Allama Ahmed Mian Hammadi Quotes

In an orthodox Muslim nation, freedom of speech as a right is impossible.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. The Sheikh along with many other Muslims called for the death penalty for the cartoonist who was exercising his Danish right of freedom of expression.

The reason he claimed that Governor Taseer was a blasphemer was that the governor opposed death penalty for saying or writing anything that was heresy or blasphemy as interpreted be fundamentalist Muslims. The Governor knew he was taking a risk. See {620970} .

For many extremists Muslims, this sura calls for the torture or killing of the enemies of Islam. For the more moderate Muslims, the penalty of opposing Islam should be expulsion or banishment. The further modern complication of this sura is the definition of “making war with Allah.” To some extremists, it is writing or publishing anything contrary to their view of Islam; it is occupying any Islamic nation or warring with that nation even though the basis of the war might have nothing to do with religion; it is bringing a Bible into an Islamic nations; it is allowing alcohol to be sold and served; it is opposing their discriminatory customs and laws; it is pressuring them not to stone adulteresses.

Rushdie was commenting on the Danish Cartoons that had been published the year before depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad to the great distress of some fundamentalist Muslims some of whom orchestrated riots in many countries involving much property destruction and some loss of life. See {590918} as an example of the concern.

He was assassinated by his bodyguard the following week. See {620972}. This appears to be the first time that a politician who was threatened with harm chose social media—in this case a Tweet--to inform supporters of his situation. The “blasphemy” for which he was accused was to oppose the death penalty for saying or writing anything that was heresy or blasphemy as interpreted be fundamentalist Muslims,

Part of the right to freedom of speech is the right to criticize, disparage or insult. However, there are some people in the world who do not believe in freedom of speech or expression and not only believe that certain types of expression are blasphemous and sinful, but some believe that it is their religious duty to kill the blasphemer. In this case a film was made that was not only intellectually an attack on Islam but it was done in such a manner that most orthodox Muslims were insulted and offended that their Prophet and religion were both insulted in a blasphemous manner. It was a film that was very much in poor taste, insensitive and gross. In the Islamic world, some extremists use incidents that they call blasphemy to whip up large crowds who riot, destroy and in many cases kill innocent people who have nothing to do with the alleged blasphemy except that their employer might be a company in the same nation as the blasphemer. These fanatics also hold governments responsible for blasphemy if they do not violate their own laws and constitutions and interfere with their citizens right to freedom of speech and expression. For people like Bollinger, this raises a terribly difficult situation and as he points out in this quotations free speech can have serous repercussions almost anywhere in the world. Others observe that every time we even discuss the potential repercussions, the enemies of freedom of expression win, and have a chilling effect on the rest of the world. They urge ignoring the consequences and avoid rewarding the enemies of freedom by giving them an influence on our freedoms and practices.

He had whipped the crowd up into a feverish pitch until someone rushed the bound and tied blacksmith and stabbed him to death. He had only criticized Mathias for being too harsh and stern a leader.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim fatal riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

If some Islamic cleric declares a war or dispute to be an attack on Islam, the penalty is indeed severe for those Muslims who do not join the fight. In some Islamic lands, unbelievers are put to death. Note that the children become the Islamic society’s hostages for the behavior of the father.

This sura is interpreted by some Islamic fundamentalists as absolution for the killing of a non-Muslim by a Muslim. It was Allah who did it. In a greater sense, critics of Islam observe that many Muslims and Islamic nations have a double standard of responsibility for crimes. If the victims are Muslims, the normal standards of morality hold; but if a non-believer there can be no crime. Terrorism, torture, beheading, mass murder can all be done with a clean conscience if a Muslim takes this interpretation of this sura. Many Muslims however take an opposite point of view. These people do not have the concept of fatalism and lack of free will that others believe. There is a parallel to this problem in Judeo Christian countries although it is less common statistically. But the murder of physicians who perform abortions, and the Jewish radical fundamentalist who killed innocent Arabs at worship are examples of people who viewed themselves as instruments of God in their heinous activities.

Many Arab orthodox Muslims would be terribly angry and insulted if Islam or key elements of it were insulted. To them this was obscene. Culturally, sarcastic comedic attacks and insults in general are not common in Arab culture. Making fun of Islam or the Prophet was unheard of. Under Sharia (Islamic Law) this is heresy and must be stopped, with the heretic put to death. In the early 21st century, the Internet and other modern communications exposed Muslims to the West in a level of detail that had been unknown before. Satirical TV shows like South Park and political and social cartooning in Western countries sometimes made fun of Islam and Muhammad, and militant Muslims would exploit these situations to produce huge protests including violent attacks on Westerners or interests of the countries where these “offences” took place. With little or no understanding of freedom of speech, many Arabs saw governments that would “allow” such satire as attacking and wanting to destroy Islam.

In 2005 Rose published a number of cartoons some of which depicted the Muslim Prophet, Muhammad which offended many fundamentalist Muslims who had a tradition who had a tradition of never depicting the visage of the Prophet. A delegation of clerics demanded an apology from Rose and the country of Denmark, claiming that they and Islam, like other religions, were entitled to respect.

In an orthodox Muslim nation, freedom of religion as a right is impossible.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Islamic country newspapers however, when it comes to what is perceived as material insulting to Islam, as typified by this editorial, feel that their religion should never be insulted despite the fact that Saudi Arabian media constantly insult Christianity and Judaism. Their justification of this gross double standard is that Islam is the “true” religion.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. That was particularly true of Egypt which commonly insulted Christianity and Judaism and the government always claimed that they could not interfere with private publications and broadcasts because Egypt had freedom of speech and the press.

Despite the fact that the statues were holy symbols to Buddhists, they were offensive to Muslims who say statues as “graven images” prohibited by the Koran. See Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil {608419} and Jamal’s other quotation {604665}.

While this hadith has been used to justify murdering converts or even those who criticize actions taken in the name of Islam, this statement should be seen in historical context whereby Christians also commonly murdered “heretics,” and during the Protestand reformation, both Catholics and Protestants routinely murdered not only converts from their faith, but non believers such as Jews and Muslims. The Old Testament also advocated death for heretics.