TO DEFEND OUR BELOVED PROPHET, LET US EXEMPLIFY HIS TRUE IDEALS SAY IMAMS
Following the shocking murders in Paris, condemned by Muslims all over the world, and subsequent moves to depict the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) once again,Imams from around the world have come together to issue the following advice to those concerned about the depiction.
1. For Muslims, love of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a NECESSARY part of our FAITH. He is dearer to us than our parents and children. We prefer him to our own self.
2. Accordingly we regret and are naturally hurt by the depiction of our Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace), a great personality held in high esteem by 1.8 billion Muslims and millions more, in such a manner.
3. Muslims do believe in freedom of speech. And they do respect the right for people to say what they believe to be correct. However, freedom of speech should not be translated in to a duty to offend. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. There are laws to protect the dignity and properties of people. We urge governments, civil society and our media to foster a culture of mutual respect and unity, not one of division and disdain.
4. Most Muslims will inevitably be hurt, offended and upset by the republication of the cartoons. But our reaction must be a reflection of the teachings of the gentle and merciful character of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Enduring patience, tolerance, gentleness and mercy as was the character of our beloved Prophet (peace and Blessings be upon him) is the best and immediate way to respond. With dignified nobility we must be restrained, as the Qur’an says “And when the ignorant speak to them, they say words of Peace.”
Our aim is to not, inadvertently, give the cartoons more prominence through our attention. Muslims must remain calm and peaceful in their speech and actions. Repel harm with goodness is the Qur’anic imperative and by which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived. If we feel strongly, the only course of action to us is with reasoned debate, civil activism and other legal avenues, God willing.
Second Amendment right to bear arms within the structures of federal and state laws
By: Shibli Zaman
If you are willing to forfeit your U.S. Constitutional rights in order to make those who discriminate against you feel more at ease, then you deserve their prejudice and you don’t deserve your Constitutional rights.
British arms sales to Israel face high court challenge
Leading UK law firm claims government’s failure to suspend existing export licences is illegal
By: Jamie Doward
The government faces being dragged into the high court over the sale of military hardware to Israel in an unprecedented legal move that puts the UK’s controversial export policy on a potential collision course with the EU.
Law firm Leigh Day, representing the Campaign Against Arms Trade(CAAT), has written to the business secretary, Vince Cable, claiming that the failure by the British government to suspend existing licences for the export of military components to Israel is unlawful as there is a risk that they may have been used in Gaza. It says that it has been instructed to seek a judicial review of the government’s reluctance to suspend licences unless it agrees to stop the export of the components.
US: Muslims sue government over being put on terrorist watchlist
A group of five Muslim American men included on the watchlist of suspected terrorists maintained by the United States government filed a federal complaint on Thursday this week contesting their placement.
“The federal government has unjustly and disproportionately targeted American Muslims by routinely adding their names to the Terrorist Screening Database without affording them their rights to due process,”Lena Masri, a staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a statement announcing the legal action. ”The lawsuit will challenge the government’s broad and unchecked power to secretly label individuals as ‘known or suspected terrorists’ without concrete facts, but based on only a vague standard of ‘reasonable suspicion.’”