The Muslim world smells of the memory of the last Messenger of God, Muhammad. There are lights in the streets. The buildings are lit up. Not only this, with the help of this lamp you can do wonders for your heart. How many, including the President of France, are deprived of this light?
If a Muslim citizen of France took any action, how did the entire Muslim Ummah become responsible for it? How did the President of France get the right to hurt the hearts of more than one and a half billion Muslims? Don’t they know that there is no absolute freedom in the world? If so, what is the justification for Tawan’s reaction? What did the French student do other than exercise his right to freedom?
You do not accept the argument that no one has the right to kill. Rightly so, but how did you get the right to show the heart of an innocent person? The reaction of the President of France is not the reaction of an individual. It will be considered the official position of a country. Just as France did not consider the words of the President of Turkey to be the words of an individual, to go to the position of a country and recall its ambassador.
The importance of Prophet Muhammad to Muslims is the same as that of Christ to the Christian world. His personality and attributes are the axis of love and devotion of more or less two billion people. Even on the scale of liberalism, no one has the right to insult an entity that is sacred to a group. By encouraging sketches, the French president has in fact supported the state in an immoral move.
This is not the first case in modern times. Such incidents have taken place before in countries like the United States, France, Denmark and Norway. But there is a nuclear difference between this incident and other incidents. The first incidents were individual. Governments did not support it. There were some governments that publicly condemned such incidents. The Prime Minister of New Zealand did a great job. Similarly, the Norwegian government has expressed dissatisfaction with such riots. The Muslim world has not reacted against these governments in a single sentence.
Now the situation is different. The president of a country has taken a stand and it is the responsibility of Muslim governments to respond. This reaction must be one that reflects Islamic morality on the one hand and is effective on the other. Along with France, other countries also received the message that such practices are not acceptable to us.
There are many common ways to express resentment at the diplomatic level. One of the ways in which Pakistan has reacted is to call Ambassador Kobla. One way is to cut off bilateral trade. The most effective may be the response at the OIC level. There is no doubt that it is effective. It is the moral duty of Muslim rulers to show religious sympathy on this occasion. Reacting to the Arab rulers is a religious duty. These are the ones who have been given the position of witness of truth by Allah Almighty. One form of martyrdom is that when it comes to defending the sanctity of religion, the Qur’an, or the last Messenger of God, let them stand up for it. The religion of Allah does not need anyone, but if one does not fulfill the obligation imposed by God, then he should be ready for accountability before Allah. When the Israelites did not keep their covenant with God, their fate is before us. This is also the law of Allah for the children of Ishmael.
Whatever the reaction of the Muslims, it should be within the limits set by Allah Almighty and in accordance with His religion. We cannot respond to abuse with abuse. We cannot kill anyone without the law. The model for us is the entity that was sent to fulfill the moral code. Adherents of such an entity cannot be inferior. Whatever our response, it should be in accordance with international agreements and diplomatic etiquette.
There is a lesson in this for the liberals as well. Liberalism is a champion of human freedom and rights. I often find that liberals have no balance when it comes to religion. They care about the sanctity and life of the person who is burning, but when it comes to the sanctity of an entity with which the emotions of millions of people are associated, their sensitivity towards them is not expressed. The French president calls himself a liberal, but the way he has stood up for rudeness in response to a few incidents is not in line with liberal values.
The biggest lesson is for Muslims themselves. To what extent have we fulfilled our responsibility to introduce the world to the One whom Allah has made a mercy for the worlds and whom we claim to believe in? How much effort have we put into making people like President Emmanuel Mekhwan know that the person being portrayed is a benefactor of all humanity? How much of our biography reflects the biography of a person who was a great example of morality?
At the moment, I have in front of me the first Presidential Award winning book on the biography of 2017, “The Biography of Syed Al-Barar”. Its author, Munira Ahmad Khalili, is a researcher and scholar, but to me he is like a big brother. His second book on biography, Takmeel Makarem Akhlaq, also won the award this year. He concludes his first book with a chapter on “Defending the Holy Prophet”.
See how Khalili points out the real problem. “One of the main reasons for the blasphemous waves in the non-Muslim world is that [we] have failed to tell the world that the Qur’an is not a book of Muslims, but a tool for all humanity.” There is guidance. Muhammad is not only our prophet, but a mercy for the whole universe