After decades of apathy we are finally seeing Muslims mobilizing and agitating against France for their continued anti-Muslim policies.
Something that many of us have been calling for years.
But these calls for boycott is not sitting well with some (or many) self-professed advocates of Laïcité (Secularism) and even some Muslims.
Here is a summary of the contentions against boycott making rounds online.
In this first part we will discuss the following issues.
The problem with this contention two fold.
For one it ignores the Post-Hijra incidents where there is proof that neither the Prophet (ﷺ) or his Sahabi (رضي الله عنهم) tolerated blasphemy. There was a Propaganda war and even executions.
So is this a contradiction or are Muslims being disingenuous?
The issue is simple. It depends on context. But as a general rule it was firmly established that blasphemy against the Prophet (ﷺ) is to be categorically opposed whenever and wherever possible. Advocates of tolerating blasphemy also ignore the legal aspect of the issue where some Fuqaha don’t even accept the repentance of the blasphemer.
Raḍī Uddīn al-Sarakhsī (d. before 616/1219) is reported to have said:
من شتم النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم وأهانه أو عابه فى أمور دينه أو شخصه أو فى وصف من أوصاف ذاته سواء كان الشاتم من أمته أو غيره, و سواء كان من أهل الكتاب أو غيره, ذمياً كان أو حربياً, سواء كان الشتم أو الأهانة والعيب صادرا عنه عمداً أو قصداً أو سهواً أو غفلة أو هزلاً فقد كفر خلوداً بحيث إن تاب لم يقبل توبته ابداً لا عند الله ولا عندالناس, وحكمه فى الشريعة المطهرة عند متأخرين المجتهدين اجماعاً وعند أكثر المتقدمين القتل قطعاً
“The one who cursed the Prophet (ﷺ) or insulted him or slandered his personality, or criticised any of his attributes and whether this act is deliberate or otherwise and even if done jokingly the blasphemer, whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim, whether he is from the People of the Book or not, whether he is from the people of covenant (dhimmī) or a belligerent (ḥarbī), he has committed disbelief for good in a way that his repentance shall not be accepted either by Allah or by the people.In Shari’ah the punishment for such a person, according to majority of the early and consensus of the later scholars is clearly death.” (1)
Here we have a Hanafi scholar arguing that a blasphemer is to be executed regardless of whether he is Muslim or not. And the Hanafi school is supposed to be the far more tolerant and rational school of thought than their imagined Wahhabi counterparts. While this opinion is debatable, it is within the grounds of legitimate Ijtihad. Fuqaha did not label one another Khariji or Wahhabi for simply holding these opinions. So why should we disparage one another for adhering to these Ijtihad?
To be clear, this is not an endorsement for vigilante crimes. These laws are to be executed within a judicial system. Not by Muslims on an individual level.
The concern regarding vigilante violence(or terrorism) as a response to blasphemy is a legitimate one. At least, on the surface it appears to be so.
Muslims should not take laws into their own hands and should follow due process no matter how the disbelievers act. We do not tolerate blasphemy, however we should not resort to vigilantism or terrorism no matter how deceitful and tyrannical disbelievers are.
But the idea that blasphemy should be unconditionally tolerated is a baseless notion.
Second it plays into the narrative of Good Muslim and Bad Muslim dichotomy. In this instance the “Good Muslims” are expected to unconditionally tolerate all kinds of insults against our beloved Prophet(ﷺ). Someone we revere more than our parents. Those of us that don’t are “Bad Muslims”. Or in some cases, we are not even Muslims according to French liberals who have mastered the Islamic Aqeedah overnight.
Humor aside, the fact of the matter is Muslims do tolerate blasphemy and polemics against their religion and do not resort to violence. There are over 1.6 billion of us. If even 10 percent of us were really that sensitive to blasphemy, the vigilante attacks would be a weekly occurrence.
The overwhelming majority of us condemn vigilantism, violence and terrorism. Our sister Heraa Hashmi from Traversing Tradition compiled a 712 page document which should be more than enough to prove that Muslims by default do not endorse terrorism. (2)
But even then that is not enough to prove that Muslims don’t condone terrorism.
It should be obvious that online hate mobs and trolls do not define or represent the collective Muslim opinion. If you are going to argue that the Western Nations as a whole cannot be held accountable for the violence of the “lone-wolves” and the extremist rhetoric of the Right Wing Forums and Platforms, then why should Muslims be held accountable for the extremism of the few?
Every flock has their own black sheep. If someone goes to any right wing rally in any Western country and they keep insulting figures or symbols that are revered by them, would it be tolerated?
If someone publicly promotes Anti-Semitic cartoons, will it be tolerated?
Do even civilized Westerners tolerate blasphemy?
Does France itself really tolerate blasphemy against symbols it holds sacred?
Something that many of us have been calling for years.
But these calls for boycott is not sitting well with some (or many) self-professed advocates of Laïcité (Secularism) and even some Muslims.
Here is a summary of the contentions against boycott making rounds online.
- The Prophet (ﷺ) tolerated blasphemy. Muslims who are protesting against blasphemy are radical extremists and terrorists. Or enabling them.
- Muslim nations should civilize themselves first before lecturing a Modern Nation like France which promotes Free Speech.
- Boycotting France is Hypocrisy. What about the Uyghurs?
- Boycotts are not effective.
- What about offensive verses in the Quran?
In this first part we will discuss the following issues.
- Are Muslims unIslamic in their intolerance towards blasphemy?
- Does France really promote Free Speech?
Is tolerating blasphemy Sunnah?
Some Makkan era incidents are cited to prove that the Prophet (ﷺ) tolerated blasphemy. The non-legal crux of the argument is that if we do not promote freedom of speech or tolerance against blasphemy it will lead to extremism and vigilante violence.The problem with this contention two fold.
For one it ignores the Post-Hijra incidents where there is proof that neither the Prophet (ﷺ) or his Sahabi (رضي الله عنهم) tolerated blasphemy. There was a Propaganda war and even executions.
So is this a contradiction or are Muslims being disingenuous?
The issue is simple. It depends on context. But as a general rule it was firmly established that blasphemy against the Prophet (ﷺ) is to be categorically opposed whenever and wherever possible. Advocates of tolerating blasphemy also ignore the legal aspect of the issue where some Fuqaha don’t even accept the repentance of the blasphemer.
Raḍī Uddīn al-Sarakhsī (d. before 616/1219) is reported to have said:
من شتم النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم وأهانه أو عابه فى أمور دينه أو شخصه أو فى وصف من أوصاف ذاته سواء كان الشاتم من أمته أو غيره, و سواء كان من أهل الكتاب أو غيره, ذمياً كان أو حربياً, سواء كان الشتم أو الأهانة والعيب صادرا عنه عمداً أو قصداً أو سهواً أو غفلة أو هزلاً فقد كفر خلوداً بحيث إن تاب لم يقبل توبته ابداً لا عند الله ولا عندالناس, وحكمه فى الشريعة المطهرة عند متأخرين المجتهدين اجماعاً وعند أكثر المتقدمين القتل قطعاً
“The one who cursed the Prophet (ﷺ) or insulted him or slandered his personality, or criticised any of his attributes and whether this act is deliberate or otherwise and even if done jokingly the blasphemer, whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim, whether he is from the People of the Book or not, whether he is from the people of covenant (dhimmī) or a belligerent (ḥarbī), he has committed disbelief for good in a way that his repentance shall not be accepted either by Allah or by the people.In Shari’ah the punishment for such a person, according to majority of the early and consensus of the later scholars is clearly death.” (1)
Here we have a Hanafi scholar arguing that a blasphemer is to be executed regardless of whether he is Muslim or not. And the Hanafi school is supposed to be the far more tolerant and rational school of thought than their imagined Wahhabi counterparts. While this opinion is debatable, it is within the grounds of legitimate Ijtihad. Fuqaha did not label one another Khariji or Wahhabi for simply holding these opinions. So why should we disparage one another for adhering to these Ijtihad?
To be clear, this is not an endorsement for vigilante crimes. These laws are to be executed within a judicial system. Not by Muslims on an individual level.
The concern regarding vigilante violence(or terrorism) as a response to blasphemy is a legitimate one. At least, on the surface it appears to be so.
Muslims should not take laws into their own hands and should follow due process no matter how the disbelievers act. We do not tolerate blasphemy, however we should not resort to vigilantism or terrorism no matter how deceitful and tyrannical disbelievers are.
But the idea that blasphemy should be unconditionally tolerated is a baseless notion.
Second it plays into the narrative of Good Muslim and Bad Muslim dichotomy. In this instance the “Good Muslims” are expected to unconditionally tolerate all kinds of insults against our beloved Prophet(ﷺ). Someone we revere more than our parents. Those of us that don’t are “Bad Muslims”. Or in some cases, we are not even Muslims according to French liberals who have mastered the Islamic Aqeedah overnight.
Humor aside, the fact of the matter is Muslims do tolerate blasphemy and polemics against their religion and do not resort to violence. There are over 1.6 billion of us. If even 10 percent of us were really that sensitive to blasphemy, the vigilante attacks would be a weekly occurrence.
The overwhelming majority of us condemn vigilantism, violence and terrorism. Our sister Heraa Hashmi from Traversing Tradition compiled a 712 page document which should be more than enough to prove that Muslims by default do not endorse terrorism. (2)
But even then that is not enough to prove that Muslims don’t condone terrorism.
It should be obvious that online hate mobs and trolls do not define or represent the collective Muslim opinion. If you are going to argue that the Western Nations as a whole cannot be held accountable for the violence of the “lone-wolves” and the extremist rhetoric of the Right Wing Forums and Platforms, then why should Muslims be held accountable for the extremism of the few?
Every flock has their own black sheep. If someone goes to any right wing rally in any Western country and they keep insulting figures or symbols that are revered by them, would it be tolerated?
If someone publicly promotes Anti-Semitic cartoons, will it be tolerated?
Do even civilized Westerners tolerate blasphemy?
Does France itself really tolerate blasphemy against symbols it holds sacred?