[Desert-Sheikh]

Desert-Sheikh, on 23 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Free Speech in Islam:

The Death of Free Speech in Islam:

Hazrat Hujr ibn Adi radi Allahu anhu tried to exercise his right to free speech during the rule of Hazrat Muawiyah, and raised his voice against a governor of Banu Umayyah and got brutally killed along with seven of his companions. That wasn't the death of a blessed companion but the Murder of Free Speech in Islam, and since then, every 'Muslim' ruler/dictator is following the footsteps of its preceders by murdering voices.

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in his book Caliphs and Kings writes:

Hajar ibn Adiy was a pious companion of the Prophet (saws) and played a vital role in the correction of the Ummah. During Muawiyah's reign when the custom of cursing Ali from the pulpit's of Mosques began, hearts of the Muslims were being bled dry but people bit their tongues fearing death. In Kufa Hajar ibn Adiy could not remain silent and he began to praise Ali (ra) and condemn Muawiyah. Until Mughira remained the Governor of Kufa, he adopted a lenient attitude towards this, but when Ziyad's Governorship of Basra was extended to include Kufa, serious altercations arose. He would curse Ali (ra) during the khutbah and Hajar would refute him.

On one occasion he (Hajar) warned Ziyad for being late for Jummah prayers. Ziyad then arrested him along with twelve of his companions on false accusations of forming an opposition group to overthrow the Khalifa and was cursing the Khalifa. He also gathered witnesses to testify against them alleging that they claimed that khilafath was the exclusive right of the lineage of `Ali ibne Abi Talib and further accused them of creating an uproar, throwing out the commander and of supporting `Abu Turab Ali, of sending blessings upon him and hating his enemies. From amongst these witnesses, Qadi Shudhri's testimony was used. He later wrote to Muawiyah that the blood and property of people who said they offered Salaah, paid zakaat, and performed Hajj and Umrah, preached right and declared that evil was haram, however if you want to kill them so be it, otherwise forgive them.

The accused were sent to Muawiyah and he sentenced them to death. A condition was placed that if they cursed `Ali (ra) and showed their hatred to him they would be pardoned. They refused and Hajar ibn Adiy said `I will not say that thing that will displease Allah'.

Finally Hajar ibn Adiy, his son Humaan ibn Hajar and his seven companions were murdered. From amongst them Abdur Rahman bin Hasan was sent back to return with a written instruction that he be murdered in the worst possible manner, Ziyad buried him alive.

Scans from Khilafat-o-Malokiyat by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi; (Download the complete book - Urdu)

[Desert-Sheikh]

Maulana Ishaq Sahib describing the 'Death Of Free Speech In Islam',



PS: This topic has nothing to do with Hazrat Muawiyah VS Hazrat Ali issues. Please keep your posts academic and clean of personal vendettas.

[Aljannah]

On Islamic forums I see a lot of 'freedom of speech' being stopped. Due to reasons that either the majority are being offended, or it doesn't fit their small minds, as in what is being said. Example: someone makes a question on Islam and they are not satisfied with the answer, so they either keep asking or leave it altogether and leave with the satisfaction that Islam really isn't the Real religion.

People have different ways of thinking and interpreting Islam. People who run Islamic forums are guilty of sometimes misrepresenting Islam. As the ones who either question their own faith ( muslims ) or those who want to come into it, are being dismissed. If you ask why I make such statements, then let me tell you this, I've seen countless situations on the net, where someone comes to an Islamic forum or to their local Masjids, and seeking some peace in life. But they are turned back on the heels by these Muslims on forums and Masjids, and basically say 'we don't have time for you'. Maybe because their thinking is a little challenged mentally or they are highly intellectuals. Whichever one of these two, they'll come across forums about Islam and go away either angry/upset or smug knowing that Islam isn't the real way of Life.

Right. That what takes me a minute to do on the pc takes me an hour to do on the mobile! I need to attach my keyboard on the phone. Too lazy me.

We didn't get stopped in Prophet Muhammad pbubs time in asking questions. Why do we have to be stopped today? Don't oppress the mind. Let it run free and see for itself how Big Islam truly is!

[Mudassar-Rana]

bro DS great topic - but i find it hard to stomach why this is not related to amir muawiyah and syedna ali a.s - everything you write points to that.

Syedna Ali a.s wasnt a fool that he fought muawiyah's rebellion for nothing or for personal glory - he knew what would happen to the state. And what happened to the state was we went from the caliphate of Umar bin Khattab r.a the most glorious days for islam and muslims to silencing eminent muslims for fun at the point of the sword.

What Umar r.a encouraged was a society that was upright, and feared allah solely. Because when you fear allah you dont fear death and you are able to account even the highest of men. And history testifies there arent many who will reach the lofty heights of umar bin khattab ra.

Both father and sons imam ali, hassan, and hussein a.s fought bannu ummaya for the right reasons - which was to stop what you describe above.

The biggest thing that is of benefit to us is the iman of those that questioned umar r.a. May allah grant us that tawakkal and iman. And for sure when we reach that level we will also get leaders of the calibre of umar r.a and ali a.s

[Desert-Sheikh]

Mudassar-Rana, on 23 May 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

bro DS great topic - but i find it hard to stomach why this is not related to amir muawiyah and syedna ali a.s - everything you write points to that.

That topic is over after Imam Hasan's peace treaty with Hazrat Muawiyah but after becoming the first King of entire Islamic Lands how did he rule his people?

PS: These are the 'untold' fruits of his rule that our Sunni scholar's have been kept hidden from us.

[sunniskeptic]

the original topic by DS is an excellent one.

Why is it that Muslims cannot accept another Muslim from freely speaking their mind without invoking one of the dreaded words, 'bidat/gumrah/shirk/kufr/gustaakh/etc.? It happens on forums regularly
and even in real life I bet.

As an Ummah we are very intolerant of positions which diverge from the majority view and can often threaten the person expressing such opinions with either real violence or the threat of eternal punishment in Hell or kick them out of either Islam or
Sunniyat/Shiaism (depending on our own view)!

Freedom of expression as understood today by us is a product of Western secular civilisation and not of Islam. i'm a proud Muslim but it is dishonest to pretend that in Islam we had freedom of speech in this manner at any time in our history. All religions are guilty of curtailing freedom of speech (and thought) to some extent. By definition, when you have an official orthodox position then anyone who goes against that position is often punished, We saw it in Christianity
where all those who differed with the canonised Paulian Christianity were persecuted as heretics; we have seen in in Islam from the earliest eras; Judaism also has it and so on. The reason secularism allows freedom of speech and expression is that there IS NO 'official position' except that everyone has a right to his or her own position. (At the same time some officially secular countries like Germany and others in Europe have made some limits on freedom of speech which is
hypocritical. for example, the denial of the Holocaust is a crime in about 14 European countries including Germany punishable by prison.)

Go and ask the Qadianis in Pakistan or the Bahai in Iran if they enjoy freedom of speech or even the Kurds in Turkey!

The death of free speech? how can something that never existed die?

[Desert-Sheikh]

sunniskeptic, on 23 May 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Go and ask the Qadianis in Pakistan or the Bahai in Iran if they enjoy freedom of speech or even the Kurds in Turkey!

The death of free speech? how can something that never existed die?

Yes, it did exist at the start but forced to shut down by the first King and today's tyranny/countries are just following his footsteps.

By the way, why should i bother about Qadiani or Bahai when even Muslim's are not allowed to exercise their fundamental rights in their own countries. (you can start another topic if you want to discuss the oppression of non-Muslims)

[Mudassar-Rana]

Desert-Sheikh, on 23 May 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

That topic is over after Imam Hasan's peace treaty with Hazrat Muawiyah but after becoming the first King of entire Islamic Lands how did he rule his people?

PS: These are the 'untold' fruits of his rule that our Sunni scholar's have been kept hidden from us.

I understand that bro - but the reason i said its related to syedna ali a.s also is because ali a.s knew that muawiyah would not do justice to the position of caliph. that why he fought him. I havent read into the peace treaty between imam hassan a.s and muawiyah; but is it not true that imam hassan a.s own (some) followers left his side?

What br SS is getting at is correct in the sense that there is a danger that we take freedom from a western template. As opposed to the template the deen gave us that worship of allah sets us free from other bondages. However i disagree with him that in the west humans are free either. Because its not unknown that political opponents are silenced, sometimes in the most bizarre way!!

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Amire Muawiya did not represent Islam but extreme power. Because if he had then the act of Murder would have been justified but clearly it has been represented as an abuse of power driven by personal hate. I would like to know what the Islamic stance has been on the cursing of Sahabas? So in a sense ordinary Muslims had lost power of speech in the face of tyrannical rule; and this is not seen as a contravention of Islamic rights?

Let alone freedom of speech I think murder of innocents is clearly prohibited in Islam.

[Mudassar-Rana]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 23 May 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Amire Muawiya did not represent Islam but extreme power. Because if he had then the act of Murder would have been justified but clearly it has been represented as an abuse of power driven by personal hate. I would like to know what the Islamic stance has been on the cursing of Sahabas? So in a sense ordinary Muslims had lost power of speech in the face of tyrannical rule; and this is not seen as a contravention of Islamic rights?

Let alone freedom of speech I think murder of innocents is clearly prohibited in Islam.

Its just a sorry episode made worse by those who practiced intellectual dishonesty and tried to justify wrong. The bigger picture is that the more we try to justify it the more we move away from ahlul bayt and the more we move away from true guidance.

What we learn from this dark episode 14 centuries down the road is that trying to justify it only weakens islam in the eyes of not just the non muslim but also the muslim. We cant justify it - say it was wrong and move on, instead of looking for ahadith in favour of muawiyah and clutching at straws. If we ever want to be in the position of rulers of the world ever again then learning from the conduct of abu bakr r.a, umar bin khattab r.a and the ahlul bayt is paramount. Otherwise we will be forever what we have become. A sorry nation whose people regardless of colour, race are perennially top of the list of economic migrants, political migrants and cannon fodder for western tanks/bombers/guns. Our nations will continue to be looted, our leaders will arrest the righteous, our governers will be the most incompetent and least deserving, our ulema will fan flames of sectarianism, they will call to mediocrity etc.

Change begins with us and the first step is to ackowledge right from wrong.

[A-New-Hope]

Mudassar-Rana, on 24 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Its just a sorry episode made worse by those who practiced intellectual dishonesty and tried to justify wrong. The bigger picture is that the more we try to justify it the more we move away from ahlul bayt and the more we move away from true guidance.

What we learn from this dark episode 14 centuries down the road is that trying to justify it only weakens islam in the eyes of not just the non muslim but also the muslim. We cant justify it - say it was wrong and move on, instead of looking for ahadith in favour of muawiyah and clutching at straws. If we ever want to be in the position of rulers of the world ever again then learning from the conduct of abu bakr r.a, umar bin khattab r.a and the ahlul bayt is paramount. Otherwise we will be forever what we have become. A sorry nation whose people regardless of colour, race are perennially top of the list of economic migrants, political migrants and cannon fodder for western tanks/bombers/guns. Our nations will continue to be looted, our leaders will arrest the righteous, our governers will be the most incompetent and least deserving, our ulema will fan flames of sectarianism, they will call to mediocrity etc.

Change begins with us and the first step is to ackowledge right from wrong.

I was reminded of a comment someone posted on Sheikh Yaqoubi's facebook which I read earlier today that seems related to your post brother MR:


Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi stated,

"In order for the Ummah to regain its intellectual consciousness and reinstate its sense of civilization, we need, beside following the Qur'an and the Sunna, to adhere to the way of the 'Ulama that spans over fourteen centuries, a way that, in reflecting the Qur'an and the Sunna, articulated the corpus of fiqh and the exegeses of the Qur'an and Sunna, thus introducing the way to the following generations. Recognizing this legacy and digging out its treasures is vital to the recovery of the Ummah."
View Post · 13 hours ago

http://www.facebook.com/shaykhabulhuda

[corb]

I'm going to post a quote from this same forum :

Husayni, on 03 January 2010 - 06:23 AM, said:

The sign of perfection of a servant is to accept everything. A perfect person will see everything which happens in the past, present or future as perfect. If we see anything which is imperfect, it is perfect in its imperfection. The highest adab of a servant is to be able to see everything as perfect. Could you imagine a wezir in the presence of a sultan to say that something is wrong, even if he was allowed? Never! This is how people should behave towards each other, so how about towards Allah?

It quantifies in a perfect manner why free speech does not exist in islam.

Free speech requires a free mind.

A free mind is full of doubt and questions and inevitably the doubt that things could be better, that they are not perfect - something your religion is fundamentally against.
I hope you find a way to mitigate this philosophy at some point, but I'm not seeing it happening at all in the near future.

[objective-enquirer]

corb, on 16 June 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

It quantifies in a perfect manner why free speech does not exist in islam.

Free speech requires a free mind.

A free mind is full of doubt and questions and inevitably the doubt that things could be better, that they are not perfect - something your religion is fundamentally against.
I hope you find a way to mitigate this philosophy at some point, but I'm not seeing it happening at all in the near future.

dear corb, first of all, welcome to the forum. It is true that there are muslims who follow Islam as it is ought to be followed and there are those, perhaps, most, who do not follow it. However, Freedom of Speech is taught by the Qur'an before sending Adam (a) to earth.
The Quran says: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: I know what ye know not.And He taught Adam the nature of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the nature of these if ye are right? They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom.

Allah(S) says I am going to send a vicegerant upon Earth, and Angels reply to God are You going to send the one who is going to cause injustice and bloodshed on Earth...whilst WE the angels praise You, etc.


***do you not see freedom of speeech here? Angels voicing their opinion. The angels are questioning the decision of God to send mankind on earth. Allah Almighty did not punish them or admonish them for voicing their opinion but convinced them with argument and evidence to change their opinion. The court of God is more majestic than the court of a king yet the angels voiced their opinion. This story is not there without any purpose but amongst its lessons we have the lesson of voicing our opinion. If it could be done in the court of God then is there any greater authority?

This post has been edited by objective-enquirer: 16 June 2012 - 03:02 AM

[corb]

That is a convincing point for the most part.

But :

objective-enquirer, on 16 June 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us

Is it not saying the words of god are the absolute unquestionable truth ? Is it not possible to read that as a prohibition on building your own ethical views based on your own experience, and questioning religious authority ?


This is the problem with religions and holy texts in general - they leave much space for interpretation, like in this case where the actions contradict what is being said.

[Ashtari]

objective-enquirer, on 16 June 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Freedom of Speech is taught by the Qur'an before sending Adam (a) to earth.
The Quran says: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: I know what ye know not.And He taught Adam the nature of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the nature of these if ye are right? They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom.

Allah(S) says I am going to send a vicegerant upon Earth, and Angels reply to God are You going to send the one who is going to cause injustice and bloodshed on Earth...whilst WE the angels praise You, etc.


***do you not see freedom of speeech here? Angels voicing their opinion. The angels are questioning the decision of God to send mankind on earth. Allah Almighty did not punish them or admonish them for voicing their opinion but convinced them with argument and evidence to change their opinion. The court of God is more majestic than the court of a king yet the angels voiced their opinion. This story is not there without any purpose but amongst its lessons we have the lesson of voicing our opinion. If it could be done in the court of God then is there any greater authority?

That is an excellent inference Sayyidī. The Angels do not have free-will like us and run strictly on the inherent command of God. Therefore, can we naturally deduce that God Himself is implicitly commanding us to voice our opinions?

[Tahir-Riaz]

corb, on 16 June 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

This is the problem with religions and holy texts in general - they leave much space for interpretation, like in this case where the actions contradict what is being said.

When you don’t want to accept the logical reasoning of an argument then argue for a different interpretation.

Paradox of the Year:
Islam allows us to exercise Free Will; but there is no such thing as Free Speech in Islam.

For individuals lacking intellectual acuity
-Free Speech is an action of Free will

Ya Ali

[corb]

Tahir-Riaz, on 16 June 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

Paradox of the Year:
Islam allows us to exercise Free Will; but there is no such thing as Free Speech in Islam.

My personal observations make me believe the lack of free speech in Islam is perhaps not only caused by your religion but Asian culture in general - free speech is also a problem for the Indians, Chinese, Russians and so on. Certain individuals would of course try to use theological rhetoric to reinforce the lack of free speech, and this makes the problem worse because as you know muslims are very religious people, but the heart of the problem in my opinion lies elsewhere.




Free speech for instance is hard to implement in monarchies and dictatorships. For apparent reasons.

Democracy is the requirement for free speech, as you know Turkey which is the most democratic of the islamic countries also has the freest speech in the islamic world, not quite on the European level but getting there - free speech of course can not happen overnight and it took Turkey almost a 100 years to get where it is right now.

Does their religion hamper the transition to a full democracy and an absolutely free speech ? Perhaps it does a bit, but definitely not to the extent it does in other islamic counties.

[objective-enquirer]

I think, you are right in your observation that as the things stand today, there is more free speech in the West than in the East and it is also ture that it is due to democracy. However, firstly, About the verse, the point was that Angels were allowed to voice their opinion and were convinced through demonstartive means rather than force, etc. and after that process they Glorified God.

Now, when we look at the history of the West then it becomes clear that things have only changed when they distanced themselves from Christianity in governance and ethics in general whereas the opposite has happened with the Muslims. The golden period for us has been the example of the Prophet(s) and the Rashidun Caliphs. For example, a Jewish man took the Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib to court and won the case against him. Talking of the Jewish people, well, when in the middle ages when Jews were being persecuted and the Christians were throwing boling oil over them to kill them in the most horrific way, It was the muslims who treated them with respect and safe guarded their well being. Even some jews became ministers in the Muslim lands such as in Spain. During the Nazis killing of the Jews, it was the catholic Church that was in bed with the Nazis and son.

The point is that Historically West has been a far worse place for human rights than the Muslim world though no one calims to be an angel and there were also bad examples amongst mulims. For Free speech, well, there is no such thing as an absolute free speech, there are caveats. Just look the treatment of Muslims by the US and witch hunting of Muslims as well as the Mcarthy witch-hunt of the communists. Free speech is free speech so why is it that holocaust denial is a crime? It wrong to deny it but one should be able to express their opinion, dont you think?

We hope that muslims become democratic and the West stops aiding the dictators for its own political ends.

[corb]

I agree, the Christian Church has had it's fare share of initiating intolerance in the past and it is true - after the First and Second World Wars Europe had come to a point where it had to distance itself from the church and only use the Christian fate as a loose moral compass.

Should Muslims do the same ?
Considering some of the recent events in the world I would think maybe they should, religious extremism does exist in your countries, something I'm sure you will not deny - and I'm not only talking about terrorists, but also muslims forcefully converting people of other faiths to their own, the general stance on homosexuality, the sharia based penal system and so on, furthermore your religion is split into many not completely compatible schools of thought which creates friction in your countries and with your Islamic neighbors.

Is it even possible to reform your religion in a way it will be able to tolerate, other religions and believes - agnosticism and atheism for instance - and it's own facets and differing philosophies - sunni, shia and so on ? It won't be easy, that's for sure.

Of course to some extent this line of though comes from my agnostic upbringing and the overall european doubt that a religion and a democracy can coexist alongside in government, americans of course have a slightly different opinion at the moment.


But let's back to the main point, for the time being I believe taking down the totalitarians and corrupt governments in the middle east, preferably done by the people and without outside help should be more than enough to put you on the right path.

[objective-enquirer]

I respect your point of view and to some extent it may be justified. Long time ago an arab muslim scholar Mohammed Abdhuhu visited the west and on his return to Egypt he was interviewed about his impression. He said said that I saw many christians in the west but did not see christianity and in Egypt I see a lot of muslims but hardly see Islam. The point is that it is a simplistic explanation to explain all the problems of Muslims and others by blaming the religion though that is not the case. It is when polticians and dodgy scholars who manipulate the masses by exploiting religion for their own ends must share some blame. Seventy percent of population in Pakistan cannot read or write and hence it is easy to exploit people. It is not the fault of religion if a handful of people claiming to be from it, do things that are contrary to its teachings. You say 'forceful conversions', for example, but we find in the Qur'an that there is no compulsion in religion. If Islam had forced people to Islam like the spanish christians forced muslims to convert to christianity in the 16th century then India would have been a majority muslim country or all other places where muslims ruled. It is true that there may have been tiny minority of such cases but that is not Islam. Indonesia is the largest mulim country in terms of population but no muslims armies conquered it and forced people to Islam. It was the traders and merchants that went there and through their excellent moral character that eventually transformed the entire country to change their religion.

I think, we are all guilty of generalisations. Athiests generalise about theists and religious people generalise about other religions. It is like shifting the blame. The reality is that it is 'us' who for the sake of simple explanations paint 'the other' as evil and so on. the fact is that economics is a factor and the interference and double standards of 'the other' plays an important part with their unjust policies and this inturn provides an excuse for radicals of all shades religious or secular to exploit this for their own ends.