Tech News
Blogger in Egypt sent to jail for insults to Islam
By Steve Ragan Feb 26, 2007, 16:07 GMT
And Also
Latest Headlines in Tech
- 1. Google takes on Facebook and Twitter with new Gmail Buzz
- 2. Teenagers should be better protected on social networks, EU says
- 3. Almost all good news: 100 days of Windows 7
- 4. Faster and greener? The eco pro's and con's of computing
- 5. Windows 7 productivity tips
Older Talkback
page: 1
I think it's highly unfortunate that Eygpt has lost Nabil to jail, because he was pointing out the hypocrisy within Islam. That is as important as having a conscience. However, he crossed a line when he said that the Holy Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, and his sahaba (followers) were 'spillers of blood.' If he was an Ahmadi Muslim, he would not be in jail. He is free to state his opinion and we are free to disagree with him. When hypocrisy rises within any religion, those who do not wish to be exposed would rather suppress negative statements than face the result. I believe his jail sentence has more to do with his statements about Hosni Mubarak than they do about the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him.
The statement that the Holy Prophet is a 'spiller of blood' does not even make sense. At every opportunity, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) would create peace. One Meccan woman took his uncle's dead body on the battlefield and bit into his liver as a deliberate insult to the Holy Prophet. When the Holy Prophet (pbuh) entered Mecca to do his first Hajj, victorious, the idolators were fearful of his revenge. What did he do? He had his head bowed over his camel, bowed in submission to Allah for giving him the victory. He didn't take any credit personally. As to that woman, he forgave her.
When the Holy Prophet (pbuh) moved to Medina, forced to flight because the Meccans were planning to murder him, he unified all religions in the town with an agreement that they were to defend each other if they were attacked. The Jews of that town broke the treaty, not the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
When there was any prisoner of war, the Holy Prophet (pbuh) instructed that the prisoners were to be fed as well as the keepers of the prisoners. As a result of this rule, many idolators chose to become Muslim. The Arabs had a society rife with avenging deaths. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) brought peace wherever it was possible. How could he do otherwise? The Holy Quran says 'Take to forgiveness, and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.' (7:199)
The prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, also taught peace and 'turn the other cheek' but how many Christians practise what he preached? No one can blame the Holy Prophet or Jesus (peace be upon them) for what their followers did after they died.
So there are three options. One, Nabil never said those things. Two, Nabil does not know his own Islamic history. Or, three, he became so enraged at the hypocrisy he saw in Eygpt that his passions carried him away.
Ms. Knight-Khan's analysis of this article is uniquely and condescendingly Islamic. She says that Abdel Kareem Nabil 'crossed the line' when he criticized the Prophet and his followers. `What line? Has Islam divined some sorts of free speech allowed for some people and some sorts of free speech for others? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Or, is Islam such a fragile vessel that any pressure at all will cause it to fail? Seems that this is the only conclusion because a strong institution is oblivious to criticism, culling its strength from the depth of its own conviction. So, fundamentally Islamic thought is flawed because there is NO freedom of speech in Islam - you either say what the mullahs want or you go to jail. Strike one.
Next Ms. Knight-Khan's analysis repeats the oft-heard phrase that Islam is a religion of peace and its Prophet a peacemaker. Such rubbish! Let's delve into the Quran to see what the Prophet says, shall we?
First, let's start with 008.036, which say '...those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell.' There is no way getting around this jewel! The Muslims are going to drive all non-Muslims straight to hell. Does this sound peaceful. Rather?
Then, how about verse 041.027 which states, 'Therefore We will most certainly make those who disbelieve taste a severe punishment, and We will most certainly reward them for the evil deeds they used to do.' Simply because I am not a Muslim and I believe in freedom of speech, you Muslims are going to make me taste '... a severe punishment...'? Again, not so peaceful.
Finally, verse 058.021 caps it off with, 'Allah hath decreed: Lo! I verily shall conquer, I and My messengers. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.' Now if the Muslim god has decreed that the Prophet has decreed something it is extremely puerile to assert that such is not so. Either the Prophet is a conqueror by the sword or he is not. If he is then Ms. Knight-Khan is wrong; if he is not then he has blasphemed your god.
Strike Two.
Ms. Knight-Khan closes with this poignant statement based upon Islamic thought:
So there are three options. One, Nabil never said those things. Two, Nabil does not know his own Islamic history. Or, three, he became so enraged at the hypocrisy he saw in Egypt that his passions carried him away.
Are there, indeed, only three options? How about the following options:
Four: the government has no right to impose religion upon a citizen and Nabil cannot under natural law be imprisoned for speaking his mind. To do so is to violate natural law and create a government of oppression.
Five: a person has the complete right to freedom of speech unhindered by religious zealots who wish to conquer souls through imprisonment and Ms. Knight-Khan has no clue about Islamic history or Quranic research as shown by the direct Quranic quotes put on the table by me, above.
Six: Islam is trying to maintain itself by using 9th century philosophical thought processes including mental enslavement, censorship, incarceration, thought control and forced religious beliefs. People will not be fools for this over the long term. Slavery did not work in the United Kingdom and the United States. Coercion did not work in Nazi Germany, it did not work in Russia, and it will not work under Islamic dictatorships.
The forces of freedom of thought, speech and action started in Iran but, due to the excesses of the Shah, fell. Had there been a wise and compassionate Shah, freedom would have spread throughout the Islamic world. It then traveled to Lebanon - but, again, excesses caused friction on both sides. It is my belief that freedom will never over the long run hide behind a veil. No woman wants to live in society as a second class person. The united force of Islamic womanhood will, if nothing else, eventually cause the vessel of Islam to expand - not break - under their pressure for reform.
Thus, it is my feeling that the struggles between West and East are historical jousts with but one final result: people strive to be free, strive to be loved and strive to be respected. All religions must eventually comport themselves to these three truths.
Separation of religion and government w/ free speech. That does not happen in the Arab-Muslim governments such as Egypt. I spent 3 mos in Cairo this past summer. This guy does hot have the freedom to do what he did. He spoke against Islam. The Koran has higher authority than any other document w/i the government. Thus, all people in the country are subject to the Koran. I wish that he will be able to overturn this verdict for his imprisonment, but this has always and will always continue to happen when you mix religion w/ government. They must be separated and freedom and liberty must then be established. I consider myself a serious Christian, but I do not want a Christian government.
I believe he got what he deserved, I can understand the frustration of our young generation with all the chaos in the muslim society. This is the second case of hatred towards Islam that I have seen in
in a week. I saw this young Somali women showing up at HBO and bashing Islam and insulting Prophet(P.B.U.H). Now here is the thing, I am O.K with him critisizing Islam but when you say things about Prophet, It wont be tolerated in any muslim society. I think he was very lucky that he was not in the country like Pakistan. Now this message is to the people who are saying that we have double standards about freedom of speech. First of all dont judge us with your western way of thinking, yes we have different standards for everyone when it comes to our religion. Secondly I have seen Christians moaning and bitching about James Cameron making a documentry about Jesus's lost tomb. Christians are saying that when somone insults or questions Christian faith, why world does not say anything? Well here is the answer, repect you religion and world will repect it, respect your Jesus and world will respect him. If you cant respect your Jesus and your faith, dont expect muslims to do the same.
Knight Khan is right on. i am a avid and devout christian, yet many of my best friends are muslim. So i can well appreciate the beauty of both religions, beyond the 'fear of the unfamiliar' view of allisons respondent. The verses in the koran quoted, are directly mirrored by verses in the christian bible. often the bible talks about heathens being thrown into the fiery pit. Yet our God and Jesus certainly stand for peace. that is inarguable. And allison, please excuse the person who responded so negatively to your writing. im sure most ppls would agree with me, that the respondent(who didnt even leave a name) is completely incohesive and illogical and not worth noticing. your analysis of the article is comprehensive and well considered. keep it up. And again, to allisons respondent: Dont EVER quote yourself under the category of 'western', since connotatively, that means you are christian, which you are clearly not. and if you are going to take cheap blows at islam, be aiming your comments at religion more generally. because the hypoctity you tried to target (however incohesively and unfoundedly) apply equally in christianity-though more particularly a few hundred years ago. go get a bible and read it. you might just learn something. praise be to jesus, and to God. and peace be on the prophet and allah. :]
To Anonymous,
The quote from the Holy Quran which you chose does not support your argument. The believers in Allah, the Muslims, will not be driving the disbelievers, meaning anyone who does not believe in Allah, the One, the All Mighty, the Most Sublime, to hell. On the last day of this world, the angels will drive the disbelievers to hell. There will be a sign on their foreheads indicating who they are and the Quran says they will be seized by the forelocks and taken to hell, where the drink will be so cold that it will not be enjoyable or the drink will be so scalding hot that it will be a trial, not a pleasure. The Muslims will not be driving anyone anywhere. They will be going where they have been assigned. The vivid imagery is meant as a deterrent. I would rather fast for a month than go to hell...
We, Ahmadis, do not preach to anyone that Muslims will be the only ones who go to heaven? No! Allah is the best of judges. It is up to Him. He is the one who reads the heart like a book and He sees the intentions, which we cannot see. Without His omniscience, we make poor judges. We expect to meet Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, etc. in heaven, provided we get there...
As Muslims, we are told the first question we will be asked about are our prayers. Did we do our five daily prayers? Nothing worth attaining is easy. Paradise is definitely worth attaining.
Do I think Christians can go to heaven? I certainly hope so! I pray for my parents--one was a Christian and the other a self-avowed agnostic.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story