The massacre of a Muslim refugee teacher in France sparked a lot of controversy in the media and social media, and it is a controversy that went in various directions: political, cultural and religious.
The incident of murder;
Rather the slaughtering, which was carried out by an individual - whether he gave himself a fatwa or issued a fatwa to him by someone - opens the discussion on many issues, including, for example: the pattern of closed French secularism and its problems, the extent of its ability to open and accept diversity and pluralism, the issue of integration and the ability of Muslims to live in the light of cultures Contrary to their beliefs, the concept of freedom of expression and the difference in its value perspective, the management of religious, belief and social difference, the relationship between the jurisprudential heritage and the lived reality, especially in Europe, and ethics and its link to jurisprudence (we are facing an act of slaughter that is considered a legitimate act expressing jealousy against the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace), And the relationship between religious belief and respect for the law, the duties of a Muslim in non-Muslim countries, whether he is a citizen or a refugee, and so on.
This act could open the discussion on all these and other topics.
Because it has broader cultural, social and political contexts, whether at the local level (France) or at the level of the relationship between the religious text, history and reality, and therefore the focus on one of the previous topics is understandable but legitimate, and it is not possible to claim the priority of one topic over another from an intellectual and methodological point of view. ;
Unless we are going to follow the method of politicizing actions, meaning that a specific incident is employed to serve general political goals that are not related to the incident itself or are not the only factor in it, or to support general ideas about Islamic terrorism or France's colonialism and its hostility to religion.
Act has its own ethics, while the event has a different discussion as a novel that can be criticized, analyzed and compared with other narratives (if any), then analyzed from its various aspects, and contemplated its near and distant causes, and the factors that contribute to its making.
To clarify the previous idea, I propose here to distinguish between action and event, as action and its evaluations are concerned with the fields of jurisprudence and ethics from the standard standpoint.
Regardless of the details of the event and its narrations, this distinction between action and event relates to the necessary distinction - recognized in the fields of jurisprudence and ethics - between the abstract act (rulings and absolute principles about time, place and people) and the specific act (the fatwa pertaining to the action of a specific person in a specific time and place), and separates There is a wide distance between the abstract verb and the specific verb, first from ijtihad and reasoning, and secondly from the necessary procedures in the field of application.
These procedures relate to the actions of individuals who bear responsibility for their actions on the one hand, and the function of law on the other hand, who has the right to punish and criminalize.
Act has its own ethics, and the event has a different discussion as a novel that can be criticized, analyzed and compared to other narratives (if any), then analyzed from its various aspects, and contemplated its near and distant causes, and the factors that contribute to its making.
Consider, for example, the attempts to question the killer / perpetrator by claiming that the event is a French intelligence industry, or that which seeks contextual justifications for the action related to social marginalization and integration problems, or to go further by saying - for example - that listening to the French version of the event is subject to the logic of force .
These are only attempts to justify what happened.
Because in the end it skips over the action itself and makes it marginal in favor of an event and narrative greater than it.
On the other hand, on the French side, there is an attempt to put Islam as a religion or as "Islamism" as a movement in the context of the event, and an attempt to place a criminal event in the context of "terrorism";
So that it turns into a composite between what is political and security.
This is nothing more than an attempt to invest in political action, which is transformed into an occasion to discriminate against a religion or a group of society by jumping from the level of an action carried out by a specific individual to the level of a general event in which groups, religions and culture are included as a whole, and between these two positions on both sides we will be facing fueling This tension continues, and in my opinion is due to the confusion between action and action.
The event is characterized by complexity and structure, and the context is an essential part of it, and dealing with it is an attempt to understand and explain first, and to develop policies that address its roots, besiege it or prevent its recurrence, and define responsibilities for its causes in a broader framework than mere direct action and actor.
As for the action, it has its own ethics, and it is due to its standard evaluation and delving into the necessary explanations for classifying it as a valid or invalid action.
Also, condemning the act of murder - for example - does not mean accepting the act of caricatures or admitting the correctness of displaying them in an educational context.
Because each action has its own evaluation, and error does not justify a mistake even if it leads to it, and emotions are not a moral justification for making an invalid act valid.
The problem here is that those who praise the act of killing see in it the only appropriate act to express their belief in condemning the display of cartoons, and some of them may have gone to justify the killing by saying that the killing is a reaction to a provocation.
In an effort to alleviate the conviction of the murder itself.
Supporters of murder - as the ultimate penalty for the cartoons or their display - condone that doing so would reopen the debate on two central matters here:
(1) The first question:
What are the actions that require killing?
What is the concept of offense here?
What if we disagree in deciding what is an offense?
For example, some details of the French incident refer to the fact that the intent to offend the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, does not exist.
Because it comes in an interpretive context about (freedom of expression), and this confirms that the teacher himself asked the Muslim students to leave the hall so that their feelings would not be hurt. In the absence of the intention to offend, the act turns into what the jurists express as a "author of interpretation", then the presentation of the drawings may be possible There are different meanings, some of which also do not include offense if it is aimed at explaining the sensitivities of such drawings and their effect on the difference in the value perspective about what we call freedom of expression and the difference between them, and between insulting beliefs and symbols, and in this case it will apply to the act of displaying the rule that the carrier of disbelief is not an infidel, and in all Conditions We do not have any details about this context until we can judge it theoretically, regardless of the motives of the killer and his violation of the law and the soul of others.
(2) And the second question:
Who rules in such incidents?
What is the reference in it?
Are they left to the individuals and their choices and emotions, and then the law, society and the state become meaningless?
Does the individual (whether a citizen or non-citizen) have the right to breach his legal obligations that he has recognized according to his nationality or according to the visa with which he entered a country?
Discussion of the act and its ethics does not stop at the limits of evaluating the act of slaughter that occurred and ended;
To determine a position on it after its occurrence, but also includes people's perceptions of this act, their references in its evaluation, and their explanations for it, and specifically addressing those who praise this act and classify it as a heroic act.
Because glorifying the act and giving it religious and moral legitimacy will encourage its repetition, and this will leave its mark on many of the issues with which I opened my article here.
The Al-Azhar Foundation, the International Union of Muslim Scholars and others condemned that act and considered it a forbidden crime, and some of them included the condemnation of the cartoons, which refer to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, but what is striking is that these convictions come in the form of statements, not an authentic fatwa clarifying its documents. And her arguments based on it
It must be recalled here that an act or praise for it is preceded by a belief unless it was a frivolous act.
Praise the act of slaughter means that the act can be repeated if the appropriate context is provided for it.
This is another important difference that clarifies the importance of the jurisprudential and ethical treatment of action, and that it is not permissible to overlook it or claim that it is marginal.
Because it is related to the ethics of actions and what people consider a valid or invalid act, and from here the jurists have agreed that it is not permissible for a Muslim to take an action (even if he disagrees about it) unless he clearly believes in it, and if he does what he does without doubting its permissibility and sanctity, he is sinning .
Thus it becomes clear that the evaluation of action has wide social, legal, ethical and religious dimensions and implications, far from the emotions and attempts at politicization and counter-politicization.
What gives the jurisprudential and moral aspects of importance in this incident is the presence of two positions: the first is supportive of the incident of slaughter, and the other is tolerant of the act or understanding it at the very least.
These two positions refer to a belief - prevalent among some Muslims - that the murderer had applied an Islamic ruling that must be implemented.
To support Islam and its Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and perhaps taking this with others in formulas such as considering it an event that shows the pride of a Muslim and cures the issuance of a people of believers, or that it is steadfastness and courage in a time of persecution and disregard for Muslims, etc., and many of these fans are content with the role of observer from afar as long as It will only cost them emotions and Facebook comments.
On the other hand, the Al-Azhar Foundation and the International Union of Muslim Scholars and others condemned that act and considered it a forbidden crime, and some of them included the condemnation of the cartoons, which refer to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, but what is striking is that these convictions come in the form of statements, not a fatwa An authentic document that clarifies its documents and the arguments on which it is based, and with it it justifies its position, which it may consider an axiomatic moral and humanitarian stance, and it does not clarify its position on the jurisprudential tradition at this point, and this cannot be ignored, and I do not know a fatwa side that supported the action or evidenced it in jurisprudence.
It is paradoxical that support for the act of murder and its inference to legitimize it occurred on the part of some social media audience, whether by cutting and pasting prophetic hadiths and historical news supporting the death penalty for whoever insults the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, or by considering that the ruling on murder is the rule of Islam that does not Accept debate;
Because it is like Islamic axioms that express the love and jealousy of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.
Hence, any discussion of this ruling or that act reflects - in their claim - lack of jealousy against the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.
This popular use of the texts of hadith and jurisprudence reflects part of the problem in exchange for official authorities to issue data. The contemporary archaeological trend that Sheikh Nasser al-Din al-Albani laid its foundations - may God have mercy on him - contributed to the prevalence of this technical tendency in constructing rulings, a tendency based on selectivity and formalism of Without trying to understand and explain, and assume that the texts are clear by themselves, and we have only to apply them, as contemporary jihadism has contributed to the revival of the concepts of the ancient world (such as the abode of infidelity and the house of Islam) and put them into practice by certain individuals and organizations.
To support the murder of the French teacher with the approach of violent movements in that it triumphs for the judgment of individuals and their actions in matters related to power and the judiciary, and then it supports the departure from the logic of the group, the state and the law;
Just for individual or organizational choice;
Although the jurists agreed that such rulings - if proven - then they refer to the fatwa from the religious point of view, and to the judiciary from the operational side
The jurisprudential tradition in this matter and others cannot be ignored, for the issue needs to be addressed that interacts with the problems of contemporary reality on the one hand, and provides a coherent understanding of the inherited jurisprudence on the other hand, and is aware of the changes in the context of jurisprudence in classical times and the context of the modern state on a third hand, so that is possible, we need Beyond just standing at a hadith here or a trace there, especially since there are contradictory hadiths and facts, some of which refer to the punishment for murder, and some refer to pardon and neglect of the insult, and the jurists have not denied the validity of these hadiths and facts.
But they went into their interpretations, and if some of us were to select hadiths of pardon, others had chosen hadiths of murder and we would go into a vicious circle.
Those who follow the evidences of al-Fasbakah and others about the killing of the French teacher, it is imagined that Muslims should pursue any attempt to offend or diminish the Prophet of Islam - may God bless him and grant him peace - on the face of the globe, and implement the ruling of murder regardless of any law or consideration, and it seems to him that Muslims They all sin if they do not;
Although those who review books of jurisprudence and the facts of history find the issue more complex than these perceptions that are partial and reductive, in addition to that the provisions of Sharia do not bind non-Muslims and those who are subject to their laws, and it is ironic that there is agreement - in terms of jurisprudence - that the ruling of insulting the Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace Like the ruling of insulting the other prophets, if the matter is due to a jurisprudential ruling - as they claim - then why is insulting the other prophets ignored?
Supporting the murder of the French teacher meets with the approach of violent movements in that it triumphs for the judgment of individuals and their actions in matters related to power and the judiciary, and then it supports the departure from the logic of the group, the state and the law;
Just for individual or organizational choice;
Although the jurists agreed that such rulings - if proven - then they refer to the fatwa from the religious point of view, and to the judiciary from the executive side. That is why Ibn Taymiyyah stated in his introduction to the book “Al-Sarim Al-Rasim Al-Rasim Al-Rasul Al-Rasul Al-Rasul” that “what is meant here is an explanation of the Shari’a ruling that fatwas issued. The Mufti and the judge shall order it. "
Because the specific ruling must be proven by a fatwa and establish it with evidence that the judge decides on those who bind him, and that is why we found that the issue of insulting the Messenger - may God bless him and grant him peace - is classified in the books of fiqh within chapters related to issues of blood, borders, apostasy, breach of the covenant and the tribute, which means that they are issues The fatwa (merely stating the legal opinion) and the judiciary (implementing the ruling and enforcing it), and it is not a matter of individuals, nor is it the subject of public viewpoints, and the religious and political may combine in it according to the perpetrator and place of action.
The perpetrator here and his supporter have transformed judgment and implementation into individual choices.
Under the pretext of the absence of the Qaem-imam and the executor of his law, who believe it must be established regardless of the jurisdiction, and this is the approach of ISIS and the jihadists in general.
This distinction between action and event helps us to compositional awareness and transcend the prevailing populism, for actions such as offense, murder, support for murder with old jurisprudential justifications or modern ideas, condemning the killer's religion or society and stigmatizing it as terrorism ... must be dealt with with precision and fragmentation and not put in one basket;
Because one act of it does not justify the other action, and a mistake does not justify a mistake.
Because in this case we will be plunged into a cycle of cyclical errors, and the ethical paradigm will lose its standard of weighing actions.
This article served as a theoretical introduction to discuss the jurisprudential perceptions about the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and how we can understand them. This is what I will devote to another article, God Almighty’s will.