This is being widely reported — as here — as the justice minister saying that he would jail Muhammad. That could indeed be what he meant. However, it is reported elsewhere that he said he would jail anyone who does wrong, “even if it’s a prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him.” That report continues by saying that he was “using the Islamic saying of reverence spoken by Muslims only when referring to the Prophet Mohammad.” That is actually not true. Muslims are supposed to say “peace be upon him” after uttering the name of any prophet, not just Muhammad. So I tend to think al-Zind was speaking generally of any prophet, not singling out Muhammad. In any case, whatever he meant, the hysterical rage that has greeted his words has not only cost him his job, but it endangers his life. In Egypt, even post-Muslim Brotherhood, blasphemy is a very serious matter.
“Egyptian justice minister fired after saying he would jail the Prophet Muhammad,” by Amro Hassan, Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2016:
Egypt’s Justice Minister Ahmed al-Zind was removed from his position on Sunday after he said that even the Prophet Muhammad would be jailed if he broke the law.
In response to a question about imprisoning journalists, Al-Zind told an Egyptian private satellite TV channel on Friday that he “will jail anyone who does wrong, even the Prophet [Muhammad], peace be upon him, God forbid.”
The former head of Egypt’s Judges’ Club has been under fire since then, with members of parliament, talk show hosts and social media users all angrily calling for his dismissal.
An Arabic language hashtag demanding the trial of Al-Zind became one of Egypt’s top trending topics on Twitter….

gravenimage says
Oh, I doubt it.
I imagine Ahmed Al-Zind was just trying to sound especially zealous in enforcing the law–a version of “I’ll jail anyone who breaks the law–no matter who it is!”.
But even in “moderate” Egypt, touchy Islam can turn on anyone who appears to be guilty of “blasphemy”–no matter how strained.
Wellington says
So, what is the counter argument here? Is it that Mohammed could break the law but should still not be jailed because he is the Model Man, in essence above the law, or is it that Mohammed is incapable of breaking the law and thus the comment is without legal significance because it is moot, or is it because whatever Mohammed would do, even though contravening an existing law, would serve as ipso facto evidence of the existing law being abrogated (after all, abrogation is a “big thing” in Islam, now isn’t it?) forthwith and a new and different law established?
Ah, it’s a puzzlement, no? Well, start with adulation of Mohammed as the last and greatest of the prophets and all that rubbish, blah, blah, blah, and who knows what twisted turns human reasoning can take. For further proof of this hypothesis just take a look at all the tortured ratiocination on sundry subjects engaged in over the centuries by the various schools of Islamic theology, both Sunni and Shiite, the full measure of which demonstrates that sometimes man wastes a great deal of his time on giant nothings posing as very important somethings. In this regard, Islam excels.
pdxnag says
Mohammad would just do what he is reported to have always done in the past, just alter the unalterable word of God to suit his fancy. (That’s just what my wine addled brain would surmise.)
Mark Swan says
Yep He Sure Would
maghan says
It all goes back to the very disappointing and eternal human quest for the Divine. Any charlatan who can successfully claim to represent the Divine becomes a sacred Totem in human eyes.
Westman says
True enough Wellington.
Imagine being able to argue about insignificant life actions, debating if the prophet did it, didn’t do it, or would approve doing it; get paid and gain respect in the process. Then, imagine the power of imposing another little observance on the Ummah.
Islam certainly is an enormous waster of human potential and time. Imagine 1.5 billion humans, washing before prayer and then praying 5 times a day, hundreds of millions of women denied education and unable to make economic, industrial, and educational contributions to the advancement of their society; being the property of some male.
Perhaps this made some sense in the short life, 40 to 50 years, in the society of Muhammad and his companions but it is a lethal economic drag on any society with an expected lifespan of 70 to 90 years. Birthing is over by a woman’s mid 40’s and then what does she become in Islamic society – other than a man’s comfort slave? It is no accident that, without oil, Muslim societies are poorer for throwing away womens intellectual and economic contributions. What will they do when the average life span is 100 years?
ISIS runs on a timeline of martyrdom so lifespan is of no consequence to them. However the rest of Islam needs to ask why they are falling behind and the reason has nothing to do with unbelievers who are simply living lives more tuned to reality. For those Muslims who actually fall for the excuse that poverty is the fault of the unbeliever, I suggest a Jihad against the Asian countries instead of the West since they are both the brightest and economically advanced. I’m sure that they would welcome Islam with open magazines; not necessarily the kind one reads.
mortimer says
Wellington clarified the point that this ex-Justice Minister highlighted: “Mohammed could break the law, but should still not be jailed because he is the Model Man”.
Richard Nixon made a similar point when he said, ‘It isn’t a crime when the president does it?’ David Frost replied, ‘Excuse me?’ That’s the point. Is the king above the law? Is the Prophet above the law?
The ex-Minister told the country that the law of Egypt would judge Mohammed, rather than the reverse. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Egyptians believe that Mohammed’s Sunna is above the laws of Egypt. In consequence, the people justify the vigilantism of any Muslim who imitates the actions of Mohammed and takes the law into his own hands.
Egyptians support Islamic VIGILANTISM over the laws of Egypt. That is the message of this episode.
This means continued anarchy for Egypt.
gravenimage says
Important questions, Wellington.
We actually hear this sort of thing all the time–that Muslims countries cannot ban child marriage, for instance, because that would make what Muhammed did in raping little Aisha look bad.
That is how Islam works–anything the loathsome “Prophet” did must perforce be regarded as “good”, no matter how appalling it was.
There is no real morality in Islam. Something is just on the model of the “Prophet”–in which case it is Halal and sacralized for all time–or it is not.
maghan says
No, Iraq was invaded because Saddam invaded Kuwait. Iraq was repulsed from Kuwait but post 9/11 Bush jr. wanted to impress his dad Bush 1, so he invaded Iraq to finish the job. Ignorance was the dominant feature here.
Angemon says
Well, at least he didn’t went and chopped his hand like that kid in Pakistan…
pdxnag says
These folks are just too nutty to see how nutty they are. It is like when Alzheimer’s destroys brain cells, you just don’t know what’s missing today.
mortimer says
Agree with M.O. – “Muslims are at last awakening to the horrors and atrocities …” even if they are imitations of Mohammed.
It looks like most Egyptians aren’t ready to believe Mohammed’s many crimes and atrocities were not true crimes and atrocities.
All totalitarians think “It isn’t fascism when WE do it.”
It wasn’t an atrocity if Mohammed did it.
Richard says
Educated and intelligent people the world over recognise religion is a fraud.
blitz2b says
Metaphors and sarcasms are lost on Muslims.
Custos Custodum says
To the extent that there is a ray of hope for the Muslim world in the long run, Egypt may be the place to bet on.
Despite some 1300 years worth of propaganda, Egyptians remain keenly aware at some level that they are NOT Arabs despite having been coerced into adopting the desert dialect along with Islam. Discoveries of Egyptian antiquities over the last 250 years have certainly helped maintain a sense of non-Islamic history. Also, Egypt still has a noticeable Coptic population and a quietly Westernized elite.
The recent disastrous experience of empowering the Muslim brotherhood under Morsi – who fortunately were removed before they could entrench themselves permanently – will also have awakened a few people to the pitfalls of trusting those nice helpful Muslim Brothers (and sisters – the women’s organizations are crucial, as any communist and National Socialist knows).
Non-Arab Persians were instrumental in shaping Shia Islam, and a somewhat more relaxed version of Islam may come to dominate daily life if not formal ideology (Sunni ideology is still governed by Al-Azhar University).
Egypt as a whole is probably not a promising territory for further Muslim expansion, although its large population makes it an attractive source of individual jihadis.
Jay Boo says
Does Germany want to end up like the hell-holes, Iran and Egypt?
If Morsi and his gang had stayed in power the ancient pyramids might have been destroyed along with the people of Egypt.
Custos Custodum says
What is this to do with Germany?
The post above already recites the fact that Morsi was (fortunately) removed. It is probably true that Ikhwan would have sought to get rid of the pyramids, but Egyptians would certainly not have taken this lying down.
maghan says
There were Arab settlers from West Asia too. The present Egyptian population is a heterogeneous group of indigenous(Pharaonic Egypt), Arab West Asian settlers, who flowed in with the Islamic conquest of Egypt, Greek, Roman, Persian, Turkish,French, etc. settlers after their invasions, and others.
Yet there is no recognition that their fanaticism regarding Islam is just puzzling given that they were invaded and conquered by Arab invaders who imposed their language and religion on a hapless people. As if there is no shame at being conquered.
Custos Custodum says
Educated and intelligent people the world over recognize that religion is part of the human condition.
If the 20th century has shown anything, it is that supposedly “enlightened,” “rational” anti-religious cults such as Communism, National Socialism, Pol Pot “Year Zero” fanaticism etc. can be far more unrestrained and ruthlessly thorough in their murderous impulses than traditional religion (even Islam).
Richard says
“..religion is part of the human condition.”
So is irrationality, ignorance, self-delusion.
“If the 20th century has shown anything, it is that supposedly “enlightened,” “rational” anti-religious cults such as Communism, National Socialism, Pol Pot “Year Zero” fanaticism etc. can be far more unrestrained and ruthlessly thorough in their murderous impulses than traditional religion (even Islam).”
The Stalinists, Nazis, Pol Pot were anything but “enlightened” or “rational”. You contradict yourself by labelling them fanatics. Rational people don’t need religion to be moral or espouse democratic values.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “anyone who does wrong, “even if it’s a prophet”” – yep! That sums up old Moe perfectly!
Because it’s far, far, far easier to ask:
“What law DIDN’T “prophit” Muhammad break?”!
And multiple times, and very enthusiastically, too?!
😉
Moshe Akiva says
I guess they will never get out of the stone age.