February 23, 2014
FAKE Muslims are as common (or more) than FAKE Hindus.
Islam stood for ABSOLUTE freedom of speech, and it was only some POLITICIANS of Islam (who had NOTHING to with Mohammed or even the Hadiths) who introduced sanctions against those who may criticise the Prophet.
These were FAKE Muslims, who had not either understood Mohammed nor bothered to even abide by his lessons to the barbarian tribes who lived in the deserts of Arabia.
I quote Maulana Wahiduddin Khan – whose talk in February 2012 I attended, and who has written CLEARLY against the FAKE MUSLIMS who are destroying freedoms across the world.
I quote again:
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
The Maulana is a man of peace and liberty, widely recognised by many for his contributions. Fortunately, his work is now available FREE OF COST, online.
His articles. I've picked this article that he published in India Today last year.
Blasphemy is in the news. According to the general perception, Islam prescribes capital punishment to a person who indulges in blasphemy, that is using profane language against the Prophet of Islam. But this concept of blasphemy is completely alien to the original teachings of Islam. Before the advent of Islam, difference of belief was also a punishable act. They used to punish on matters of belief just as on matters of social crime. This old practice is called religious persecution in history. Islam abolished this practice. The Prophet of Islam declared that personal belief is a subject of discussion and persuasion rather than of legal punishment.However, if non-believers use profane language against the Prophet, Muslims are directed not to react. They have only two opportunities, either to simply ignore it or to respond on equal basis, that is, issuing a statement in return for a statement. The Quran says: “The recompense of an ill-deed is an ill the like thereof (42:40).” According to this injunction, reaction must be on an equal basis, that is, word in return for word, statement in return for statement, book in return for book.If you go through the Quran and Hadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet of Islam), the only two authentic sources of Islam, you will find that there is not a single Quranic verse or Hadith that gives this kind of injunction which says: “Man shatama nabiyakum faqtuluhu (Kill the person who commits blasphemy against the Prophet)".Such an injunction was added in the Islamic law only during the Abbasid caliphate, about 150 years after the death (632AD) of the Prophet. Although the majority of the Fuqaha (Muslim Jurists) of this period accepted the law, it was clearly an innovation which is not acceptable in Islam.According to a well-known hadith, there are three authentic periods of the Islamic history: the period of the Prophet, the period of Sahaba (companions of the Prophet), and the period of Tabien (companions of the companions). It is a fact that all the Fuqaha belonged to the Abbasid period which came after these authentic periods. According to a hadith, the Prophet of Islam has said: “I have left behind for you thaqalain, two authentic sources of Islam: the Book of God, and the sunnah of the Prophet. You will not astray till you adhere to these authentic sources.” (Mu’atta Malik, Hadith No.1661). And those additions made by the Muslims Jurists of the later history are certainly not a part of the authentic sources.According to this Islamic injunction, if there is a person who commits blasphemy, then the responsibility of Muslims is to meet him and persuade him and to remove his misunderstanding by peaceful means and if supposing he fails to understand then Muslims are left only with one option, that is to pray for him.There is ample evidence that tells us what to do in cases. For example, once when Prophet was in Mecca, one idol worshipper came to him and told him face to face, “Muzammaman abaina (O Muhammad you are a condemned person).” The Prophet simply smiled. This smile was a kind of moral response and was bound to hit his conscience. He fell into introspection. And after some time he accepted him as the Prophet and become one of his followers.Islam greatly believes in freedom of expression. I would like to say that the secular law of India in this context is more 'Islamic' than the so-called Islamic law of Pakistan.
(A picture I took at the talk in February 2012).
Let there be no compulsion in religion (2:256)
Said (Noah): O my people – what do you think? If ( it be true that) I am taking my stand on a clear evidence from my Lord . . . to which you have remained blind, can we force it on you even though it is hateful to you? (11:28)
And so (O Prophet) exhort them; your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel (88:21-22).
If then they run away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (42:28)
Whether We shall show thee (within thy life-time) part of what we promised them or take to ourselves thy soul (before it is all accomplished),- thy duty is to make (the Message) reach them: it is our part to call them to account. (13:40)
And to recite the Qur’an. And whoso goeth right, goeth right only for (the good of) his own soul; and as for him who goeth astray – (Unto him) say: Lo! I am only a warner.(27:92)
Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it) (18:29)
Verse 2:256 is indeed the Magna Carta of religious freedom. Muslims believe that a religious belief is not meaningful if it does not come through personal conviction, contemplation and a conscious effort to love and obey Allah [God]. The general message is exhorting and sincerely advising instead of using coercion. In the face of such clear verses concerning religious freedom and also the Sunnah [example] of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), it is surprising that some Muslims have no qualms in demanding execution of any Muslim who is perceived to leave Islam. This appears to be based on a couple of ahadith [sayings attributed to the Holy Prophet]. These ahadith must be seen in the light of the cited verses and the general dealing of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). The Quran talks about apostasy at least twenty times but does not mention any worldly punishment. The only warning given is about the consequence in the life here after.