Charlie Hebdo: of justifications, condemnations
and apologies
Frankly, there is no justification for the murder of
the people killed in France recently, by
justification, I mean any attempt to establish any
‘acceptability’ or ‘legitimacy’ for these actions,
talk less of its glorification. One, who does this, as
seen from comments on the face book page of Dr.
Yaasir Qaadhee and others, either displays his
ignorance of Islamic rules and values or
advertises the perversity of his mentality. In fact
if one lacked the inability to discern the proper
response, he jolly well should keep quiet, aren’t
we encouraged to “…say that which is good or
keep quiet”?
In fact the proper response would be to
unequivocally condemn such acts as aberrations
that have no linkage whatsoever to what Islam
preaches; you could effectively fault the actions in
a number of ways
Muslims have the responsibility to fulfill their
obligations and agreements irrespective of the
circumstances they find themselves , these
individuals being French citizens, effectively have
a pact with the French state not to deliberately
harm others even if these others are doing things
terrible to Islam
Actions such as these is a special prerogative of
the rulers , not the vigilanteism that has robbed
the soul of many a Muslim youth
Correcting an act in such a way as it leads to a
more serious one is categorically impermissible.
The 7th century scholar, Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah
stated:
“Forbidding evil has four levels:
a. That evil is eradicated and is replaced with its
opposite (i.e. good).
b. That evil is reduced even if it is not completely
eradicated.
c. That evil is replaced with what is similar to it.
d. That evil is replaced with what is worse than it.
The first two levels are legislated in religion as
correct. The third level is a matter of juristic
deduction (i.e. ijtihād from the scholars). The
fourth level is forbidden to embark upon.”
These points become clearer as we follow current
events: Charlie hebdo usually published around
60,000 copies, the copies to be published after the
attacks: 3 million! The ratio is staggering 50 to 1.
More offensive cartoons and several other
magazines and papers have joined in the
publication of such offensive materials.
Add to that, racist neo Nazis and Islamophobes
(the UK independent party , PEGIDA in Germany
and the National Front in France) have seized the
opportunity, and anti Islam protests and attacks
has gathered more pace and more supporters .
The most patently absurd of the entire episode
however is the pathetic call from certain
Islamophobic quarters demanding that Muslims
apologize! Listen to international media mogul
Rupert Murdoch saying " Maybe most Moslems
peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy
their growing jihadist cancer they must be held
responsible"
Responsible for what?
Apologize for what?
To whom?
And why?
Apologize on behalf of neo- khawarij criminals who
are on the same page with the killers of children
(Pakistan taliban) and murderers of innocents (al
qaedah , boko haram ISIS etc) ?
People who have killed far more muslims than
others?
Or apologize for criminals who derive joy from
offending people of other faiths under the
hypocritical banner of free speech and the right to
blaspheme? This was the same Charlie that fired
one of her cartoonist because they found his
cartoon was offensive and anti Semitic! The
pathetically lopsided understanding of free speech
simply means the right to slander Islam. The non
negotiability of free speech is only bandied around
when Muslims are involved.
While free speech and the right to satirize is the
issue at hand the glaring hypocritical French
march raises serious question about western
values and even their humanity, 17 people died
and millions came to march on the streets of
Paris.
Millions have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
didn’t see even 17 people to protest.
Malala Yousafzai became a hero, a Nobel peace
winner because she survived Taliban bullets, what
about the thousands of afghan girls maimed and
murdered by the armies of the world’s most
civilized and democratic savages?
One would need to question the common sense of
any Muslim who marched in support of Charlie
Hebdo. The Islamic shariah is very clear on this,
the punishment for blasphemy is death, and so is
the bible, Leviticus 24:13-16. Then the LORD said
to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the
camp. All those who heard him are to lay their
hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to
stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses
his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who
blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to
death. The entire assembly must stone him."
And before anybody says this is an abrogated
biblical injunction, In 1987, President Ronald
Reagan signed a proclamation speaking of “the
historical tradition of ethical values and principles,
which have been the bedrock of society from the
dawn of civilization when they were known as the
Seven Noahide Laws, transmitted through God to
Moses on Mount Sinai,” and in 1991, Congress did
the same. Number two of these noahide laws
says :
“Do Not Blaspheme God”
If the west has shied away from its judeo -
Christian values, we haven’t relinquished our
Islamic values.
We owe no one any apology. As for
condemnations we have done this severally and
consistently (even at the time the west was
harboring criminal elements like Aboo Qatadah
and others, until they discovered the danger posed
by these elements) in front of me are several
fatwas of senior scholars condemning atrocities
of this nature, let me quote one contemporary
scholar, widely respected among Muslim youths,
Shaykh Al fawzaan says:
“So there are extremists who obligate Jihād in
any and every situation without applying any
pre-conditions or principles. They do so even if
the Muslims are weak and powerless, and even if
they do not have a Ruler over them. So each
one fights the “enemy” and engages in battles
and skirmishes without a legitimate rulership,
and they kill the non-Muslims whom it is not
permissible to kill. They kill people who have a
treaty with the Muslim countries and they kill
those who are protected by agreements and
covenants. So this is extremism and not Jihād.
Rather, these extremists go even further by
blowing up homes, residential buildings and
built-up areas of cities. They kill Muslims
and non-Muslims, young and old, males and
females, mercilessly. They put terror and fear
into the Muslims and non-Muslims who live
under the protection of the Muslim governments.
Then they have the audacity to call that Jihād!
Rather that is corruption and not Jihād. They
draw the Muslims into evil, destruction and
ruination. Jihād has pre-conditions and
governing principles that are made clear in the
books of Qur’anic Commentary, Prophetic
Tradition and Islamic Jurisprudence.”
As the young, French man wrote in the banner he
unfurled as people marched past him in Paris
“Je suis musulman pas un terroste”
“I am a Muslim and not a terrorist”
And please add to that “je ne suis pas Charlie”… I
am not Charlie.
Written by Kabir Al asfar.

But seriuxli why him go go draw sumtin sae na prophet?him ma Bleep up

kestolove95:
But seriuxli why him go go draw sumtin sae na prophet?him ma Bleep up

they knew Muslims don't joke with their prophet(s).

busar:
they knew Muslims don't joke with their prophet(s).

aswr...na dem first find trobl..make we talk tru first

Charllie's death could have been prevented by those marching him to hell, if he had been scolded properly Like a spoilt brat. Rather than wait for some maniac to melt out justice on him #Je suis ne pa charlie

a ku tun ku e lona orun

I am a Muslim, I am not a terrorist and am certainly not charlie (I don't make public mockery of people's faith whether I believe in it or not)

kestolove95:
aswr...

do you mean 'as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullAh' with that abbreviation?

busar:
do you mean 'as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullAh' with that abbreviation?

nop...I meant aswear which means I swear in pidgin