Somali kind of thing.
|