Islamic Tradition Dealing with Insults to the Prophet

Islam: Only Cowards Stone People to Death: An Islamic Religious Ritual
by Phyllis Chesler
What does it mean when a mob of men, numbering anywhere from 50 to 200, stone a female child to death — as happened in October of 2008 in Somalia? That poor soul was not only a 13-year-old child, she had also just been raped. Indeed, that was her sole “ crime ” and the reason for her torture-execution. She was forced into a hole and buried nearly up to her neck. She took a long time to die and kept crying out for her life. In addition to the 50 active stoners, 1000 more men cheered them on.
What does this tell us?
First, that barbarians are mainly cowards who do not view themselves as responsible for their actions. Everyone is the murderer and therefore, no one is the murderer. The group both absorbs and atones for any possible guilt or hesitation that even one individual might have felt. However, as we shall see, there is also another way of looking at this.
For a culture presumably so concerned with “honor,” so consumed with concepts of responsibility towards the family, clan, or “ummah” (Muslim people), those who stone a living being to death utterly shrink from any individual responsibility for carrying out their bloody deeds. Entire families become conspirators in an honor killing; village and religious councils collaborate to issue a death sentence; Muslim men sexually harass women in the streets (of Egypt) — and in large mosque-inflamed mobs (in Algeria).
In terms of stoning, which is primarily a contemporary Muslim-only custom, not only do cowardly men hide behind each other, clearly they lack the ability to act as individuals. That power is reserved for one man, one leader, one ruling cabal only. In Afghanistan, the Taliban hooligans threw the first stones.
This tells us something else that is important. The need for a mob is, in a sense, proof that the individuals who compose it are all being held hostage to the will of the psychopathic criminals who rule them. Oppose them, and you yourself might be stoned to death. Hostage-mobs also share the “guilt,” or rather, their leaders’ point of view. The leaders cannot be held accountable for their actions either — everyone did it.
In addition, sharing a so-called Muslim sinner’s blood, especially female blood, is yet another way to forge a blood-brotherhood that is based on male supremacism.
Stoning is practiced in contemporary Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Nigeria. In 2006, a poll conducted in “moderate” Indonesia found that 50% of Muslims there supported stoning in cases of adultery, however it is defined. Adultery might include: a married woman who is raped by a stranger, or a woman promised in marriage to one man but who chooses another. This is precisely what happened in the recent case in Afghanistan.
The Grand Torturer Khomeini brought stoning back to Iran. Uneducated mullahs in the provinces rather liked it. They also liked drugs, drug trafficking, forcing girls into prostitution and then jailing or hanging them for it; temporary “marriages”; forced veiling, etc. Although stoning is now under legal review in Iran, to date, eight men and three women await stoning execution.
In Iran, one woman, accused of adultery, was sentenced to be lashed 99 times — and then sentenced to be stoned to death. Due to an international campaign and due to the hard work of Iranian dissidents, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s sentence was delayed. But she was lashed 99 times and her teenage son was forced to witness her helplessness, humiliation, and torture — and, in a sense, forced to both share these emotions, second-hand with his mother. Her son’s presence before her nakedness was meant to shame them both and challenged him to become a very hard man as a way of avoiding an eventual nervous breakdown.
I am not sure whether there is any connection, but think about this. When Muslims go on pilgrimage to Mecca, part of their three day ritual includes stoning “The Devil.” Large groups literally throw stones at giant concrete pillars. This suggests that stoning is a Muslim religious ritual, not a tribal custom. Therefore, stoning a living human being is not only an act of human sacrifice — it is a classic religious ritual meant to glorify the stoners’ God.
A little like jihad if you ask me.

This isn't an Islamic State so have it. Like others said no one even knowns what he looks like. I say use a image of Mohammad Ali, that way you can claim it wasn't "the" Mohammad. This is a secular country to heck with Christianity,Islam,Mormonism,Buddhism you name it, if they don't like something then don't watch it. I hate the KKK for example but I don't think it should be banned , I just avoid and ignore it. nuff said

I understand that depicting Muhammad is offensive to the members of the Islam religion . I have heard the claim that Islam is about non-violence i.e. peace (I also heard such claims about Christianity and Judaism as well). So, if a member of Islam responses violently towards a person who depicts Muhammed, is that person being moral inconsistent with Islam?

To state my position: I see prohibition on free thinking as being unacceptable. I understand the US and Europe also have prohibition against free thought and I don't support such measures. Free thought and sharing of ideas is important for advancement of man and see any prohibition against it as unnecessary. As awful as depiction of Muhammad may be to some people, I feel that I have support people right to do it. As the saying goes, "I may not like what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

If you think we should restrict anyone from posting pictures of Muhammad, then you are in opposition to what you just said. There must not be any restriction against posting pictures of Muhammad irrespective of provocation or insult.

It must give pleasure to some folks to insult and offend one's religion . Perhaps because they have unresolved anger issues and it's a way to express anger and hopefully hurt someone even if not the actual source of their anger.

Most Muslims are devout in their religion and they might be hurt even by this debate. I believe religion is covered under the hate crimes law . I'm not a Muslim, but I am of another religion that is often offended and some Muslim clerics have come to our defense. I believe it is sad to have anger rather than the comfort of faith regardless of the religion.

I fully respect the rights of Muslims to practice their religions.

But why should the rest of us be forced to obey and practice the tenets of Islam? Or Christianity, or Judaism for that matter?

Muslims would not be happy being forced to obey the laws of other religions. No one has a right not to be offended, period.

Since nobody knows what Mohammad looked like it is impossible to post an image of him. Doesn't that make this discussion a moot point.

There are many recorded instances of Mohamed ordering the execution of those that insulted him. A few include: The poetess Asmā bint Marwān who wrote mocking poems about Mohamed and the elderly poet Abu Afak and the poet Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf who both criticized Mohamed in their poems. Abu Jahl was an old enemy of Mohamed, his and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf's heads were brought to Mohamed as a gifts. The poet Nadr laughed at Mohamed while he recited his revelations and Mohamed had him killed. When Mohamed was about to kill the poet Uqba for throwing garbage at him during a speech. Uqba begged the question: "who will take care of my children? and Mohamed answered "Hell!" Furthermore when a blind man killed a slave for talking bad about Mohamed, and another man killed a Jewish woman for the same, Mohamed declared that neither men should be punished for these murders.

Many fundamentalist Muslim apologist will say that these and many other ancient accounts are not reliable, but it's hard to believe that ALL are false when there are so many, and with many other accounts making reference to them in Ahadith and Qur'an.

And finally, it is obvious that a sizable number of fundamentalist muslims believe in these accounts, know them to be true and use them as a guide for their own behavior. Hence they burn embassies, riots, murder, etc, for as minor an insult as cartoons.

It is intersting to see that there are so many things going on in the world from 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem without end together with all the hungry people with not even a drop of water or a hand full of food to eat and the media choose to peruse pictures of A prophet because his rain ended wars and people where safe fed and thrived to educate them selves and others and spreed the words of Allah to all those who listened. It is obvious that the reason behind this propaganda is to turn heads away from doing anything about the wars and hunger. Wise up media get your heads in the right direction and leave prophets of all religions out of your ridicule.

Either you beleive in freedom of expression, or you don't. Where in the Quran does it say that no images of the Prophet Muhammad are to be published? And why should non-Muslims be bound by Islamic laws? Insisting that no images of Muhammad be allowed in secular media is a good way to make Islam look idiotic!