How should insults to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) be handled?

Question: Does the quran or hadith give any guidance on how to handle the case if a Non-Muslim insults the Prophet (Peace be upon him)?
Comment: @Anwar one must define "insult". A lot of things that would be perfectly acceptable about anyone else are suddenly insulting *just because* it is Muhammad. That is not really "insult". Also, the insult can be *taken* even if it is not *given*. For example, if I (deep breath) *drew a picture* of Muhammad, then no insult is *given* (by me), but insult would be *taken* by many Musims.
Comment: All political figures (and in that we include religious figures, such as Muhammad) are going to be critiqued, parodied, and lampooned. It happens to all of them, ancient and current. I demand my right to parody such. It is no different for Muhammad. The moment anything is beyond criticism, we are slaves.
Comment: let me clarify: marcgravell isn't saying that those drawings aren't insulting, he is saying that one may draw this picture without any intention of insulting muslims, but muslims might be offended regardless, like offense is in the eye of the beholder.. (i guess?)  and the questionaire must clarify wether its intentional or not
Comment: The "hint" and political/belief statement in this question do not belong. If this is intended as a legitimate question about what the Qur'an/Hadith teaches on the subject then it is distracting and unecessary to include the opinion or draw a connection to a previous event. Those are statements. Questions aren't meant to make a point. I have suggested an edit to remove these and keep just the question. I suggest this is a more constructive and reasonable way to approach this topic in the SE format.
Answer: This answer comes from a secular perspective; if it is out of place, let me know and I'll remove it. But I offer it anyway.
Short version:

Ignore it.

Offense has the interesting characteristic in that it is, quite literally, an imaginary thing: in only exists to the observer - it is not a concrete thing by itself. Add religion into that mix and we have guaranteed confusion. It is largely impossible to make any claim by one religion without it somehow being "offensive" to another religion (by disqualifying their deity, et). Indeed, often within a single religion the views of one sect can "offend" another.
Being so subjective, it is not something that is easy to quantify: there are answers here that suggest that offense towards the prophet is like being struck in the face - yet the fact remains: you were not struck in the face - you chose to be offended. Being offended is your right, but that doesn't mean a person can respond in any way you choose.
Of course, it could also be said that an all-powerful God (with a well-established process for dealing with the unbelievers and unworthy) does not need you to leap to his defense, nor (with Allah on his side) does Muhammed.
Next, we must consider the true victims in all the recent fuss: it isn't the Muslim community: it is the innocent bystanders wo happened to be in the wrong place (meaning: too close to some volatile faction of Islam). People working in embassies, or just non-Muslims living in a predominantly Muslim community. These are people unconnected to the fuss, now murdered, maimed or dishomed. I am under the impression that the Koran does not support (quite the opposite) attacking innocent populations, yet this is what invariably results. This of course also harms the Muslim community: both in terms of the global reputation, and the fate of those few Muslims responding with acts of violence and cruelty.
The ironic thing in all this is that one of the reasons Islam attracts so much attention is because of the reputation it has for being aggressive - there's a circle here that can't be broken while some people of Islam responds with force for imagined slights.
We must also consider the perspective of the "perpetrator". In most of the law, offense and blasphemy are not crimes. Freedom of thought and word are valued. Islam repeatedly saying "you cannot" (for something that is not actually illegal in most countries) is the main driver for why people do things like drawing cartoons of Mohammed. When Islam says "you cannot, or else", then that throws down a gauntlet - and there are a lot of people who feel that this is a kind of bully-tactic that must be answered.
Finally, I'll remark on representation: Islam, in common with many religions, does not have direct and accurate representation. The people doing much of the talking on the international stage do not necessarily have a huge support base. Indeed, most of the Muslims I know and have known have been completely different to the uglier face of Islam that keeps making headlines - yet even in there own communities they have felt unable to speak out openly. But: until this is challenged from within, these unelected figureheads will assume false authority and support.
So perhaps I should further qualify my relief response, with the guidance:

Respond by denouncing the calls for violence and blood. Openly state that you do not recognize this brutality as the true message of Islam.

Unless, of course, it is?
Comment: This fails to answer the question which is asking for evidences from Quran and Sunnah.
Comment: It just seems a curiously pointless edit. If you want to spend time correcting grammar and spelling, there are plenty of posts on this site that really need it.
Comment: @AlUmmat, why did you feel the need to Americanise the spelling in Marc's answer? I personally quite like the *-ize* endings, but I prefer the British distinction between nouns ending in *ce* and verbs ending in *se* (cf. *advise* and *advice*, where the pronunciation also differs).
Comment: I quote from the answer, `"there's a circle here that can't be broken while Islam responds with force for imagined slights."` I think "Muslims" rather than "Islam" would be a better fit there and more accurate as well, especially keeping the rest of the answer in view.
Comment: @TRiG meh; not in the least bothered by that
Comment: @TRiG I am sorry, you must understand I do not know  all styles of english.  If it is very important, you can change it back, I edit posts according to the English I know.
Answer: The first thing we must do..
The first thing we must do is ask Allah for forgiveness.
I say this because, the people that insult the Prophet (pbuh) have never met him or seen him BUT they know him through our actions. So we have failed to deliver the message of Islam for them to insult someone they have never seen or met.
These insults will not change the status of the Prophet (pbuh) in the least. Allah is enough to protect the name of His messenger (pbuh) BUT these insults are a warning from Allah  about our failure to deliver the message of Islam
Patience is the key..

You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination. (Quran 3:186)

Allah in the above verse clearly says that we will hear a lot of stuff that will grieve us BUT BE PATIENT.
We have today become emotional puppets. We are insulted and we respond exactly how "they" want us to. This is because we have forgotten this verse from the Quran. We have to be calm, collected & calculative.
This is nothing new
The Quraish used to go around insulting the Prophet (pbuh) all the time. As the Islamic empire expanded the number of people insulting the Prophet (pbuh) increased BUT the Prophet (pbuh) or his companions never lost focus. They went on spreading the message.
Understand the nature of disbelief
We should understand that it is the nature of disbelief to insult the prophets(pbuh), the books of Allah & even Allah. We should not be surprised at all. Our problem will not be solved by reprimanding the disbeliever rather spread more awareness about Islam to remove disbelief.
See how the Prophet (pbuh) responded to a person urinating in masjid Annabawi

Anas reported: A Bedouin urinated in the mosque. Some of the persons stood up (to reprimand him or to check him from doing so), but the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Leave him alone; don't interrupt him. He (the narrator) said: And when he had finished, he called for a bucket of water and poured it over. (Muslim hadith 557, Book of purification)

Understand our failure
What is the reason of our failure?

Are we few in number? ... one in every five on this planet is Muslim
Don't we have the means?... we control all the natural resources under our feet.

The Prophet (pbuh) didn't build the Islamic empire with numbers or money....rather he won hearts and we have failed to do so.
Go to any masjid, you will see that we have even forgotten to smile which is one of the sunnahs of the Prophet (pbuh).
PS: I feel we should let everyone know that it is unacceptable to insult the prophet(pbuh) BUT they way to convey this needs to be better and with patience.
Comment: please mention which view is this and please support your answer with official fatwa. your answer seems your personal opinion and personal interpret of Quran and hadith. "HE WON HEARTS" did you forget prophet made near 100 war at his life and many wars by Caliphs after him? Islamic mercy and Jihad and killing all exist in Islam and Islam is not only mercy against who insult prophet. also prophet himself can forgive. but Sahaba and Muslims should obey rules of Islam. prophet forgiven many but also made many wars.
Comment: +1 I think this is a fantastic answer because as a non Muslim I would be more likely to be open to the message and wisdom of Islam if it were delivered in the manner you have proposed in your answer. The fact you have not cited certain scriptures does not take away from your answer I think using your brain, that God gave you, to make sense of what you have noticed about the world around you is important too. This answer may not be as 'academic' as desired but it is good for non-Muslims to see and understand what Islam is about, rather than the tripe that is in the news.
Comment: the hadith you mentioned is about disrespect to mosque and not insult to prophet. so this hadith is irrelevant to question. also how the verse is related to insult to prophet? it is talking about bothers of idol worshipers for Muslims like sanctions and other bothers. also ignorant person is different of who intentionally makes a insulting movie to prophet.
Comment: It is really nice Answer alhamdolillah but I think it doesn't answer the question in proper way. You should add source from hadiths what did the companions do when Quraish used to insult prophet Muhammad (PBUH) directly.
Comment: If that's the case then why was [Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka'b_ibn_al-Ashraf) killed?
Comment: This answer is more or less saying to do **nothing** to the offending person, which I don't think answers the question. Surely a Muslim is to respond in some way other than introspection.
Comment: The above answer will only be possible if you are living in a non islamic Country if you live in islamic-country then i don't think this answer can be applied as all the other non muslims know how much love muslims do to the prophet and who is prophet.
Comment: Blasphemist must be killed we've gotta understand that. Even when Makkah was conquered by us, Prophet (PBUH) said to forgive anyone that asks for forgiveness except for the blasphemist, even If they plead and stick themselves with the Ka'ba. The blasphemists are all the people that try to insult Allah, his Prophet(PBUH), and even his Prophet (PBUH)'s companions. People think that this is a matter to be taken lightly?! forgiving them?! only the Prophet (PBUH) had the right to forgive the people that insulted him, now that he is no longer with us WE MUST KILL THE BLASPHEMIST.
Answer: I think this photo will speak more than words

*In response to the abusive film about the Holy Prophet Muhammad upon him blessings and peace, "Discover Islam UK" in London distributed more than 110,000 copies of a translation of the Qur'an And the life of the Prophet Mohammed for the citizens of London.
Comment: Now that is an example of a religion that is ready to grow!  Fight lack of education with education.  No need to be physical.  Win hearts and minds of the people and there will be no offending movies or language.  Being violent only plays into the hands of those with negative views.
Comment: @Najeeb let's not; that would be a nightmare.
Comment: I absolutely support what you have said: ignore them, or in fact, use these events as excuses to spread Islam. Let's make it a mission to have a Muslim Europe within the next 20 years!
Answer: (Ahl al-Sunnah View)
Its the responsibility of the state to handle this as blasphemy against the Prophet is a punishable crime under Shariah.
There can be three cases of a person who does this:

The person is a Muslim - there is consensus among the Sunni Madhabs that the person has become an apostate (مرتد) and hence must be executed by the state. The difference is that while an ordinary apostate would be given the opportunity to repent and avoid the execution, a blasphemer is not afforded that opportunity according to most schools.

The person is a non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state (Dhimmi) or has some other peace agreement with the Muslims (Mu'aahid) - the view of the majority (Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali schools of thought) is that such a person should also be killed by the state. The view of the Hanafi school is that their treaty is not invalidated by such an act and that a Tazir other than execution should be administered to discipline the person (such as severe whipping).
Note that most of latter Hanafis have elaborated that killing them is permissible at the discretion of the ruler, or that the punishment should be execution if the insult was done openly, or if it was done repeatedly, or if the insult consisted of saying something which is not part of to the essential creed of the non-muslims. See e.g. Radd al-Muhtar by Ibn Abidin al-Shaami.

The person is a non-muslim Harbi. It is agreed upon that they are to be killed and this comes under the category of warfare rather than legal punishment. Scholars have noted that they can be killed even if they belong to the category of people whose killing is normally forbidden in war, such as women and close relatives.

To sum up: There is a categorical consensus that punishment is to be carried out on one who insults the Prophet ﷺ. And there is a consensus that a Muslim or Harbi who does that is to be killed. And the view of the majority is that a Dhimmi who does that is to be killed. And there is disagreement among the madhabs on whether repentance (i.e. accepting \ reverting to Islam) waives the legal penalty from the culprit.

أجمع عوام أهل العلم على أن من سب النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - القتل
The consensus of most of the people of knowledge is that one who abuses the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed.
— al-Ishraaf - Ibn al-Mundhir

أجمع العلماء على أن شاتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والمتنقص له كافر ، والوعيد جاء عليه بعذاب الله له وحكمه عند الأمة القتل
The scholars have a consensus that the one who insults the Prophet ﷺ is a disbeliever. And the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. And the verdict of the Ummah is that he is to be killed.
— Al-Shifaa bi Ta'reef Huqooq al-Mustafaa - by Qadi 'Iyad (quoting Muhammad ibn Sahnun)

Quran:

The Quranic evidence cited for this law includes:

وإن نكثوا أيمانهم من بعد عهدهم وطعنوا في دينكم فقاتلوا أئمة الكفر إنهم لا أيمان لهم لعلهم ينتهون
And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
— Quran 9:12

Qurtubi writes in the exegesis of this verse:

وقال ابن المنذر : أجمع عامة أهل العلم على أن من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عليه القتل . وممن قال ذلك مالك والليث وأحمد وإسحاق ، وهو مذهب الشافعي . وقد حكي عن النعمان أنه قال : لا يقتل من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة
Ibn Mundhir said: The consensus of the people of knowledge is that the punishment for insulting the Prophet is death. And those who said this include Malik, Laith, Ahmad and Ishaq. And the same is the madhab of Shafi. And it is narrated from Nauman (Abu Hanifa): The person who insults the prophet will not be killed if they are from the people of Dhimmah (non-Muslim subjects)
فأما الذمي إذا طعن في الدين انتقض عهده في المشهور من مذهب مالك ، لقوله : وإن نكثوا أيمانهم الآية . فأمر بقتلهم وقتالهم . وهو مذهب الشافعي رحمه الله
As for the Dhimmi (non-Muslim subject), then when they abuse our religion their contract (of safety) is annulled. This is the mashur madhab of Malik, because of the saying of Allah [in 9:12] and Allah has commanded us to kill them and war against them. And the same is the view of Shafi.
وقال أبو حنيفة في هذا : إنه يستتاب ، وإن مجرد الطعن لا ينقض به العهد إلا مع وجود النكث ؛ لأن الله عز وجل إنما أمر بقتلهم بشرطين : أحدهما نقضهم العهد ، والثاني طعنهم في الدين .
And the saying of Abu Hanifa is: they will made to repent, and their contract will not be revoked just because of their abuse, unless they directly break their contract with their actions; because Allah has imposed two conditions on the command to kill them: one is that they break the contract and the second is that they hurl abuse at our religion.
قلنا : إن عملوا بما يخالف العهد انتقض عهدهم ، وذكر الأمرين لا يقتضي توقف قتاله على وجودهما ، فإن النكث يبيح لهم ذلك بانفراده عقلا وشرعا . وتقدير الآية عندنا : فإن نكثوا عهدهم حل قتالهم ، وإن لم ينكثوا بل طعنوا في الدين مع الوفاء بالعهد حل قتالهم . وقد روي أن عمر رفع إليه ذمي نخس دابة عليها امرأة مسلمة فرمحت فأسقطتها فانكشفت بعض عورتها ، فأمر بصلبه في الموضع
Our response is: If they do an action which is against their contract, then their treaty will be broken just because of that and it will not require them to fulfill both conditions [a person who breaks the treaty by fighting us but not defaming our religion may be killed, its both rational and proven in Shariah] ...
And near us, the intended meaning is as follows: If they break their contracts then it is permitted to fight against them, and if they do not break their contracts but while abiding by them they defame our religion then (also) it is permitted to fight them.
[An example] is narrated about Umar, that when a Dhimmi had pierced an animal with a nail or thorn, on which a Muslim lady was riding, and it caused her to fall and lay bare her private parts, then Umar had the Dhimmi crucified at the spot.
أكثر العلماء على أن من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة أو عرض أو استخف بقدره أو وصفه بغير الوجه الذي كفر به فإنه يقتل ، فإنا لم نعطه الذمة أو العهد على هذا . إلا أبا حنيفة والثوري وأتباعهما من أهل الكوفة فإنهم قالوا : لا يقتل ، ما هو عليه من الشرك أعظم ، ولكن يؤدب ويعزر . والحجة عليه قوله تعالى : وإن نكثوا الآية
Most of the Ulema are agreed, that a person from the Dhimmis who insults or hurls abuses and slander at the Prophet ... then they are to be killed; With the exception of Abu Hanifa, Thawri and their followers from the people of Kufa, who say that they will not be executed ... but they will be disciplined and given Tazir punishment. The evidence for [all these] is the saying of Allah [in 9:12]
—  Tafsir Qurtubi; my personal translation so treat with caution

Abu Bakr Jassas writes in the exegesis of the verse:

وهو يشهد لقول من يقول من الفقهاء إن من أظهر شتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة فقد نقض عهده ووجب قتله
وقد اختلف الفقهاء في ذلك ، فقال أصحابنا : { يعزر ولا يقتل } ، وهو قول الثوري وروى ابن القاسم عن مالك فيمن شتم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من اليهود ، والنصارى
{قتل إلا أن يسلم}
And this is testimony to the saying of the jurists that one who curses the Prophet from the people of Dhimma have violated their treaty and its obligatory to execute them
The jurists differ on this.. Our companions (the Hanafis) say: They will not be killed but given Tazir. And this is also the saying of Thawri. And Ibn Qasim narrated from Malik that one who curses the Prophet from the Jews and the Christians: Will be killed, with the exception that they accept Islam.
...
وقال الليث في المسلم يسب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : إنه لا يناظر ولا يستتاب ويقتل مكانه ، وكذلك اليهودي والنصراني .
وقال الشافعي : { ويشترط على المصالحين من الكفار أن من ذكر كتاب الله أو محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بما لا ينبغي أو زنى بمسلمة أو أصابها باسم نكاح أو فتن مسلما عن دينه أو قطع عليه طريقا أو أعان أهل الحرب بدلالة على المسلمين أو آوى عينا لهم فقد نقض عهده وأحل دمه وبرئت منه ذمة الله وذمة رسوله } . و
And Laith said: If a Muslim insults the Prophet then he will be neither be given respite nor asked to repent, but will be immediately executed, and the same ruling hold for Jews and Christians.
And Shafi said: When the Muslims make peace with the disbelievers then a condition should be placed on them that if any of them insults Allah or His Messenger, or performs adultery with a Muslim woman or tries to sway a Muslim from his religion, or performs highway robbery against the Muslims, or helps the enemies of the Muslims against them, then the treaty will be void for him, his blood will be lawful and the responsibility on Allah and His Messenger for the safety of his life will be lifted.
...
ولا خلاف بين المسلمين أن من قصد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك فهو ممن ينتحل الإسلام أنه مرتد يستحق القتل
There is no disagreement among the Muslims that a Muslim who insults the Prophet becomes an apostate and deserves to be executed.
 — Tafsir Jassas ; my personal translation so treat with caution

Ibn Kathir writes in the exegesis of the verse:

(وطعنوا في دينكم )
أي : عابوه وانتقصوه . ومن هاهنا أخذ قتل من سب الرسول ، صلوات الله وسلامه عليه ، أو من طعن في دين الإسلام أو ذكره بتنقص
(and attack your religion...) with disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought.
— Tafsir Ibn Kathir ; [ abridged English Translation ]

Various other verses are also by some scholars as supporting evidence. For example  9:29 lays down the principle for dealing with Dhimmis that "fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled" - a person who openly insults the prophet of the Muslims is far from being humbled and subdued, so war must be done with them.
Similarly verses like  9:61 and 33:57 which say that there is punishment and curse upon those who insult the Prophet. And execution by the Muslims is a way by which that is materialized.
Ahadith:

Following are some ahadith which are cited as evidence by the scholars:

The killing of the woman by the blind sahabi:

أن أعمى كانت له أم ولد تشتم النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وتقع فيه فينهاها، فلا تنتهي، ويزجرها فلا تنزجر، قال: فلما كانت ذات ليلة جعلت تقع في النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - وتشتمه، فأخذ المغول فوضعه في بطنها، واتكأ عليها فقتلها ... فقال النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم-: ألا اشهدوا أن دمها هدر
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her.
...
The Messenger of Allah  (ﷺ)  said: "I bear witness that her blood is permissible."
— Nasai and  Abu Dawud

This means means that she was deserving of being killed. Imam Abu Dawud and Imam Nasai have recorded this hadith under the chapter named: Ruling regarding one who reviles the prophet ( الحكم فيمن سب النبي ). And numerous other hadith scholars and jurists have also relied on this hadith as evidence for the law.

The hadith of Abu Bakr regarding one who insults the Prophet ﷺ:

أغلظ رجل لأبي بكر الصديق فقلت أقتله فانتهرني وقال ليس هذا لأحد بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, and I said: 'Shall I kill him?' He told me off, and said: 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allah [ﷺ].'"
— Nasai and Abu Dawud

أجمع عوام أهل العلم على أن من سب النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - القتل ... ومما يحتج به في هذا الباب قصة كعب بن الأشرف ... وتغيظ أبو بكر الصديق -رضي الله عنه - على رجل، فقال مِن أصحابه أبو برزة: أضرب عنقه؟ فقال: ما كانت لأحد بعد رسول الله
The Ulema in general are in agreement that one who abuses the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed ... and they have relied upon as evidence the story of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf ... and the story of the anger of Abu Bakr on a person when  Abu Barzah asked 'Shall I kill him?' and Abu Bakr replied 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ' ...
— al-Ishraaf - Ibn al-Mundhir

This means that a person who speaks harshly to or about the Prophet ﷺ could be killed - unlike a person who reviles someone else.   This hadith has also been recorded by Abu Dawud and Nasai under the same chapter as the previous one as evidence for killing one who reviles the Prophet ﷺ.

The execution of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf.

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من لكعب بن الأشرف فإنه قد آذى الله ورسوله
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt (offended) Allah and His Apostle?"
— Bukhari

وقال الشافعي: يقتل الذمي إذا سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وتبرأ منه الذمة، واحتج في ذلك بخبر كعب بن الأشرف
Imam Shafi'i said: The Dhimmi who abuses the Prophet ﷺ is to be killed. And he relied upon the narration regarding Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf as evidence for that.
— Ma'alim as-Sunan by Al-Khatabi

The evidence in this hadith is apparent, as the Prophet commanded the execution of Ka'b and gave its reason as insult against Allah and himself.

The execution of Abu Rafi'.

بعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى أبي رافع اليهودي رجالا من الأنصار ... وكان أبو رافع يؤذي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent some men from the Ansar to kill Abu Rafi' ...  Abu Rafi' used to hurt Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
— Bukhari

الحجة في إيجاب قتل من سبه أو عابه صلى الله عليه وسلم ... وفي الحديث الصحيح أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتل كعب ابن الأشرف ...  وكذلك قتل أبا رافع
The evidence of the obligation on killing the one who insults the Prophet  ﷺ  includes ... and the Sahih Hadith regarding the command of the Prophet ﷺ to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf ... and likewise the killing of Abu Rafi' ...
— Al-Shifaa bi Ta'reef Huqooq al-Mustafaa by Qadi 'Iyad

The execution of Ibn Khatal:

فلما نزعه جاء رجل فقال إن ابن خطل متعلق بأستار الكعبة، فقال اقتلوه
(At the Conquest of Makkah) ... A man came and said, "Ibn Khatal is clinging to the curtains of the Ka'bah.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Kill him."
— Bukhari

قال العلماء إنما قتله لأنه كان قد ارتد عن الاسلام وقتل مسلما كان يخدمه وكان يهجو النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ويسبه وكانت له قينتان تغنيان بهجاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والمسلمين
The scholars said: He was killed because he had apostatized from Islam, and killed a Muslim servant of his, and had satirized the Prophet ﷺ and abused him and had employed female singers who sang songs satirizing the Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims
— Sharah Sahih Muslim by Nawawi

واستدل المالكيون من حديث ابن خطل أن من سب النبى يقتل ولا يستتاب كما فعل الرسول (صلى الله عليه وسلم) بابن خطل
The Malikis have derived from the hadith regarding Ibn Khatal that the person who abuses the Prophet is to be killed and that repentance is not to be accepted.
— Sharah Sahih Bukhari by Ibn Batal

Some scholars have noted that Ibn Khatal was guilty of three crimes deserving of the death penalty (i) apostasy (iii) murder and (iii) blasphemy. However the mode of his execution shows that sentence was carried out on him because of the blasphemy, since it does not fit the other crimes. A murderer is handed over to the victim's family and they have the right to forgive or take revenge from the culprit. While an apostate who surrenders is imprisoned and given the chance to repent and save himself. Ibn Khatal however was unconditionally condemned to death - even after he surrendered and tried to get asylum in the Kaabah.

The (cancelled) execution of Mabur - a person who inappropriately visited the Prophet's Umm Walad (concubine who gave birth to his child).

أن رجلا كان يتهم بأم ولد رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- فقال رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- لعلى « اذهب فاضرب عنقه »
A man was accused of having intimate relations with the Umme Walad of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to Ali: "Go and strike his neck."
— Muslim

وفيه من آذى النبي - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - وجب قتله
This is evidence that it is obligatory to kill the one who offends the Prophet
— Al-Muhalla bi'l-Aathaar  - Ibn Hazm

Scholars have noted that a possible objection to this hadith is that this person was sentenced because of zina.
However the punishment for fornication is 100 lashes (24:2). And for adultery it is stoning to death, even though it is most likely that this person was unmarried and so it was fornication not adultery. Also passing the sentence for Zina requires four witnesses (4:15) who claim to have actually seen the head of the penis enter the vagina.
We can see that this incident is different. The Prophet ﷺ gave a judgement of beheading and not lashing or stoning. Also it is evident that there were no witnesses of the act since the person turned out to be an eunuch. These difference are evidence that the sentence was not passed as a penalty for zina but rather as a punishment for the insult against the Prophet ﷺ.

The ahadith about those who were denied asylum at the conquest of Makkah:

لما كان يوم فتح مكة أمن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الناس إلا أربعة نفر وامرأتين وقال  اقتلوهم وإن وجدتموهم متعلقين بأستار الكعبة
On the day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allah [SAW] granted amnesty to the people, except four men and two women. He said: 'Kill them, even if you find them clinging to the covers of Ka'bah.'
— Nasai and Abu Dawud

وأمن الناس يوم الفتح إلا نفرا ممن كان يؤذيه ويهجوه، وهم أربعة رجال وامرأتان
[In the chapter on the verdict of the Prophet regarding those who blasphemed] ... The Prophet  granted amnesty to all the people on the day of the Conquest of Makkah, except for a small group who had abused and insulted him, and these were four men and two women.
— Zaad al-Ma'aad - Ibn al-Qayyim

And there are many other similar reports in seerah and athar of the sahaba which corroborate this.
Reconciliation with texts where insults are pardoned:

A question is sometimes raised that there are Quranic verses which enjoin turning away from insults of the disbelievers and ahadith where insults apparently go unpunished:

The Quran commands us to show patience and to forgive and ignore the insults of the disbelievers. For example verses 3:186 , 5:13 ,  73:10  , 28:55 etc.
And the Prophet used to forgive people who wronged him, such as when Jews greeted him with Samu 'Alaika (Death be upon you) - Bukhari 6926 - or when hypocrites slighted him - Bukhari 4335 .

The following answers are given to this by the scholars:

The Prophet ﷺ had the right to forgive violations against himself - however the Muslims do not have the right to forgive culprits on his behalf and rather they must carry out the legal punishments which they been commanded to do.

In some of these incidents we know that the sahaba were eager and offered to kill the those who had offended the Prophet:

يا رسول الله دعني أضرب عنق هذا المنافق
O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), let me kill this hypocrite!

And when the Prophet ﷺ refused the offer he gave the following reason for not executing them:

يتحدث الناس أن محمدا يقتل أصحابه
lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.
— Bukhari

أن يتحدث الناس أني أقتل أصحابي
People would say that I kill my companions.
— Muslim

He did not say "Allah has forbidden me from killing them", nor did he rebuke the sahaba for their suggestion. This proves that killing these hypocrites was actually permissible and the Prophet ﷺ only restrained from that for specific reasons or in public interest.  The Prophet ﷺ had the right to overlook violations against himself, but we do not have the right to forgive on his behalf.

These Quranic verses and ahadith are abrogated or an exception exists in them for incidents of blasphemy.
In the earlier part of the Islamic period, Muslims were few in number and lacked the power to react forcefully to the wrongs committed by disbelievers. Hence the Prophet was commanded to be patient, to forgive and to turn away - as confrontation at this stage could have been detrimental to the survival of the Muslim Ummah. This was meant to be for only a limited period of time, as hinted in the verse:

اعفوا واصفحوا حتى يأتي الله بأمره
So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command.
— Quran 2:109

As time passed, the Muslims grew in numbers and gained strength and after this the Prophet ﷺ was commanded to use force. So he sent expeditions to execute them and enforced legal punishments against them.

يا أيها النبي جاهد الكفار والمنافقين واغلظ عليهم
O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them.
— Quran 9:73

وهذه الآية نسخت كل شي من العفو والصلح والصفح
And this verse abrogated everything else regarding forgiveness, compromise and overlooking [the disbelievers]
— Tafsir al-Qurtubi
هذه الآية نسخت كل آية في القرآن فيها ذكر الإعراض والصبر على أذى الأعداء
The verse (9:5) abrogated every verse in the Quran which mentioned turning away from and patience towards the harm caused by the enemies.
— Tafsir al-Baghawy
فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم وقوله قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله ولا باليوم الآخر إلى قوله: وهم صاغرون فنسخ هذا عفوا عن المشركين
Verse 9:5 and verse 9:29 abrogated forgiving the disbelievers.
— Tafsir ibn Abi Hatim

Action is done on the verses which were revealed later, and not on abrogated verses. In the same way that we can no longer drink wine or face Jerusalem in salah, we can no longer pardon people for crimes where punishment has become obligated.

Some of these incidents (such as the greeting of the Jews) were not clear insults, and had plausible deniability. Some of these did not have enough witnesses and the hypocrites would deny having said anything when confronted or they would feign repentance.

References:
The following are some texts which discuss this topic in detail.

Al-Shifaa bi Ta'reef Huqooq al-Mustafaa ( الشفا بتعريف حقوق المصطفى )  - by Qadi 'Iyad (Maliki) --- [english translation]

As-Saarim al-Maslool 'ala Shaatim ar-Rasool ( الصارم المسلول على شاتم الرسول ) - by Ibn Taymiyyah (Hanbali)

Al-Saif al-Maslool 'ala man Sab ar-Rasool ( السيف المسلول على من سب الرسول ) -  by Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki (Shafi'i)

Tanbeeh Ul Walat Wal Hukam Ala Ahkam Shatim Khair Ul Anam ( تنبیہ الولاۃ والحکام علی احکام شاتم خیرالانام ) - by Ibn Abideen (Hanafi)
Answer: (Shia View)
Although Islam religion of mercy but this mercy is not for all equal. Quran says: (the verse is long so I mention only related part)

مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّ‌سُولُ اللَّـهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى
  الْكُفَّارِ رُ‌حَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ...
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful
  against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves...
  http://tanzil.net/#48:29

According to Fiqh of Shia Islam if who insulted prophet is Muslim or is ex-Muslim should is considered Murtad (apostate) and should be killed. But if he is a non-Muslim it depends on command of Wali Faqih (i.e. the Islamic leader at time of Occultation of 12th Imam, currently Imam Khamenei) and any command of Leader in this regard should be executed by Muslims.

Reference:

This fatwa
Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist by Imam Khomeini
(ra)
Comment: You put a brave answer yet you missed many things fair trail, Islamic laws in country, judge orders execution
Answer: Duplicate from here:
Muslims are teased of rude people not believing in anything but themselves and their own (dirty) politics. People have right to laugh at us and our beliefs and we should stay happy? Someone mock my father and I remain smiled is the reaction of a psychologically healthy person? Muslims respect their prophets more than they respect their fathers.

If thou dost question them, they declare (with emphasis): "We were
  only talking idly and in play." Say: "Was it at Allah, and His Signs,
  and His Messenger, that ye were mocking?"(Al-Tubah:65)

Freedom of speech is a respected right only if a question is asked to learn about something, be it God or the historic facts about our prophet and Imams, PBU. But there are times that someone ask not to learn but to make laugh of us, then the behavior against the questioner would be different as should be. To us most of the insults against Islamic values are just some (political, planned) examinations to see where the Muslim's bearing threshold is! Muslims be silent they would go further and further, but Muslims have proved to be zealous thanks to Allah, not allowing the United States and the global Zionism to reach their new world order that they intend.
EDIT.
The film just produced in US insulting the holy Prophet PBUH of course is not artistic or else and one cannot assume its target to be anything other than stimulation of Muslims' anger, to start an inter-religions war (another crusade) or to scare their own Christian and other non-Muslim people of Muslims to unite them against a common enemy to deviate their people's worry about the economical and political crises inside their own countries. So that Muslims and non-Muslims over all the globe should be cautious about this dirty politic, we should demonstrate not being passive, but also peaceful for the global Zionism not to reaches any single goal of it.
Comment: Technically, no: freedom of speech is *not* limited to the things you would like people to say/ask. That is exactly *why* it is "freedom" of speech.


Internet access in Colombia

Question: Can anyone tell me what would be the easiest and cheapest way to access the internet? How common are HotSpots (biggest cities or towns) ? Can I rely on it or would be easier to buy 'pay and go' SIM card ? I am not going to use it for any social network or anything like that (except of SE Travel :) ). Google maps, general googling and highly possible online banking (from time to time) would be mostly used.
Comment: I would recommend getting a VPN service if you are going to rely on public/free wifi a lot especially if you plan to do online banking.
Comment: What do you mean by hotspot, a free public wifi ? or internet cafe ?
Comment: I was rather thinking about free public access. I is it something I can rely on? How often will I see 'Free WiFi' sign in Colombian cities?
Answer: In the big cities, there is a sufficient number of trendy cafes and restaurants, not just aimed at tourists, that offer free wifi. But, most 'regular' joints, targeting Colombians, won't have wifi.
So, if you only occasionally need to be online, you're probably good to go. If you need to be able to go online when you want to, you should look into a local sim.
Answer: I can now share my experience... There was no need to buy any local SIM cards as WiFi is almost everywhere: hotels, hostels, B&Bs, restaurants and buses (long distance ones). Just to remind you, be sure your mobile is fully charged and definitely have power bank handy (especially on the bus).
Answer: Just buy a colombian prepaid simcard. Major carriers (Claro, Movistar or Tigo). I have used Movistar and Tigo, and I could recommend movistar. It has LTE, and the coverage and signal strength are good.
Movistar offers 7 (US $4.50) and 30 days plans (US $ 13), so is the cheaper and most convenient option here.
Comment: thanks for your answer, internet access it is going to be more important than I thought.
Answer: In the major cities, Bogota, Medellin, Cartagena etc you will find lots of free hotspot places like restaurants, pubs and bars. Even if you don't see hotspot advertised then feel free to ask the waiter for the logon details. Unlike in other countries most hotspots don't require any online registration, simply select the network and add the password for immediate unlimited access. If you are planning to travel about or want internet access in the street then a prepaid sim is your best bet, these are not locked so should be available to use on any cell phone. Again rural areas might suffer from weak mobile signal and hence poor internet but in most towns and cities you will get good coverage. I would recommend Claro and Movistar as the best providers.

Internet access in Colombia


Find Difference Equation From Frequency Response

Question: Given the frequency response $H (jω) = csc(ω)$ how would I go about finding the difference equation?  I know I can find $h[n]$ from here but after that I feel like I'm missing something.
Comment: okay, so what **is** $h[n]$?
Answer: so, if we're looking around for a discrete-time difference equation, let's modify the notation slightly to make it look like it's a frequency response for a discrete-time system:
$$  \begin{align}
H \left( e^{j \omega} \right) & = \csc(\omega) \\
& = \frac{1}{\sin(\omega)} \\
& = \frac{2j}{e^{j \omega} - e^{-j \omega}} \\
& = \frac{2j \ e^{-j \omega}}{1 - (e^{-j \omega})^2} \\
\end{align}$$
so i guess that means that
$$H(z) = \frac{2j \ z^{-1}}{1 - z^{-2}}$$
so can you get a difference equation from that?
Comment: Thank you that clears it up.  I can't believe that never crossed my mind.
Answer: replace h(z) by the output by input form y(z)/x(z).now cross multiply by the numerator and denominator of the transfer function. now if suppose x(z)*pow(z,-1) appears in the time domain write it as x(n-1). finally bring it into y(n)=(combination of x(n) terms and y(n) terms)..
regards,
phani tej


How to identify this probably French Military uniform?

Question: I'm trying to identify the uniform in this picture of my great-great-great uncle Leon.  The picture was taken some time between 1860 to 1890 we think.  I've done image searches for uniforms from that time, but google generally ends up just showing pages of American Civil War uniforms.  Things do show up from the Franco-Prussian war, but nothing seems to match the uniform Leon is wearing here.
Comment: without wanting to jump in a extended response, i'd say French 113 line infantry regiment, either with a low rank ( Sergeant, Private), or in the regiment's Grenadier corps, french-prussian war.
Comment: I had a hard time picking one of the responses as an answer - it took me four years, and the one I did pick is the one that I think may be the most likely, but I'm not an expert, and until my family finds out more specifically about Leon, we may never now for sure.  Thank you everyone for your responses.  They've been great and full of amazing information.  I wish I could have picked all of the answers, but I only get to pick one.
Answer: I have a photo similar to that originally posted over a year ago. - Franco-Prussian War - 74th Infantry, active in Alsace 1870- Froeschwiller, Strasbourg, Metz, etc. Uniform is essentially identical with regiment number on collar and epaulettes. I can figure out how to post if the interest is still here.
Forgive me if this is not the correct way to do this: Here is the photo I mentioned: This is Henri Bourguignon - taken prisoner during the action in and around Strasbourg Aug-Sept 1870. My own research (not part of firm family info) seems to validate he was a member of the French Army of the Rhine -2nd Infantry Division of the 1st Army Corp, 74th Infantry Regiment of the Line. I assume from the bugle patch, we was in the "signal corp" and the epaulettes suggest he was an officer of some rank. This photos was likely taken between 1868-1872.
Sorry, just realized that the photo was most likely taken prior to Sept 1870
Comment: another upvote and you can post it here
Answer: Probably French line infantry of the period, in which case 113 is the regiment number. Attached a couple of illustrations of Franco-Prussian War period line uniforms.
Comment: This one shows the jacket closing on the same side as Leon's, and the shade of the red epaulets would show up as the same shade as the jacket in black and white.
Comment: Do the epaulets indicate an officer here's well?
Comment: Oh wow, I hadn't seen it the photo before, but you can see just barely that the collar is made of two different colors of fabric, matching the collars above.
Comment: The photos of the Uniforms attached to the Answer are from after the Franco Prussian War.
Answer: I believe the double-breasted tunic (distinct from the greatcoat, for cold weather) is a signature of the troupes de marine as shown here;

and here
.
Epaulettes are worn only by officers, and the 113 on the collar is presumably a unit ID, perhaps a regimental number. That there is not an anchor on the collar may suggest that the picture was taken after July 7, 1900, when the troupes de marine became Troupes Coloniales reporting to the Ministry of War instead of the Ministry of the Navy.
Comment: Just realized that the picture can't be mirrored or the 113 regiment number would be mirrored as well. So the jacket closes on the left.
Comment: Wrong number of buttons, colour of epaulettes, and date to be Troupes Coloniales?
Comment: And unless the picture is mirrored, the jacket closes on the wrong side.  The color of epaulettes seems to have been different depending on location of service so that might not be an issue, but the threads in the epaulets look wrong.
Comment: Small typo, it's "troupe de marine" (the first time you use the phrase, at the beginning of the answer).
Comment: There seems to be no regiment numbered 113 for the troupes de marine. There is however a 113th infantry regiment which fits the time period.
Answer: The Uniform of your Great Great Great Uncle Leon is actually one introduced after the Franco Prussian War.
The Uniform that he is wearing was introduced in 1872 to all the Army branches except for the Troupes de Marine (as suggested above) and Cavalry when the French decided to change their uniforms after their defeat to the Prussians. Before this the army conformed to the 1867 uniform regulations.
The specific garment he is wearing is the 1872 tunic or "Tunique modèle 1872"
We could say that he is an Infantryman based on the collar patch which indicates the 113e Regiment d'Infanterie but he could be from any Branch of the military because the Uniform was issued universally as i said.
For the date though i would say it is 1872-1900 based on the photo quality.
Here are some photos of the Tunique Modèle 1872:
Answer: I just tried to copy and paste a photo of my great grandfather in his French army uniform from 1880, coincidentally he's named Leon, last name Renault, from my facebook timeline, but it didn't seem to work.
The uniform appears to be about the same without the epaulettes. My great grandfather's pants were dark blue like the jacket. I know because I used to wear it sometimes for halloween when I was a child. I still have the sword as well. Btw, the number on my great grandfather's collar is 121. The number is on the front of the hat also.
Comment: I'd love to see the picture - here's how to paste a link to it: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/community/question/?id=10200955698196788


Riak cluster backup 10 nodes to 6 nodes

Question: I'm wondering how we can backup a cluster of 10 nodes and restore on a cluster of 6 nodes. No matter the technique used for the backup (fsync, riakmanager, ...).
Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.
Answer: I would recommend using the riak admin control panel. i am not sure if you are simply moving to 6 new servers or removing 4 current servers.
If you are removing 4 current servers use the control panel to remove the 4 servers and let it move the data over for you. Once your data is on 4 nodes you can take backups i would recommend taking xfs snapshots or stopping riak and backing up the file system you have riak data.
You are moving to 6 new nodes I would recommend adding 6 nodes to the current cluster letting them sync up and then removing the 10 old nodes. If the new nodes have xfs or LVM that would make snapshots very easy.

Riak cluster backup 10 nodes to 6 nodes


What happens to my data post-installation?

Question: I want to download ubuntu in place of Windows 8. I am just curious as to what happens to my saved data upon installation of ubuntu. Will my files be present after installation?
Answer: When you go in for installing Ubuntu (applies to all the versions), you have 3 options that may be considered
1.Install Alongside Windows
Here, the bootloader reads your disks, checks for other OSes and basically displays what you can install Ubuntu with. In this case, all your data is preserved and you will not lose any saved data.
2.Remove Everything and install Ubuntu
In this case you will lose all your data. Everything, the LiveUSB shall format all your drives and you will have a machine with Ubuntu only. Your data that is linked with Windows will be formated
3.Something Else
Here, you have an option of how much space you want to allocate, to which disk, swap space, everything. Total customization is available via this option. Now in this option you may or may not lose data. It depends on how you choose to create your new partitions really.
So this is how these options work. Hope you have a successful installation!
Answer: You can install Ubuntu over windows completely overriding the windows files. If you do this, backup everything before the install. Or you could install it alongside Windows and it will give an option to partition your HDD so you can use both. This will leave you with access to your files.


The meaning of matrix powers

Question: If a matrix can represent a system of equations, what is the meaning of the square of that matrix? It represents another system? What is the relation with the final system and the first?
Comment: A matrix can represent things other than a system of equations.
Comment: Note that a matrix represents about a class of linear equations, not just one set of linear equations.  A class of problems of the form $Ax = b$ where $b$ can e any vector.  Also note that the square of $A$ only makes sense for that class of problems if the set of equations and unknowns represented by $Ax=b$ are equal.
Answer: I'm not sure if this clarifies or obscures.
Write your set of equations as:
$$Ax = b$$
Where $b$ is a vector and $A$ is an $n\times n$ matrix.
Then solving
$$A^2 x = b$$
Is the same as solving:
$$A x = y$$
$$A y = b$$
Therefore, if we think of the $y$ as another $n$ unknowns, we can write the $2n\times 2n$ matrix for this set of $2n$ equations in $2n$ unknowns as:
$$\left(\begin{array}{rrr}
    A & -I \\
    0 & A \\
  \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{rrr}
    x\\
    y
\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{rrr}
    0\\
    b
\end{array}\right)$$
That this "reduces" to solving an equation of the form $A^2 x = b$ is the property of $A^2$.
We can actually do much the same thing for any product of two matrices.
Comment: This is the answer I was looking for. Thanks!
Answer: When we think of a matrix as a linear transformation, the square of a matrix $A$ is the transformation defined by applying $A$ twice. Keep in mind that $A^2$ is only defined when $A$ is square (not to be confused with squaring). This is to say that we can only apply a transformation again if we are mapping from a space into itself.
Answer: Even in the case of a square matrix $A$ (so that $A^2$ makes sense) you cannot expect to understand $A^2$ in terms of the interpretation of the matrix as a system of equations $A\cdot x=0$ (note that it cannot represent a system $A\cdot x=b$ because such $b$ is not contained in the matrix). That interpretation views each row of $A$ as an equation. But in a system of equations the order of the equations does not affect the meaning of the system, so this meaning is unchanged under permutation of the rows. However such permutation can change the value of $A^2$ in a dramatic way, so $A^2$ cannot be understood in terms of the system $A\cdot x=0$ alone.

The meaning of matrix powers


Did either of the World Wars involve South or Central America?

Question: Were any South or Central American nations besides Brazil involved (not necessarily officially) in either of the World Wars? If any were, I'd appreciate information on their degree of involvement.
Comment: Does having warships and transport traverse Panama Canal count?
Comment: @Anixx - was it indeeed for that reason (for real, not rhethoric)?
Comment: For certain definitions of "involved", even states that remained formally neutral in WW II were "involved".

Point in case, Uruguay and the whole issue of the ship [Admiral Graf Spee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee#Scuttling). (Under terms of neutrality, the battle-damaged Graf Spee had to leave Montevideo harbor after no more than 72 hours.)
Comment: Also, both Argentina and Brazil were pretty Nazi-friendly. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2491/whats-the-true-story-on-south-american-nazis
Comment: @DVK Panama: Perhaps as a footnote :) Nazis: Thanks, that's interesting.
Comment: @DVK I am not so sure about Brasil, it even considered attacking Argentina with help of the US for its pro-Nazi policy.
Comment: On June 28, 1943 the USS PC-815 submarine chaser fired four 3" shells as well as a number of rifle and pistol shots in the direction of the Coronado Islands. Nobody was injured, but there was Mexican navy personnel stationed there. The incident resulted in L. Ron Hubbard losing command of the vessel.
Answer: Yes, both World War I and World War II involved South and Central America.
WWI
Here is a list of South American countries that severed relations and those that declared war. Sourced from here.

April 7, 1917 Panama declares war on Germany
April 13, 1917 Bolivia severs relations with Germany
October 6, 1917 Peru severs relations with Germany
October 7, 1917 Uruguay severs relations with Germany
October 26, 1917 Brazil declares war on Germany
December 8, 1917 Ecuador severs relations with Germany
December 10, 1917 Panama declares war on Austria
April 23, 1918 Guatemala declares war on Germany
May 8, 1918 Nicaragua declares war on Germany and Austria
May 23, 1918 Costa Rica declares war on Germany
July 12, 1918 Haiti declares war on Germany
July 19, 1918 Honduras declares war on Germany

Although eight other South or Central American countries declared war, only Brazil had direct involvement. Brazil sent surgeons and pilots to Europe. Most pilots served with the RAF, but some served with the French Army. Brazil was mainly involved at sea, however. A good part of their fleet was involved in anti-submarine warfare. However, there we're quite a few delays that hampered the war effort:

"The Italians wanted [the Brazilian fleet] in the Mediterranean, the Americans wanted them to work closely with U.S. forces, and the French wanted to keep them protecting the commercial maritime traffic along the African coast Between Dakar and Gibraltar". This long hesitation among the Allied command, combined with a delay due to operational problems throughout 1918 that prevented launching the squadron to sea, plus the Spanish flu pandemic that struck the crew at the end of August, meant that the fleet arrived at Gibraltar at beginning of November, 1918, only to see the armistice signed within days, thus putting an end to World War I.

WWII
World War II also saw some South and Central American participation. However, again, Brazil was the only nation of these to send troops to fight.

The members of the Pan American Union, who were all neutral between 1939 and 1941, formed a mutual defense pact at a conference of foreign ministers at Havana, from 21 to 30 July 1940. The "Declaration on Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of the Nations of the Americas" was part of the Final Act of the Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics at Havana, Cuba, 30 July 1940.

This organization was instrumental in organizing the nations of South and Central America. In fact, before the founding of it, some of these nations recognized Manchukuo as a legitimate state.

Brazil, from 1942, participated in anti-submarine warfare in the South and Central Atlantic and; in July 1944 sent an Expeditionary Force of 25,000 army and air force personnel to the Italian campaign;
-Allies of WW2

During the eight months of the Italian campaign, the Brazilian Expeditionary Force managed to take 20,573 Axis prisoners, consisting of two generals, 892 officers and 19,679 other ranks. During the War, Brazil lost 948 of its own men killed in action across all three services during the Italian campaign.

Argentina was officially neutral, but leaned to the side of the Axis. After the war, many war criminals harbored there.
Chile also was officially neutral, but later joined the Allies
Before 1940, "Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic offered diplomatic recognition of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo which was not recognized as a legitimate state by a majority of the world's nations at the time." Note Dominican Republic is North American.

So, yes, there was involvement from South and Central America, but it did not play an instrumental part in either of the World Wars.
Comment: Except that Mexico is in North America.
Comment: You might want to check your geography...if you include El Salvador, Panama, Guatamala or the Dominican Republic then Mexico can also be included. Its generally considered part of Central America not North America
Comment: Thank you. (I would say that the Dominican Republic is a part of the Caribbean rather than any of the Americas.)
Comment: I'd also like to point out the bit about Mexico - http://history.stackexchange.com/q/1031/114
Comment: The only one of those that is not [Central American](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America) is the Dominican Republic. I also removed Cuba because it is not Central American either. However, El Salvador, Panama, and Guatemala are all Central American, unlike Mexico.
Comment: Gee...shows what happens when geography changes.  I learned it as Central America in school...I'll take back the comment but won't take back my geography tests.
Comment: Not meaning to add another round of back and forth of comments that have nothing to do with the original question, but if Mexico can be considered part of Central or North America pretty much depends on where you are from or what authority you trust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America#Usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America#Usage_of_the_term_North_America.
Comment: And to add a bit of info to the original question, in case a reader believes Mexico is part of Central America: Mexico did have a quite small, though active role in WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerza_A%C3%A9rea_Expedicionaria_Mexicana, however they did not fight in Europe, but "in the liberation of the Japanese-occupied Philippines". Official source (in spanish): http://www.sev.gob.mx/difusion/ejercito_mexicano/escuadron201.pdf. WIkipedia also cites some other efforts performed by Mexican citizens to aid in the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#Mexico
Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate
Answer: "Mexico and Brazil were the only Latin America countries to play an active part in the war, both on the Allied side. At their peak, the Brazilian armed forces in World War II numbered 200,000."
"Among the pro-Axis Latin American countries, pro-German feeling was strongest in Argentina, including solid popular support for the Nazis. Argentina had a large German population and an even greater Italian one....In both Chile and Argentina there was suppression of pro-Allied opinions and support."
Terror and Triumph, By Marshall Cavendish
Comment: It certainly wasn't 200,000 people. It was treated as a division within the Allied forces in Italy, and a division is like 10,000 - 15,000 soldiers. Plus FAB (Air Force) and non-combatant troops (communications, transport, etc) it probably summed up some 25 to 30 thousand soldiers. Also, the total Ally force in Italy, during the final spring offensive, was probably around 1 million troops; the Brazilian forces were far from being 20% of that.
Answer: Yes Mexico and Brazil, both country's joined the Allied forces during 1942. In which the Mexican Air Force in World War II  helped liberate the Philippines. Fuerza Aerea Mexicana (FAM).
The Fighter-bomber squadron 201st known as The Aztecs Eagles which  consisted of 300 enlisted men and officers from all branches of the military, including 38 of the best pilots
Answer: The South American countries were very hostile to the Axis in World War II and displayed it strongly, even though most did not send troops.
Costa Rica declared war on Germany on December 4, 1941 days BEFORE Pearl Harbor (counting on the Monroe Doctrine. Mexico declared war in April 1942, Brazil in August 1942. Colombia authorized the creation of American bases anywhere on its soil. Brazil, Venezuela and the U.S. worked on joint defense plans for the shipment of bauxite (used in ironmaking) from Dutch Guyana (Surinam). Later, these included the shipment of Venezuelan oil and Brazilian foodstuffs. German submarines were a threat in the Caribbean and even the South Atlantic.
Some 21 of the original 34 signatories of the (anti-Axis) United Nations were in the Americas.
Comment: I disagree. Argentina was pro-axis. Also, only Brazil actually sent troops (as stated in my answer).
Answer: Argentina maintained diplomatic relations with Germany until March 1945. Germany ran a clandestine air bridge to Argentina via Barcelona and Villa Czneros until the very end of the war.
Gottfreide Standstede and Wilhelm Seidlitz at Delfino Shipping were responsible for an Abwher smuggling chain through Spain to germany to defeat the Allied blockade.


GET flash memory type: SLC or MLC

Question: Just for my knowledge, I would like to know whether the type of flash memory used in my pendrive is SLC or MLC. Is there a way to find it out? I googled but found nothing.
Answer: Most of the pendrives are using NAND MLC. SLC pendrives are rare and usually more expensive. Some examples:

Zalman U3M16 16GB SLC Flash Drive
Mach Xtreme MX-ES Ultra SLC USB 3.0 Flash Drive
Lexar JumpDrive Triton 32GB USB 3.0 Flash Drive
IronKey S200 1GB USB flash drive

I am sure with a little googling you will find more. Interestingly most of the Workspace pendrives, which should be endurable, use MLC, so I guess that is sufficient as well, and we don't really need SLC.
Answer: The correct answer was given by Mechanical Snail(check the comments above) on Stack Exchange. The answer's brief and simple, every Flash device uses a MLC because it is cheap and has a higher density. Giving SLC to the customer would make the pendrive costly as cost per gigabyte for SLC is more than MLC. For uses like these MLC is always preferred over SLC.

GET flash memory type: SLC or MLC


What is the difference between "Land 2" and "Land 3" annunciations for Boeing autopilot systems?

Question: Another question's answers refer to certain Boeing jets having the capability to annunciate "Land 2" and "Land 3" when flying a coupled ILS approach. What does each of these modes require, and allow, beyond the basic coupled ILS? How are they different from one another?
Answer: From "Smart Cockpit"
B777 Automatic Flight (PDF!)

AFDS Status Annunciation
  The following AFDS status annunciations are displayed just above the PFD attitude display:
   • FLT DIR (the flight director is ON and the autopilots are not engaged)
   •   A/P (the autopilots are engaged)
  •   LAND 3 (three autopilots are engaged and operating normally for an
  automatic landing)
  •   LAND 2 (AFDS redundancy is reduced; in some cases, only two autopilots are available)
  •   NO AUTOLAND (the AFDS is unable to make an automatic landing).
  With a LAND 3 indication, the autopilot system level of redundancy is such that a single fault cannot prevent the autopilot system from making an automatic landing (fail operational).
  With a LAND 2 indication, the level of redundancy is such that a single fault cannot cause a significant deviation from the flight path (fail passive).
  An EICAS message is displayed for any fault which limits the capability of the automatic landing system. Aural alerts for EICAS messages not affecting safety of flight are inhibited until after touchdown. Changes in autoland status below 200 feet, other than a transition to
  NO AUTOLAND status, are inhibited.
From Chapter 9, pages 22-23
Comment: This is great information, but if at all possible please post text rather than images: searching won't find text information in an image. If that isn't possible here then adding a brief summary/explanation to the image would be a good alternative.
Comment: Land 2 is still good for a Cat III Autotland but with a Decision Height of 50'.      There are numerous other equipment failures that can cause Land 2 status. (Autothrottle, Pitot heat, ILS receiver,Hydraulics etc).
Comment: So, Land3 with all AP working, gives you Cat III autoland, right? And Land2 is good to, what, Cat II mins but you still have to make the landing? Is there a reason beside an A/P failure what you'd be in, or prefer to be in, Land2 instead of Land3? Are these modes needed for anything besides Cat II and Cat III mins?  (Other than exercising the system, currency, etc.)
Comment: There is very little correlation with the Land 3 and CAT III.


Showing information message on multi step form

Question: This is a long configuration page (form) which can have multiple steps as for each product, configuration needs to be done. (each step can represent each product) Now if there is/are few information message(s) (not error or validation messages but purely information but might be critical at times), how to and where to show such messages?
Currently, those are identified only when user clicks first step submit button, and then shown on top of next step. But from my POV, those are irrelevant for next product configuration/step bacase it is related to first product. There is absolutely nothing that we can get any explicite user action. If we would want to have, it could be only displaying the message after the step action button and then let user click 'OK' to go ahead - on dialogue. But this seems unnecessary to me. as user actually does not do anything. Please suggest how to take care of showing message on appripriate place.
Answer: I love the way Apple is showing help text or more info text in settings for each step where ever is applicable.
I think in your case you could take some inspiration.
Answer: There are 2 key aspects to showing a user informational messages.

Context. The message has to be along side the item(s) it is related to or the user is not going to understand what it is and how it relates.
Process flow. The message needs to be either before or after the related item(s) and it does matter which (see below for "rules")

If your message is telling a user how to fill in a form then the message needs to be on top (users are reading from top to bottom) and thus you want to give them the advice up front so they can enter the right values.
If however your message is "confirmational", e.g. "By submitting this form you are agreeing to our ToS..." Then placing it at after the form content is best as you don't want or need to distract the user with this info before they fill out the form.
Regardless of placement, keep messages short, simple and to the point.
Finally make sure the styling of the message (and any iconography) matches the tone of the message. E.g. Don't use a scary red error message style to tell the user "You will be able to add attachments after saving this task." As it is just informational.
Comment: Thanks but these messages are not about help while filling out the form. In fact it appears once you hit the bottom action button of the first step after validating some criterias and then it show on next step. Next step and this message is not relevant. Thats the problem hence where to show becomes the problem.
Comment: What is the message then? I think we need to know this in order to provide the best answer.
Answer: Are the messages related to specific fields on each page?
If you do not want to show some sort of dialog to the user before moving onto the next step, then maybe show some quick notifications/toasts related to the item/action the user just finished interacting with.
For example:


Automatically log into SIP phone when user logs into Windows

Question: We run an asterisk-based PBX, with FreePBX front end, configured in 'device and user mode' to support hot desking users. That is, a user arrives and sits at any desk, keys *11 into the phone (Cisco 7900 series) and logs in with their extension number and PIN. From that point, the user's calls arrive at that phone. When the user is done, they log off by keying *12 and their calls go to voicemail from that point.
What would be handy is if we could automate this login process, so that the users is automatically logged into a phone when they log into Windows. The PCs and phones are permanently assigned to desks, so I can work out which phone to use based on the PC thats being logged into. The user's extension number is stored in Active Directory and I always set the PIN the same as the extension number, so I have all the information necessary.
So what I need is some code that runs on windows, possibly in the login script, and connects the user to their phone.
Does anyone have anything like this?
Answer: You can create desktop application to be runned at user's login.
In that aplication you can login user using astirisk AMI interface.
If application is too complex for you, you can create auto-expect script.


What were the reasons for making Prohibition a constitutional amendment?

Question: What were the reasons that the Prohibition in the United States was passed as a constitutional amendment, rather than a normal federal law, or a set of state laws?
Answer: As other answers have mentioned, there were state and local laws that prohibited alcohol before the Constitutional amendment.  And there is the obvious fact that a Constitutional amendment is a more permanent measure than a normal law, which would require a more complex measure to overturn.  (There may be a parallel to the moves in recent years to enshrine gay marriage bans in state Constitutions; in most cases there were already laws in place, but a Constitutional amendment was thought of a something that might be "more permanent" and wouldn't be overturned easily if a different party came into power.)
However, the question is a bit more complicated, because one might argue that -- at the time -- a "normal federal law" couldn't be used.  Or, if it were used, it could not achieve the sweeping goals of the temperance movement in truly prohibiting alcohol.  Furthermore, a law prohibiting alcohol at that time might have been successfully challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.
That's the short explanation.  To understand the situation in detail, we have to consider the history of Constitutional law in the United States.

The Constitution contains a set of enumerated powers for the federal government.  Originally, Congress had no power to pass laws that could not derive directly from one of these powers; any other government powers were granted to the states (as reinforced by the Tenth Amendment).  However, the exact limitations on these powers were disputed almost immediately as new legal situations arose.  The 19th century saw a number of these enumerated powers become slightly expanded or curtailed in various Supreme Court cases.
Nevertheless, the presumption in the early 20th century was that Congress could not create laws which went beyond those original enumerated powers.  The Supreme Court frequently struck down federal laws that could not be related back to the Constitution (perhaps most famously in the string of court decisions that repeatedly invalidated much of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" in the early to mid 1930s on the grounds that the federal government did not have those powers).  While the Supreme Court jurisprudence of this era tended to focus on economic freedom issues (the so-called Lochner era), any legislation that took power away from states or individuals could be suspect if it was not in the enumerated powers.
The regulation of "interstate commerce" is contained in the enumerated powers, but it was still largely interpreted as an interstate issue, i.e., the federal government could legally become involved mostly when merchandise or businesses went across state lines.  Thus, early attempts at drug restriction by the federal government tended to focus on taxes for items going across state lines, rather than outright bans or detailed regulation.
An interesting case study here is the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, which was passed in 1914 to regulate opiates and cocaine.  The act did not make such drugs illegal, but merely required special registrations and taxes on those who manufactured or distributed them.  The tax on physicians and medical use was low, but for non-medical use, the tax was so exorbitant as to effectively prohibit distribution or sale of the drugs.  This second tax was challenged in court, where it was claimed that the act was not a tax -- which would be a Constitutionally enumerated power -- but rather a federal infringement of the police power of the states, which of course was its intent if not its literal mechanism.  Nevertheless the Supreme Court upheld the act in United States v. Doremus (1919) while reaffirming that the federal government could not usurp the police power of the states.  But the Supreme Court did later object to use of the act to arrest doctors who chose to prescribe these drugs without sufficient medical justification, e.g., just to drug addicts.  As Justice McReynolds wrote in Linder v. United States (1925), "Obviously direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."  This shows the kind of complex debates about precisely how far federal power could go, which a Constitutional amendment would avoid at this time.
Another option was for the federal government to pass uniform acts, such as the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act of 1934.  A "uniform act" is a collaborative measure intended to be adopted by individual states to ensure a uniform process governing a particular issue.  However, states cannot be forced to adopt such regulations; initially only 9 states adopted this early narcotics act, and a public relations campaign was launched by FDR and others to convince the public of "reefer madness" and thus adopt narcotics legislation.
Since alcohol regulation is not specified in the Constitution, Congress had no explicit power to regulate it.  And, as affirmed for example by the Supreme Court in the Matter of Heff (1905):

In the United States, there is a dual system of government, national
  and state, each of which is supreme within its own domain, and it is
  one of the chief functions of this Court to preserve the balance
  between them.
The general police power is reserved to the states subject to the
  limitation that it may not trespass on the rights and powers vested in
  the national government.
The regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors is within the power
  of the state, and the license exacted by the national government is
  solely for revenue, and is not an attempted exercise of the police
  power.

Nonetheless, Congress was making progress using its enumerated powers leading up to full Prohibition.  In the Wilson Act (1890), through its power to regulate the postal system, Congress affirmed states' ability to regulate mailed liquor once it entered a state.  Regulation of the postal system and interstate commerce led to further restrictions on imported liquor in "dry" states or communities, including the C.O.D. Act (1909), the Webb-Kenyon Act (1913), and ultimately the Reed Amendment (1917).  Many such laws faced challenges in the Supreme Court and were only upheld when justified in a particular enumerated power.
Given that much alcohol was locally brewed or distilled in the early 1900s, regulation of "interstate commerce" would not have been sufficient to prohibit alcohol completely, and a "uniform act" was essentially a state-by-state approach which was already underway.
Thus, a Constitutional amendment was (at that time) the only way to create a nationwide law actually banning alcohol sale and distribution in general.
The Lochner era came to an end with the so-called "Switch in Time that Saved Nine," when Justice Owen Roberts started voting to uphold sweeping federal powers in 1937, thereby creating a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court that was reluctant to declare legislation unconstitutional on the basis of the enumerated powers.  (Whether Roberts's decision had anything to do with FDR's threat to enlarge the Supreme Court and appoint enough new justices to override his opponents is something that historians have long debated.  Roberts himself declared that his decision to "switch sides" had nothing to do with FDR's plan.)
In any case, laws regulating controlled substances rapidly followed the 1937 shift, such as the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and various new laws regulating marijuana, etc.  By the early 1940s, there were effectively few restrictions left that constrained the "interstate commerce" clause, which was now interpreted to be able to regulate any economic activity, from commerce only within states to personal goods consumed on one's own property.
Thus, Congress prior to 1937 had only limited powers to regulate manufacture, sale, and transportation of most substances (alcohol included), and mostly resorted to taxation as a remedy.  After about 1942 Congress has had basically unlimited power to pass such regulations as long as they do not interfere with specific individual rights.  Thus, a sweeping prohibition of alcohol from the 1910s-1930s required a Constitutional amendment, but subsequent prohibition and regulation of various other drugs has been achieved through "normal federal laws."
Comment: @Carmi This is the best answer; can it be accepted?
Answer: Prohibition required a constitutional amendment, because the Federal government does not have the power to regulate intra-state commerce.
The majority of states and many localities had already banned the sale of alcohol. The progressive and women's suffrage movements saw banning alcohol as a way to improve living conditions for women and children and reduce the power of saloon-centric machine politics.
Comment: @Carmi - Today we operate under a very different Supreme Court Regime than in the early 20th Century. The way the court views the Commerce Clause changed drastically under Roosevelt.
Comment: @Carmi Remember that the Federal government was dramatically smaller and weaker than it is today. Also, alcohol production was a very localized phenomenon in those days. Today, it would be the exception to find even a microbrewery that doesn't engage in interstate commerce.
Comment: "power to regulate intra-state commerce" - this was my note about the Commerce Clause.  Some sites noted that the Amendment was put in place in the times before the Courts and Federal government saw the Commerce Clause as a way to open the door to any regulation it wanted.
Comment: Are you sure? Today's federal gun or drug laws are sweeping, and they aren't a constitutional issue. Surely it has some power, though I don't know if it stems from the "commerce between the states" clauses or not.
Comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Answer: I believe this was to make the local State laws, that were a hodgepodge of enactments on a State level, more uniform and to bring the enforcement into the Federal realm.  This was especially easy since the Temperance Movements had become politically powerful in the early 20th Century and in the election of 1917 the pro-Prohibitionists finally had a majority in Congress and moved things along.  The actual text is:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or
  transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof
  into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all
  territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is
  hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States
  shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
  legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
  ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
  the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven
  years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the
  Congress.

Without the Volstead Act though the Amendment was very vague, the Volstead Act was more important as it was the one that set down enforcement of the ban.  Note the text says nothing about consumption.
At the time the Constitution WAS seen as the enshrinement of laws, getting an Amendment gave weight to your cause and Federal enforcement.  I don't have official sources on this but there are arguments that prior to the use of the Commerce Clause to give Federal enforcement powers an Amendment was the way to get National enforcement.  Although looking more at varous sources the most common rationale given for a national-law is the Temperance Movement already had many States enacting Prohibitive Laws, but this would make it Federal and not allow Liquor interests to interfere locally and influence local politicians.
Comment: Actually, another reason (applicable only to the US Constitution) is to give Congress authority in the first place.  All acts of the US Government are required to have Constitutional authority, and this is enforced (although you may not agree with some of the interpretations of the Constitution the Supreme Court makes).  Sometime around then, the Constitution had to be amended to make the Federal income tax legal.
Comment: People who really want to drive something in sometimes go for a Constitutional amendment for emphasis and to make it harder to change in the future.  Some people in Minnesota are trying to pass an amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit what is already prohibited by statute, for example.
Comment: Yeah but as was seen it just meant another amendment to repeal the one that existed.  And many thought THAT would never happen.
Answer: Prohibition existed in many localities around the country prior to the amendment, but the answer to your question seems to be because the powers that wished to enact prohibition had overwhelming public support. So, the group that wanted prohibition did it in part because they could.
To further flesh out some points of MichaelF's answer, prohibition was already starting to take hold around the country. According to Irving Fisher (a professor of economics who testified during congressional hearings on prohibition in April of 1926) in his book Prohibition at its Worst:

By 1914, a large area of communities had abolished the saloons by local option, and nine states had passed Prohibition statues. But within the next four years, 23 more states abolished liquor traffic within their borders.

Professor Fisher notes that prohibition was essentially forced upon the large cities of the East Coast by the rest of the country. The Anti-Saloon League is cited as a particularly effective organization that saw prohibition through to its ultimate success.
It is also interesting to note, as the Howard McBain (a law professor at Columbia University) did in 1928, the sheer amount of popular support for prohibition:

The Prohibition Amendment was adopted by overwhelmingly extraordinary majorities - by two-thirds of the members present in each house of Congress and by legislative majorities in twenty-three twenty-fourths of the states.

Interestingly, the Prohibition Amendment invalidated all state and local regulations that dealt with prohibition because the Constitution became the supreme law in this area, and granted police power to the feds to enforce the amendment.
For Further Reading See:

Prohibition at its Worst - Irving Fisher pp. 83-86
Prohibition Legal & Illegal - Howard McBain pp. 12-13
Blakemore on Prohibition - Arthur Blakemore
Comment: And it just occurred to me that this would be considered, today, by some, a creep of Federal Power over States Rights.  Unless they supported it, then the argument would never come up
Comment: @MichaelF it would be an interesting case to see the Supreme Court decide today
Answer: Federal laws are based on powers granted to the Senate and the House of Representatives that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. It took the 18th Amendment to the Constitution for Congress to be empowered to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol.
The resulting federal enabling legislation was known as the Volstead Act.
Comment: Why the downvote?


Was the Buddha a pessimist?

Question: I learn from sources the Buddha and his teachings is often associated with pessimism. Is there any historical accuracies which can confirm this as a fact.
Comment: Both is required, householder, and timeless, not a history-tag. [Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/affirming_en.html) may bring householder clearance.
Comment: Asking for "historical accuracies", I guess you're asking for citations or for references to historical scripture which might confirm or deny the association with pessimism -- and so I changed the tag to `reference-request` which is for questions which are asking for a (scriptural or perhaps historical) reference.
Comment: Is it important that someone should read the linked articles before answering the question? If so can you reference or quote whchever especially-important paragraph[s] (or questions or definitions) in them that you were asking about? Or do you want people to just answer off the top of their heads, based on their existing understanding of what Buddhism is and what pessimism might mean?
Comment: Yes I would appreciate a reference or quotation from the documentation supporting an answer.
Comment: I meant: in the article which you linked to, is there something -- e.g. one paragraph of it in particular -- that you want to ask about? Because the article itself answers your question, doesn't it? And it's too long to address every detail of it; so is there some detail in it that you want to ask about?
Answer: The Buddha was a realist who preached about reality as it is. Optimising is a mindset where one thinks that conditions are better than what they actually are. Pessimism is the opposite, where one thinks things are worse off than what they actually are. Realism is the middle ground where one accepts things for what they actually are, without undue focus on only the negative or positive aspects of reality. The Buddha Dhamma teachers to reality as it is a teachers a path to see reality as it is.
Answer: If you're enjoying life, with a happy and supportive family, cheerful and dependable friends, with good health, good income and a luxurious lifestyle, you would find the Buddha a pessimist.
Why? The Buddha says in SN 56.11:

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it
  is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for
  sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.

So, you who are enjoying life, would experience aversion at the Buddha's words that apparently want to take this joy of life away from you.
So, it is not the Buddha who is the pessimist. Rather, YOU are the pessimist, or rather when you read the Buddha's words, the pessimistic emotion appears in your mind. It's your aversion to the Buddha's words.
On the other hand, if you have bad family relations, no friends, chronic pain and suffering from poor health, no money etc. then the Buddha would appear to be an optimist to you.
Why? It's because you are experiencing aversion from the painful situation in your life. So, the Buddha's words below from SN 56.11 would provide solace and comfort to you, that there is a way out of experiencing (mental) suffering. So, you get relief from your aversion. And that's optimism. YOUR optimism.

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering:
  it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same
  craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it,
  nonreliance on it.
"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering: it is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is,
  right view, right intention, right speech, right action,
  right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

When you look at the Buddha's words, whether you feel that he is an optimist or a pessimist, is actually a reflection of your own state of mind.
Coming back to the first case, where you're enjoying life, with a happy and supportive family, cheerful and dependable friends, with good health, good income and a luxurious lifestyle.
How can we change your mind so that you think that the Buddha is an optimist?
Read the following from AN 5.43:

For one desiring long life, beauty, fame,
  acclaim, heaven, high families,
  and lofty delights
  following in succession,
  the wise praise heedfulness
  in doing deeds of merit.
Being heedful, the wise person
  secures both kinds of good:
  the good in this life,
  and the good of the future life.
  By attaining the good, the steadfast one
  is called one of wisdom.

Voilà! Now the Buddha is an optimist to you.
Also read this answer for the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?"
Comment: Thank you for enlightening me!
Answer: For those who delight in sensuality & attachment, the Buddha was a pessimist.
For those urgently searching for inner peace & happiness that is independent from worldly reliance and conditions, the Buddha was the supreme optimist because Nibbāna in the here & now is the highest happiness and the highest state a human can reach in terms of mental development.
That the Buddha revealed there is actually a complete end of suffering that can be found in this life is actually something supremely optimistic.
Comment: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/98230/discussion-on-answer-by-dhammadhatu-was-the-buddha-a-pessimist).
Answer: Well kind of.
There are other teachers and religions that think something like "it always works out in the end, nothing can go wrong, it's always a happy story, happy ending".
Whereas one of the Noble truths is that "there is pain" or dukkha or acknowledging that pain or suffering really does exist rather than a denial that suffering exists like many other dhammas.
But the true purpose of the teaching is for the cessation of suffering, reaching the highest bliss, extinguishment of mental fermentations.
In my opinion The Buddha Gautama was more of an optimist who acknowledged the reality of suffering existing rather than a delusional denial.
When encountering lay people he often encouraged them to fulfill worldly desires in ways that generates merit and when discussing things with monks interested in achieving arahantship here and now he discussed more direct methods.
When debating against a sensual hedonist he thought The Buddha was a life-destroyer:

"Even if I was to see Master Gotama face to face, Mister Bhāradvāja, I
  would say to his face: 'The ascetic Gotama is a life-destroyer.' Why
  is that? Because that's what it implies in a discourse of ours."
...
"In the same way, sensual pleasures of the past, future, and present
  are painful to touch, fiercely burning and scorching. These sentient
  beings who are not free from sensual pleasures—being consumed by
  craving for sensual pleasures, burning with passion for sensual
  pleasures—have impaired sense faculties. So even though sensual
  pleasures are actually painful to touch, they have a distorted
  perception that they are pleasant." (MN 75)

When debating against an ascetic who practiced painful austerities the ascetic thought more the opposite that The Buddha was more of an optimist:

'Reverend Gotama, pleasure is not gained through pleasure; pleasure is
  gained through pain. For if pleasure were to be gained through
  pleasure, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Māgadha would gain pleasure, since
  he lives in greater pleasure than Venerable Gotama.'
'Clearly the venerables have spoken rashly, without reflection.
  Rather, I'm the one who should be asked about who lives in greater
  pleasure, King Bimbisāra or Venerable Gotama?'
'Clearly we spoke rashly and without reflection. But forget about
  that. Now we ask Venerable Gotama: "Who lives in greater pleasure,
  King Bimbisāra or Venerable Gotama?"'
'Well then, reverends, I'll ask you about this in return, and you can
  answer as you like. What do you think, reverends? Is King Bimbisāra
  capable of experiencing perfect happiness for seven days and nights
  without moving his body or speaking?'
'No he is not, reverend.'
'What do you think, reverends? Is King Bimbisāra capable of
  experiencing perfect happiness for six days … five days … four days …
  three days … two days … one day?'
'No he is not, reverend.'
'But I am capable of experiencing perfect happiness for one day and
  night without moving my body or speaking. I am capable of experiencing
  perfect happiness for two days … three days … four days … five days …
  six days … seven days. What do you think, reverends? This being so,
  who lives in greater pleasure, King Bimbisāra or I?'
'This being so, Venerable Gotama lives in greater pleasure than King
  Bimbisāra.'" (MN 14)

According to The Buddha both sensual pleasure and painful austerities cause painful feelings.
The reason for avoiding sensual pleasures is to prevent the individual from experiencing painful feelings.
Because of impaired senses the majority cannot easily see the harm in sensual pleasures like how they can easily see the harm in inflicting physical pain.
But based on the suttas painful austerities are far more harmful in MN 71 The Buddha claims that almost no naked ascetic in the past 91 eons ever went to heaven after death whereas many seemingly normal lay people go to heavenly worlds after death. Also in AN 10.211 sensual pleasure is not listed as a something that ensures that someone goes to hell so it's probably more a rule for monks or those interested in achieving arahantship here and now.
If someone has a career or practice that yields painful feelings it's probably similar to a painful austerity.
The sammasambuddha Gautama preached for the welfare and actual supreme happiness of beings.
Answer: I say, that pessimism is the hinderance reffered to as doubt by others. But don't take my word for it, don't believe anything anyone tells you unless in makes sense to your own faculties and powers of discernment.   Doubt, and question everything!  Buddha said "question Everything, no matter who said it. Even is I have said it." This is someone who want you to find out the truth. Any teacher putting themselves beyond questioning should not be followed as a teacher. They want to conform you to their attachment to their egoic condition!
I say question everything especially if I Say It! Lol Find out!    Only the question about Buddha is not the right type of question and any answer is likely to be within the parameters of nonsense. Buddha is not the name of someone, it is a quality of enlightenment... But I do question how some monks and organization have and instill such suffering that everything will lead to suffering unless you exhaust existing. I wonder if this opinion, and the detachment is a cause of suffering and conflict in the world.  And if it is, so what? It is just so, and it is ok. Also perfect reality as it is. Theororetically...
Answer: No such thing is found in the Tathagata, he was a realist if anything in as far as he explained phenomena as phenomena and the escapes as escapes.
Most people's worldview does not take into account the escape nor do they stop speculating about phenomena.
To some of these people only the immediately visible overlap between the Dhamma and 'existential depression' is discernable and is grasped with wrong view as being evidence of equality between the two. Hence the misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
A pessimist is closer to the truth than one with a rosetinted perspective but the pessimist is unable to put his observation into proper context so he becomes despaired and unmotivated whereas the Buddha attains the highest happiness and is comfortable without a ground for sorrow and his students are dilligent, balanced and highly motivated.

Was the Buddha a pessimist?