The Counter Crusade

My New Blog

2006-04-19T23:42:00.000+02:00

Click here

http://riyada.blogspot.com/

The Beginning, The End, The New Beginning

2006-04-08T14:27:00.006+02:00

Alright. So I started this blog because I saw Islam being attacked everywhere rather unfairly. They say, "look Islam says such and such a thing" when they dont realize the Bible says the exact same thing or much worse. Same goes for the Torah or another religious book. They say "look what the Muslims are doing" while Hindus do far worse things and no one talks about them. Etc, etc. It becomes quite clear that Islam is not being attacked for something wrong with Islam itself... There is nothing wrong with Islam itself (although there is MUCH that is wrong with Muslims). Islam was attacked because it was the new political enemy, and with all the media distortions and everything it became everyone's enemy... it was under the spotlight.

And then I saw all those Muslims trying to defend Islam from this, defend Islam from that... and they all sounded like weak apologists, the ones at the bottom trying to become level with the rest of the world. BAHUMBUG! Islam is and always has been far superior morally and spiritually to any thought system in the history of Planet Earth, and everyone else is supposed to be trying to catch up with it. Muslims are supposed to be criticizing everyone else for not being up to par with Islamic standards. Why are we playing the role of the weak? Why are we on the defensive instead of the offensive? Yes, we're being attacked, but we're supposed to launch a counter-attack. To take control. To reverse the situation. Turn the tables. Being on the defensive all the time makes you look weak in the eyes of everyone else. And eventually you see in yourself what others see in you.

And thus the blog was started...

But then I came to realize one little problem... I just couldn't do it. Oh I wrote a great list of so many topics to write about. I still have it lying around somewhere. I had lots of great stuff to talk about. But I just couldn't do it. I'm not like those hateful anti-Islamic shayateen attacking Islam online out of pure hatred. Even though what I was supposed to write was completely different, and not hateful at all. I just wanted to point out where Islam was superior and where others were being hypocritical in criticizing Islam. But even that I couldn't do. I could show that they're wrong about Islam, but I just could't get myself to show them how they have the same things in their sacred texts, or how they have bad things compared to the Qur'an. I couldn't say, "well why don't you look at Hindus and what they're doing about this", or "did you know of such and such problems with the Bible.." etc, etc. I could write a few, but I couldn't keep it up. It's just not in me. Maybe someone else can pick up where I left off and do this. But not me. I'm not even sure it's Islamic. Even though I AM convinced that the offensive is far better than the defensive (better strategically). But still, I couldn't get myself to do it.

And don't get me wrong. The point of the counter-attack was never to just say "oh yeah? well look at the problems that you people have!" No.. the point was to get people to ask: "If these issues that Islam is being criticized for, exist in all these other religions/cultures... and if all that other stuff is going on with such and such a religion or culture... why is it that no one is talking about them? Why is it that everyone is only talking about Islam?" And thus to bring about the realization that Islam is the political enemy of the age, chosen by certain groups. And that is the SOLE reason it was put under the spotlight. If it was not so, no one would be talking about Islam right now.

And so, not being comfortable at pointing out flaws in other people, I had no material I could feel good about using for my blog. It was called "The Counter Crusade". But there was no Crusade. It was more of a defensive with a little stone thrown at the crusaders once in a while. And so, I dont see how "The Counter Crusade" blog can go on. I think this became obvious to anyone reading my blog long ago. The problem was the theme of the blog.

And so I'm ending this, and starting something new. Something much more flexible where I can write all the time about different topics, and not be constrainted by the title of the blog. Something that I feel more comfortable writing about. And if anyone wants to join me, ahlan wa sahlan.

What about?

“Verily Allah will never change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” (Q 13:11)

We're all talking about how the ummah needs to change. Well, I'm gonna start talking about how I need to change. Each and every one of us starts to look at himself before he looks at others. By changing what is in ourselves, we change what the people around us. This is a universal truth, recognized by sages of every culture and religion. I'm gonna talk about my efforts to improve my worship. To improve my health. To improve my body and mind. To improve my spiritual himma (will, effort). And I'm hoping others will join me in this, in discussing the issues important to them or even documenting their own progress. This is how a true revolution happens. By taking action first within ourselves. And by extension, the blog will talk about the ummah... New ideas. Social change. Regime change. Revolution. Religious Thought. Environmental issues. Everything. We talk about each of these issues, and every week or so I (and anyone who wishes to do so as well), will give an update on my own physical/spiritual progress.

Anyway, anyone who wants to join, let me know. You just have to be a Muslim wanting to change what is in you so that Allah may change the condition of our ummah. But it's not that important, as I plan to do this anyway. I will have this blog forcing me to improve myself. I have to post my progress online every week. This will encourage me to work harder, inshalla.

Wassalam.

Solar Eclipse

2006-03-29T23:03:00.000+02:00

Today a solar eclipse was visible in many parts of the world. The picture above was taken in Ghana. On January 27th, 632 C.E., or the 10th year after the Hijra, a solar eclipse was witnessed at 10 a.m local time by the inhabitants of Medina (see scientific details). Here are the events of that day:

Illness and Death of Ibrahim

Muhammad's attachment to his son had nothing to do with either his faith or with his mission. ...he had lost his two sons, al Qasim and al Tahir, at a tender age, and his daughters-even after they grew to maturity, married, and bore children-so that only Fatimah remained of all his progeny. Naturally, these sons and daughters who passed away one after the other and were buried by Muhammad's own hand left their father with a severe sense of bereavement. It was natural that a father so bereaved would feel excessive joy and the strongest personal pride and hope at the birth and growing of a son.

The promise and hope which Ibrahim represented were not to last long. Soon, the child fell seriously ill. He was moved to a date orchard near Mashrabat Umm Ibrahim, where his mother and Sirin, her sister, looked after him. When his state worsened and it became apparent that he will not live long, Muhammad was called. He was so shocked at the news that he felt his knees could no more carry him, and asked `Abd al Rahman ibn `Awf to give him his hand to lean upon. He proceeded immediately to the orchard and arrived in time to bid farewell to an infant dying in his mother's lap. Muhammad took the child and laid him in his own lap with shaking hand. His heart was torn apart by the new tragedy, and his face mirrored his inner pain. Choking with sorrow, he said to his son, "O Ibrahim, against the judgment of God, we cannot avail you a thing," and then fell silent. Tears flowed from his eyes. The child lapsed gradually, and his mother and aunt watched and cried loudly and incessantly, but the Prophet never ordered them to stop. As Ibrahim surrendered to death, Muhammad's hope which had consoled him for a brief while completely crumbled. With tears in his eyes he talked once more to the dead child: "O Ibrahim, were the truth not certain that the last of us will join the first, we would have mourned you even more than we do now." A moment later he said: "The eyes send their tears and the heart is saddened, but we do not say anything except that which pleases our Lord. Indeed, O Ibrahim, we are bereaved by your departure from us."

Aware of Muhammad's sorrow, the wise among the Muslim sought to remind the Prophet that he himself had commanded against indulgence in self-pity after a bereavement. Muhammad, however, answered: "I have not commanded against sadness, but against raising one's voice in lamentation. What you see in me is the effect of the love and compassion in my heart for my lost one. Remember that whoever feels no compassion toward others will not receive any compassion." These may not have been his exact words, but the meaning remains the same. Muhammad tried to sublimate his sadness and lighten his sorrow, and, looking toward Mariyah and Sirin, he said to them in appeasement that Ibrahim would have his own nurse in Paradise. Umm Burdah, or according to another version, al Fadl ibn `Abbas, washed the body of the child in preparation for burial. He was carried on a little bed by the Prophet, his uncle al `Abbas, and a number of Muslims to the cemetery of Abu Bakr where, after a funeral prayer recited by the Prophet, he was laid down to rest. As Muhammad ordered the grave closed, he filled it with sand, sprinkled some water, and placed a landmark on it. He then said "Tombstones do neither good nor ill, but they help appease the living. Anything that man does, God wishes him to do well."

The death of Ibrahim coincided with the eclipse of the sun, a phenomenon the Muslims saw as a miracle. They went about saying that the sun was eclipsed in sadness over the death of Ibrahim. The Prophet heard them. Would his exceeding love for Ibrahim and deep sorrow over his loss not enable him to find in such rumors a measure of consolation? Would he not at least keep his silence and thus allow the people to believe what they had taken to be a miracle? Certainly not. Such an attitude surely belongs to those who exploit the ignorance and credulity of the people; for those whom suffering and sorrow push beyond reason and common sense. It does not belong to the man of genuine wisdom, nor a fortiori, to the great Prophet. Hence, looking to those who claimed the sun was in eclipse because of the death of Ibrahim, Muhammad said, "The sun and the moon are signs of God. They are eclipsed neither for the death nor birth of any man. On beholding an eclipse, therefore, remember God and turn to Him in prayer." What greatness! Even in his moment of greatest personal disaster this Prophet preserved his cool presence of mind. He remained fully conscious of his message and most serious in his commitment to it. And even the Orientalists could not hide their admiration and wonder when they came across this fact in the life of Muhammad. Even they could not fail to acknowledge the genuineness of the man who insisted on truth even in face of the greatest personal adversity. [1]

"In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumours of God's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, "An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being." "At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: "If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever." [2]

-------------------

1. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad (pbuh)
2. James A. Michener, "ISLAM: THE MISUNDERSTOOD RELIGION," in READER'S DIGEST (American edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70.

The 9/11 Buzz

2006-03-25T18:50:00.003+02:00

What really happened on 9/11? More than 4 years after the events, the internet is exploding with discussions on the topic. Fox News and CNN have both discussed this topic this week. (see this discussion of the CNN and Fox coverage).

Check also the video i put up two posts ago.

Below is a trascript of CNN Showbiz Tonight's interview with Alex Jones on the topic. Alex Jones can be a little crazy but he's brave and makes some damn good points.

Another thing that happened this week... Perhaps the most active student member of " Scholars for 9/11 Truth" was shot dead on Friday. Michael Zebuhr was walking with his mother when two men with weapons asked for his mother's purse. She handed it to them without resistance and he did not try to do anything. Then they shot him twice in the head. Why shoot him if they had the purse and he didnt do anything? Twice in the head? They must have really wanted him dead. Maybe someone's sending out a message to the 9/11 Scholars. (read this blog to find out who Michael Zebuhr was and a discussion of his death.)

"Mike had organized a 9/11 student group on campus, had collected various 9/11 videos, and was in the process of arranging to have them shown on campus. Mike talked about 9/11 with everyone and anyone he met and had handouts to give them. " (see for more on his involvement in spreading the message on 9/11.)

**EDIT: I thought I should add this extra comment after some other blog quoted me as an example of conspiracy theory "nutjobs" for discussing the murder of Michael Zebuhr. I never said that his murder was most likely 9/11-related . In fact, its much MORE likely it was simply a murder. Maybe the thief got nervous and shot the guy. But I did ask the questions because the guy was shot twice in the head before he had a chance to show his 9/11 videos on campus to thousands of students. It was just a question. I didnt claim this as fact. I dont claim the alternative 9/11 theories as fact either. It's all theory. It was an interesting 9/11-related story that happened this week, and something a lot of blogs are talking about. Again, this post was about the 9/11 Buzz and all things related. But should such questions be raised? Sure, because there is a chance it wasnt simply a theft turned deadly. The problem is some people dont like anyone asking questions. Period. If you ask questions, you're a nut-job. Why was Michael Zebuhr killed? Only God knows.**

Below is the transcript from CNN's Showbiz Tonight. Their current poll question asks the question: "Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?". Results so far: 83% said YES!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

HAMMER: Hello, I`m A.J. Hammer, live in New York City.
ANDERSON: And I`m Brooke Anderson, live in Hollywood.

A.J., it`s been incredible. Pretty hard to believe, actually, the response we got today to the incredible story SHOWBIZ TONIGHT broke last night. Actor Charlie Sheen`s startling claims that the government may be covering up what really happened on September 11.

HAMMER: So many e-mails coming in. We`ve been really overwhelmed today. Between the e-mails, the blogs, the web sites, everybody is writing and talking about it.

Charlie Sheen made the comments during a hard-to-believe interview on a radio show. And don`t move because in just a moment the host of the radio show, the guy who actually spoke with Sheen, is going to join me live here on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. But first let`s get you up to speed on the latest developments.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHEEN: The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions.

HAMMER: The questions Charlie Sheen is raising about the 9/11 attacks are raising a lot of eyebrows. Our e-mail inbox immediately started to overflow. And the coverage on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT is getting a lot of attention.

The web site 9/11 Blogger calls SHOWBIZ TONIGHT`s coverage, quote, "The first time a major news station has covered 9/11 questions in any reasonable format."

It all started with a radio interview Sheen gave to GCN Radio Network host Alex Jones, a cult hero of sorts to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. During the interview, Sheen made clear that he backs Jones` views.

SHEEN: We`re not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue. It seems to me like, you know, 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory.

HAMMER: Sheen also made another shocking suggestion: that we may not know the full story about the collapse of the World Trade Center.

SHEEN: I have a hard time believing that a fireball traveled down the elevator over 110 feet and still had the explosive energy to destroy the lobby like it was described.

I said, "Hey, call me insane. But did it sort of look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"

If I was your age, I could only dream about my parents splitting up.

HAMMER: As the star of the sitcom "Two and a Half Men," Sheen is seen weekly by about 10 million people. And many of them may end up paying attention to his controversial comments about 9/11.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAMMER: As I mentioned the radio host who interviewed Sheen is Alex Jones of the Genesis Communications Network. Alex joins me live from Austin, Texas, to talk about Sheen`s riveting comments.

Alex, as I mentioned, the response that we got from doing this story last night absolutely shocking. So I want to know how it actually all came about. How did the interview with Charlie Sheen actually happen? Did you guys reach out to him? Did he call you? What was the deal?

ALEX JONES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, just to make something clear, Mr. Sheen has amazing courage to do what he`s done. And he contacted me. He`s been watching my documentaries for years. He`s one of the most informed people that I`ve talked to in Hollywood on this subject.

Listen, for years Hollywood`s been on fire with people knowing the truth about 9/11. And I was the first to expose 9/11 on the day. In fact two months before I had intel that elements of the military industrial complex were going to carry out the attack. I said they`ll use bin Laden, the known CIS. That is their patsy to take the blame for attacking the towers.

So Mr. Sheen is only exceptional in that he has courage in going public. Courage that no one else in Hollywood had.

I mean, here`s a CNN poll from Anderson Cooper a year and a half ago where they said is the government covering up 9/11? Could they be involved? Ninety percent when the poll closed on CNN said this.

So listen I have my own syndicated show. I`ve done 4,000 radio interviews in the last 4 1/2 years. Almost no one calls in and disagrees now. We have the majority view and we have the evidence.

And bottom line, there are declassified U.S. government documents like Operation Northwoods that ABC News reported on back in 2000. Operation Northwoods. Google it.

And in there the U.S. government -- an element of it -- said we want to hi-jack jets by remote control, crash them and blame it on the Soviet Union in Cuba. Now that was decades ago. This is why we believe this.

Then you look at the official story. The firefighters, the police, hundreds of them saying there were bomb in the buildings. They were told to shut up. You look at building seven, detonators going off. You can see the explosion.

HAMMER: And Alex, a lot of this is what Charlie Sheen was covering. I`m actually just curious. Did he reach out to you guys? Is he the one who put the call into you and how he wound up on your show?

JONES: Sure. Sure. He called me a few weeks ago and said that -- said that he loves this country. He has nothing to gain from this. In fact it`s dangerous for him to do.

HAMMER: Sure, sure.

JONES: He said, "I love this country and my kids so much that I`m going to do this, Alex."

And I said, "God bless you" because now it makes for other Hollywood people who`ve got major pull who know the truth to start going public.

HAMMER: And dangerous indeed to do. Because a lot of what he said makes a lot of people sort of sit back and say, "Whoa, I don`t know about that."

And what`s really important here. You may not agree with everything that Charlie Sheen had to say. I personally think it`s a good thing that he did go on your show, so he could go public with his point of view. Because it does get people talking.

You know, there are a lot of people who may look at this, however, and say there just goes another Hollywood nut job shooting off his mouth.

JONES: Listen -- listen...

HAMMER: I imagine that you think, though, having a Hollywood actor on your side is a good thing and, as you mention, may bring some more people to the table talking about this.

JONES: Sure, sure. If you knew some of the Hollywood names that are aware of 9/11. We`re talking some of the biggest people.

HAMMER: Any you can tell us about that you`ve been in contact with?

JONES: No, I can`t. Because -- because people in Hollywood contact me because I have integrity, and I`ve been in a few films and they know me. And they know I keep my mouth shut.

You know, it was kind of like back in high school. I learned to keep my mouth shut about girls I was dating and all the girls started liking you.

Look, it`s really simple. Let`s understand this, OK? Nine-eleven was an inside job. It was a self-inflicted wound. And -- and what Charlie Sheen is doing is just amazing, and he can only be commended for it. And all he`s calling for is a real investigation.

I go further at InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. We lay out how it happened and what took place.

And it`s not just Charlie Sheen I`ve interviewed. CNN has interviewed some of these people, the only network that I`ve seen doing it. You guys have interviewed. There have been physics professors that have gone public. There have been the heads of mining colleges that have gone public.

George Bush Sr.`s top CIA adviser who briefed him and Ronald Reagan, one of the highest little guys at the CIA, says our government is clearly involved in carrying out terror to blame it on foreign enemies.

Did you know that on CIA.gov they admit that they carried out terror attacks in 1953 to blame it on Mohammed Mozadek (ph) in Iran as a pretext to overthrow Iran?

HAMMER: Alex -- I`m going to rein -- all good stuff and all stuff that needs to be talked about. But I`m going to rein you back in here to the topic at hand.

JONES: Sure.

HAMMER: One thing that I think is interesting. You know, as I mentioned we`ve gotten this overwhelming response. The e-mail has not stopped coming in. Most of the e-mail I`ve been getting has been supporting the fact that we are bringing attention to something that is rarely talked about in mainstream media.

JONES: Yes, sir. You have courage. No one else has done what you`re doing.

HAMMER: And I appreciate you saying that. So the question is why? Why have so many of the major media outlets not talked about these alternative theories that exist behind 9/11? Why is that?

JONES: Mark Twain said that, "In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned. But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be patriot."

A lot of people don`t have the courage that you have, A.J. A lot of people don`t have the courage of Charlie Sheen. They don`t have the courage of the German defense minister, Andre Van Bulow (ph), who two years ago went public...

HAMMER: What do you think is afraid of that`s going to happen to them?

JONES: They`re afraid of being beaten up by the hordes of neocon intimidators who try to go out there with their Gestapo Nazi tactics to try to bludgeon everybody with their blogs and radio shows to shut up.

But they`ve lost, pal, because people have learned that they`re a bunch of liars. They lied about WMDs. They lied about everything. And now their credibility is totally blown.

The new White House memo just came out where Bush is talking about staging the shoot down of American planes to get -- to blame it on Saddam. That`s public. That`s admitted.

HAMMER: Let`s talk about some public documents. Because obviously experts, government commissions, countless officials have all come out and supported what is the official line.

JONES: Yes, they call it Henry Kissinger independent.

HAMMER: Right. Well, we know that those documents are out there and that people are supporting them. So I guess what some people watching us tonight may be thinking is, well, why the heck should I be listening to Charlie Sheen or to Alex Jones and his web site on this matter?

JONES: They shouldn`t. They shouldn`t. They shouldn`t believe me. They shouldn`t believe you. They shouldn`t believe George Bush. They shouldn`t believe the Keane Commission where almost the entire commission has conflicts of interest and was appointed by Bush. You`ve got to love this. He appoints his own commission, and then the media calls it independent.

Did you know that the "9/11 Whitewash Commission" claims there were no columns in tower one and two when they had 47 of the biggest columns in the world up until that time? They won`t say why building seven had blast points going off down the side.

HAMMER: Well, Alex -- Alex, I`m afraid I`ve got to cut you off because we`re out of time. But as I said, it`s sparking debate. It`s getting people talking. And I appreciate you help bringing it up.

JONES: Thank you. Go to InfoWars.com, sir. Find out the truth at PrisonPlanet.com.

HAMMER: Alex Jones, live from Austin.

And as I mentioned we`ve gotten so many e-mails on the subject. We`ll read what some of you have to say coming up a bit later in the show.

Planet of the Arabs

2006-03-06T22:36:00.000+02:00

coming to a theater near you:

WHOA

2006-03-03T11:07:00.000+02:00

Who's seen this?

they make some damn good points! Everybody better see this and tell me what you think. Steve, you like to dispute everything, what do you think? i mean ive read about (almost) all these points before but never seen so much footage that confirms it.

its spreading and everyone who's watching this is emailing it to everyone they know!

send everyone this link where they can watch it: http://www.911revisited.com/

dum, dum, dum

2006-03-01T23:22:00.000+02:00

... i can think of nothing to write about.

For the Sake of the Women: The Beginnings of the Iraqi Jihad Movement

2006-02-25T11:16:00.000+02:00

I was reading a very interesting article on the rising Jihadi movements in the Middle East, and something very interesting became clear: the reason the resistance movement began in Iraq was women. And the reason many Jordanians today are trying to go fight in Iraq is for the very same reason: to protect the honor of Iraqi women! Of course this is not the only reason, and it might not be the main reason anymore, but it is a reason- and a reason that should not be ignored.

Now the article is very very long, and contains a lot of information about many different jihadist movements. The women thing was never pointed out in the article, but when you see how it pops up more than once by different people, you begin to realize its importance.

THE BEGINNING

"Few people are in a better position to understand how the jihadist aspect of the Iraqi insurgency took shape than Huthaifa Azzam, because he, a Jordanian, helped start it. He is the son of Abdullah Azzam, who was born near Jenin, Palestine, in 1941, left for Jordan following the 1967 Six-Day War and became something like the father of jihad in Jordan.

[you should read the article for the details here about Huthaifa Azzam's life up till he went to start the movement in Iraq]

Three days after America’s invasion of Iraq began, Azzam and other followers of his late father crossed over from Jordan into Iraq and established a base for themselves in Falluja. The only source for this is Azzam himself, but his telling the story at all involved some risk to him, and his command of the detail and of the personalities involved lent him credibility; it also matched up well with information I had gathered on earlier reporting trips to Falluja and Baghdad. “We were trying to convince Muslim scholars to begin the resistance,” he said. “They had no plan. They were sleeping. For one month they did not agree. They said, ‘Go back to your country.”’

For Azzam, leaving Iraq alone to work out its own fate was not an option. He said he believed that resistance would start, and he wanted to shape the process as well as hurry it. “We were more than 30 or 40 Arabs, without weapons,” he said. “We went from mosque to mosque, from school to school. People said, ‘The U.S. brought us democracy!’ They believed the lies of Bush that he will bring democracy and freedom.”

Everything changed, he said, on April 28, 2003, when American soldiers killed 15 demonstrators in Falluja, then killed 2 more in a subsequent demonstration. (Iraqis said that the first demonstration had been to protest the Americans’ using an elementary school as a military base.) After that, rumors spread of four American soldiers raping a 17-year-old girl, with pictures distributed on the Internet. (Those pictures may well have been fabricated.) “This story was the main cause of starting the resistance in Falluja,” Azzam said. It “made them reconsider, but there was still no action. I was watching from afar — with a smile. In the beginning they had said, ‘Go make jihad in your own country.’ After the rape story, they said, ‘O.K., we want to start now, or tomorrow we will find our mothers or daughters or sisters raped.’ This story exploded the resistance in Falluja. They called us for a meeting and said, ‘You were right.’ We had told them from the first day that the Iraqi Army abandoned weapons that they should take, but they said this is stealing, haram, looting. You could buy an R.P.G. for three U.S. dollars in those days.”

Azzam says he spent four months in Iraq imparting his knowledge of guerrilla warfare to the indigenous resistance. His background, he told me, gave him immediate currency. “I am the son of Abdullah Azzam,” he said, “so everybody wanted to listen. And I have experience in three or four jihads in different countries, and a lot of the Iraqi resistance had no plan. We gave them our experience so they could start from where we stopped, so they don’t start from zero. Jihad is an obligation as a Muslim. If you can’t support jihad with fighting, you can support with ideas or teaching. So we tried, and we still do. Followers of Abdullah Azzam helped plan the resistance in all of Iraq, and we had hoped for a united resistance with Shias. We were aiming to bring unity between Sunnis and Shias with resistance on both sides, but the Shia leadership was against us, and Zarqawi spoiled it, making it fail.” "

NOW

Now the author of the article moves on to a different group: 10 Jordanians during a trial in a military court in Jordan, being charged for crossing to Syria with automatic weapons and meeting with members of jihad groups there, for the sake of fighting in Iraq.

As the judge was reading out the charges, the prisoners erupted in protest. “I am not guilty — you are guilty!” shouted one prisoner.

“Jihad is not guilt,” shouted another. “... We are protecting the honor of our sisters in Iraq. Is that guilt?"

You may think I'm making too much out of these two quotes. I don't know. Like I said above, this is only one reason, but an important one, I think, nevertheless.

Iraq's Jordanian Jihadis

Like No Other

2006-02-22T14:13:00.000+02:00

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels."

(M.H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York, 1978, p. 33)

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls....his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was two-fold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words."

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all the standards by which Human Greatness may be measured, we may well ask, Is there any man greater than he?"

(Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp 276-277)

"The personality of Muhammad, it is most difficult to get into the whole truth of it. Only a glimpse of it I can catch. What a dramatic succession of picturesque scenes! There is Muhammad, the Prophet. There is Muhammad, the Warrior; Muhammad, the Businessman; Muhammad, the Statesman; Muhammad, the Orator; Muhammad, the Reformer; Muhammad, the Refuge of Orphans; Muhammad, the Protector of Slaves; Muhammad, the Emancipator of Women; Muhammad, the Judge; Muhammad, the Saint. All in all these magnificent roles, in all these departments of human activities, he is alike a hero."

- Prof. Ramakrishna Rao

!!!

2006-02-18T11:45:00.000+02:00

...

How would the Prophet have responded to such insults?

2006-02-11T10:25:00.000+02:00

Well, it's kinda hard to know how he would have responded to such insults. But I will offer an example from the Prophet's life, peace be upon him.

The word "Muhammad" means "the praised one." When preaching to the Quraysh in Mecca, the nobles of Quraysh decided not to call him by his name "Muhammad", because then they would be calling him "the praised one". Instead, they chose to refer to him as "Muthammam", which means "the reviled one". Thus whenever the wanted to attack him or curse him, they would say "Cursed be Muthammam" instead of Muhammad. Amused, the Prophet said to his companions, "Do you not marvel at how Allah has even deflected their curses from me? They curse Muthammam and I am Muhammad". [1]

In the same way, these images are not really those of our blessed Prophet. They portray a false image that they have of him, an image of a terrorist, not of the "mercy to the worlds." Whatever false conception of our Prophet that they attack, they do not attack our Prophet. Far away is he from all that they attribute to him. None of them would attack him had they read an authentic biography of his life, or known more about him and his message. But most of what they know are lies and deceptions. So they are not really cursing the Prophet Muhammad, they are cursing a lie, a non-existent personality that they think called for terrorism. Just as the Quraysh were not cursing Muhammad the Prophet, the most praised, but were cursing Muthammam, a poet who said some crazy things unheard of before, like saying that "all people are equal like the teeth of a comb", thus equating the Abyssinian slave Bilal to Abu Sufyan, the master of Quraysh.

There is also a story told about the Prophet Isa son of Maryam[2], peace be upon him, that is told among the Muslims, but is not found in the Christian traditions as far as I know. People were throwing stones at him, and he said to his followers, "They do not throw stones at me, they throw stones at the false conception that they have of me".

Compare these responses to the Bible, where God sent two bears that ripped 42 kids apart for calling Elisha a "baldhead".[3]

"You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.” - Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, his family, and his companions [4]

-------
1. The Life of Muhammad
2. More commonly known by the false name "Jesus". Speaking of false conceptions, why are Christians worshipping a white, blond, blue-eyed, long-haired, and sometimes beardless man called "Jesus"? And if they see a "Jesus" of that description in their dreams and visions, then who are they really seeing? p.s. does anyone have any good seitan recipes? I'm kinda hungry right now.
3. See previous post,

4. Sahih Bukhari

The Example of the Prophet

2006-02-11T10:07:00.000+02:00

*This post keeps mysteriously disappearing after I post it. I guess someone finds it threatening or something.*

It seems European islamophobia is ablaze again, with Europeans insisting on publishing images of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his turban or horns coming out of his head. But do they really attack Islam and its blessed Prophet because there is anything to attack, or because they happen to hate Muslims out of ignorance and/or political reasons? Let's compare an episode from the Prophet's life and the way he responded to it, with a similar incident that happened to a Prophet in the Bible.

1. The Worst Day of the Prophet Muhammad's Life:

The Prophet's wife Aisha once asked him if he had ever encountered any experience more trying than the Battle of Uhud. The Prophet told her that the hardest treatment he ever experienced was the day he was chased out of Ta'if.[1]

"After the death of [the Prophet's wife] Hadrat Khadijah and [his protecting uncle] Abu Talib, the disbelievers of Makkah became even bolder against the Holy Prophet. They started treating him even more harshly. So much so that it became difficult for him to step out of his house. Of these days Ibn Hisham has related the incident that a Quraish scoundrel one day threw dust at him openly in the street.

At last, the Holy Prophet left for Ta'if with the intention that he should invite the Bani Thaqif to Islam, for even if they did not accept Islam, they might at least be persuaded to allow him to work for his mission peacefully. He did not have the facility of any conveyance at that time, and traveled all the way to Ta'if on foot... He stayed at Ta'if for a few days, and approached each of the chiefs and nobles of the Bani Thaqif and talked to him about his mission. But not only they refused to listen to him, but plainly gave him the notice that he should leave their city, for they feared that his preaching might "spoil" their younger generation. Thus, he was compelled to leave Ta'if. When he was leaving the city, the chiefs of Thaqif set their slaves and scoundrels behind him, who went on crying at him, abusing him and pelting him with stones for a long way from either side of the road till he became broken down with wounds and his shoes were filled with blood. Wearied and exhausted he took shelter in the shade of the wall of a garden outside Ta'if, and prayed:

"O God, to Thee I complain of my weakness, little resource, and lowliness before men. O Most Merciful, Thou art the Lord of the weak, and Thou art my Lord. To whom wilt Thou entrust me? To one afar who will ill-treat me? Or to an enemy to whom Thou hast given power over me? If Thou art not angry with me I care not. Thy favor is more wide for me. I take refuge in the light of Thy countenance by which the darkness is illumined, and the things of this world and the next are rightly ordered, lest Thy anger descend upon me or Thy wrath light upon me. It is for Thee to be satisfied until Thou art well pleased. There is no power and no might save in Thee."[2]

Grieved and heart broken when he returned and reached near Qarn al-Manazil, he felt as though the sky was overcast by clouds. He looked up and saw Gabriel in front of him, who called out:"Allah has heard the way your people have responded. He has, therefore, sent this angel incharge of the mountains. You may command him as you please." Then the angel of the mountains greeted him and submitted :"If you like I would overturn the mountains from either side upon these people." The Holy Prophet replied : "No, but I expect that Allah will create from their seed those who will worship none but Allah, the One."[3]

The Prophet was not sent "but as a mercy to the worlds. (Qur'an 21: 107)

2. A similar but far milder experience happened to the Prophet Elisha, according to the Bible. Let's see how his response was, compared to that of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria. (2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV)

According to Young's Literal Translation, the bears mauled and killed 42 "little youths", for making fun of Elisha; and according to the King James Version, they were "little children"!

Now Elisha, peace be upon him, is also considered a Prophet in Islam. However the Qur'an does not mention such a horrifying story as that in the Bible, a story that is not accepted by Muslims. Here's all that the Qur'an says about him:

"And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations...and We chose them and guided them into the right way." (Qur'an 6: 86-87)

"And make mention of Ishmael and Elisha and Dhu'l-Kifl. All are of the chosen." (Qur'an 38: 48)

---------
1. Sahih Bukhari
2. Ibn Hisham: A. Guillaume's Translation, p. 193. I substituted some words for the words used in Wustenfeld's translation which are sometimes clearer, as quoted in Martin Lings' "Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources."
3. (Bukhari, Dhikr al Mala'ikah; Muslim: Kitab al-Maghazi; Nasa'i :Al-Bauth).

The Day of Ashura is near...

2006-02-01T18:15:00.002+02:00

...and Shiites have already started crying and weeping over the martyrdom of al-Husayn (r.a).

"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance, in the presence of their Lord" (Qur'an 3: 169)

The Prophet (pbuh) said, "Nobody who enters Paradise will ever like to return to this world even if he were offered everything, except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed 10 times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him" (Sahih Muslim)

Shams Tabrizi said:

"
Someone was weeping: "The Tatars killed my brother. He was a man of knowledge."

I said, "If you have knowledge, you know that with the strike of the sword the Tatar gave him endless life. But what do the dead, or dead preachers, know about that life? They come up to the pulpit, and they begin a lamentation. I mean, the Prophet said, This world is the prison of the believer . Someone escapes from prison. Then you weep for him? "What a pity that he escaped from this prison!" The Tatars, or some other cause, made a hole in the prison. He escaped. He was transferred from one abode to another abode. Then you weep. "What a pity that they struck the wall of the prison with that arrow! Why did they strike that stone? Didn't they regret that fine marble?"

Or, there were chains on his legs. They cut them off, and he escaped. You shout out and strike your head and weep: "What a pity that they cut off the chains!" Or, they broke a cage, and you weep in anguish- 'Why did they break the cage! Why did they let the bird go!"...

Shams-i Khujandi was weeping for the Household of the Prophet. I was weeping for him: "Why do you weep for the Household? Someone joins with God, and you weep for him, and you don't weep for yourself! If you were aware of your own state, you would weep for yourself. Rather, you would gather all your people together, all your relatives, and you would lament in anguish for yourself!" ...

Khujandi says, "I'm observing the tragedy of the Household." He's forgotten his own tragedy!
"
- Me & Rumi , pg 21-22

"...and give good news to the patient who say, when afflicted with calamity: "To Allah We belong, and to Him is our return": (Qur'an 2: 155-156)

Aman - Sincerely (lyrics)

2006-01-28T13:27:00.000+02:00

you're my heart - yo,
I've gotta let you know,
ain't no supermodels or actresses in video's
more beautiful...

I like the way you speak, with honesty
the way you dress, with modesty
and therefore...
I've got to tell you logically

ain't nobody else that I would rather spend time with
come home from a 9 to 5, sit & unwind with
have a conversation with
you taught me patience is

a virtue not a draw back
you'll never let me fall back
a powerful Muslimah with the beauty of a flower
fast talking, half naked women got nothing on you

they scream, 'youre oppressed'
then fiend, for the respect
you get for just being yourself
so don't let

them get you confused, you ain't gotta dress like them
walk or talk like them, or do your hair like them...
why? Cause you're a symbol of respect and strength
a role model for them so represent - do your thing!

you're more precious, than the treasures
buried in the seas
more exquisite,
than the finest piece of jewelry

...the patience, the pride
...the prayers, the cries
...the sisters, the wives
we love you

the strength, beauty, patience, pride
hope, faith, prayers, cries
mothers, daughters, sisters, wives...
we love you, we love you

you're not a symbol of oppression
more like a symbol of freedom
or one of liberation
a strong sister...

heaven is beneath your mother's feet
never let them tell you different
this is dedicated to the sisters...
and wives, and daughters, and mothers...

who's tears flow freely at times in dark corners
when these over-bearing pressures of life pile upon them
but in our presence, they show nothing but signs
of strength, wisdom, and courage in their beautiful eyes

the navigators of our lives...
educators of our children...
this is for all women

...the patience, the pride
...the prayers, the cries
...the sisters, the wives
we love you

http://www.amansmusic.com/
(not the full lyrics)

Reflections on the "Hijab"

2006-01-26T00:20:00.000+02:00

Bism Allah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim wa bihamdih

In my last post, Muslim Hijab, Christian Hijab, I talked about the function of what we call the hijab or veil that women wear.

As was said before, the women of Arabia and other parts of the world already wore a headcovering to protect them from the desert sun, just as the men wore turbans. This female headcovering was called a khimar (plural khumur). Now, this khimar, or headcovering, was tied behind their necks, leaving the front of the neck and the area underneath exposed, especially where there was an opening of the dress above the chest, called the jayb, plural juyub, which is translated as "bosoms" in most Quranic translations. Thus the Qur'an told the women to tie the headcover in front and let it drape down to conceal the throat and the dress’s opening at the top.[1]

“Say to believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them drape their headcoverings (khumur) over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment . . .” (Qur’an 24:31)

Thus the khimar has two functions:

1) as a headcovering, as it was originally intended, and
2) for the purposes of modesty and the woman's dignity- a new purpose introduced by the Qur'an.

The problem as I see it, is that we've changed the name of this headcovering from khimar to hijab, an improper name. The word hijab means a veil, as in, something to veil the women from men, to keep them hidden. By changing the word khimar to the word hijab, we are changing the function of the headcovering from something that preserves a woman's dignity and keeps her appearance modest, to something that hides her, something that says a woman is meant to be hidden away, veiled from society.

It is well known however that during the time of the Prophet, women were not hidden away like they were something that needed to be veiled. They actively participated in society just like men: The Prophet's first wife Khadija was a businesswoman, a merchant, and his wife Aisha was a scholar. Many women of Medina went to pledge their allegiance to the Prophet Muhammad and invite him to their city in the Treaty of Aqabah. Women would go to the Prophet Muhammad's house once a week for lessons in Islam. They would go to war along side the men, tending the wounded, and in some cases fighting alongside them. A reading of my "Warrior Muslimas" posts 1, 2, 3, and 4 should give one example of how the Prophet Muhammad and his companions envisioned the role of women in society, and how they were never meant to be "veiled" and hidden away.

But words have such powerful effects on the minds of men. By constantly using the word hijab, people are subconsciously agreeing that women are to be veiled, or hidden. They lose their importance in society and are eventually hidden away in their husbands' homes. I think this is a very important factor in what is going on with women in Islamic societies these days. The word used in the Qur'an, in the above verse, is khumur, the plural for khimar. As for the word hijab, it is used in an entirely different, and very specific, context.

The Prophet's house was always full of men who came to learn from the Prophet or to learn from him or to pledge allegiance to him. He would also invite men to eat with him, especially poor people who had no food like the ahlul suffa. Since the Prophet's wives would be there, it would have been improper for these men to intrude on the women's privacy, and thus the verse of the hijab was revealed:

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask anything of (the wives of the Prophet), ask it of them from behind a curtain (hijab). That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts... (Qur'an 33:53)

Thus the hijab was a curtain that separated all the strangers who entered the Prophet's households from the Prophet's wives, to guard the women's' privacy, and that is purer for their hearts.

So what I'm trying to say is, maybe we should stop using the word hijab when we are talking about the woman's headcovering, because the word carries with it certain meanings that are not present in the original word khimar. In the mass psychology of Muslim men, the headcovering has become a symbol of veiling, or hiding, of the women, and that was eventually translated to all aspects of a woman's life, until the Muslim women became veiled completely from the rest of society in certain cases. How different is that from covering one's hair, neck, and chest for the sake of modesty and dignity!

If language did not affect behavior, it could have no meaning. -Kenneth L. Pike

Inshalla from this day forward, I will stop using the word hijab and use the word khimar (pronounced khimaar) instead. And if each one of us starts using the right word and teaches another Muslim to do the same, maybe we can start changing how Muslim men and Muslim women subconsciously view the role of women in society, and instead of seeing them as something that needs to be veiled away and hidden, would start to see them as dignified members who are active in society. Please everyone, try to make the switch.

Words not only affect us temporarily; they change us, they socialize or unsocialize us. -David Riesman

---
This post does not really fit in with the general purpose of this blog, but I will sidetrack like that sometimes.
1. SunniPath: Why Hijab?

Gone for a week

2006-01-17T14:45:00.000+02:00

Will be going to lebanon for a week.

peace.

Muslim Hijab, Christian Hijab

2006-01-15T20:57:00.000+02:00

I don't know why Christians criticize the hijab, or veil, that Muslim women wear. Let's compare what Christianity and Islam say about the veil.

Islam

The women of Arabia at the time of the Prophet Muhammad already wore headcovers on their heads to protect them from the heat of the sun, but they wore them tied back behind their necks, leaving the front of the neck bare, as well as the opening at the top of the dress. So the Qur'anic revelation came, telling them that what they were doing was not enough, but that they should let it drape down to conceal the neck and the dress's opening at the top (above the chest).[1]

“Say to believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them drape their headcoverings over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment . . .” (Qur’an 24:31)

Thus the hijab in Islam is for the purposes of modesty and dignity.

Now, women wear their hijab when they pray too. This is because if women are to express modesty and dignity before other men, then Allah is even more worthy of it. The Prophet (pbuh) said,

“Allah is more deserving of one’s sense of modesty than people are.”[2]

Christianity

NOTE: What I present here is the teachings of Paul and their explanation by Christian scholars, not of Prophet Isa (Yeshua) son of Maryam, peace be upon him and his mother.

There are two reasons, according to Paul, why women should wear a veil:

1) The first is because man was created for God's sake, and women were created for man's sake. Therefore, women should have a covering on their head as a sign that they are under the authority of men.

Now I want you to realize that the head of (i.e authority for) every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (I Corinthians 11: 3)

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of (i.e was made to honor) God; but the woman is the glory of (i.e was made to honor) man. (I Corinthians 11:7)

For indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (I Corinthians 11:9-10)

A better translation of I Corinthians 11:10 says,

And so, because of this, and also because of the angels, a woman ought to wear something on her head, as a sign that she is under someone's authority.[4]

Contrast "man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake" with the Qur'anic,

" I created the jinn and humankind (al insa) only that they might worship Me." (Qur'an 51:56). Here both men and women are equal in that both of them were created to worship God.

2) The second reason is that an uncovered female head during prayer is disgraceful.

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover the head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. (I Corinthians 11: 5-6)

To quote a Christian explanation of the above sayings,

"The apostle further elaborates on this matter of the woman disgracing her spiritual head or authority, if her head is uncovered--"For she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved" (11:5b). An uncovered Christian woman is as scandalous and reproachful as a bald-headed woman (haircutting was an act of grief - Deut 21:12; or an act of infamy - Isa 7:20)--remember that a woman's hair is a God-given endowment which reveals and highlights her beauty (see 11:15)....

Paul proceeds to argue in such a way that the Christian woman has no option but to have a covering or veil on her head. He argues, "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for her to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head" (11:6). Notice the tight, irresistible logic. Do you recognize the syllogism (i.e., an argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion)?

Premise 1: Head not covered, then cut hair off

Premise 2: Cut hair or shaved head is a disgrace

Conclusion: Therefore you must have head covered

(for an uncovered head is a disgrace).

...
Apparently, these Corinthian believers misunderstood the purpose and practice of headcovering. A. R. Fausset writes, "The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sex in Christ, claimed equality with men, and, overstepping propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary headcovering."1 Hence, having laid the foundational Biblical principle which would guide his logic and application, the apostle Paul now proceeds to identify and address the issue or problem concerning the propriety and legitimacy of headcovering. Who is to cover the head?--"Every man who has something on his head [lit. down the head; e.g., a veil or tallith] while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered [i.e., nothing on the head; e.g., a veil] while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved" (11:4,5)."[3]

So I don't know why Christians would criticize Islam for commanding a veil when the New Testament (specifically the writings of Paul) also commands the wearing of a veil.

On a side note, Paul continues,

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him" (I Corinthians 11: 14)...

---------
1. SunniPath: Why Hijab?
2. SunniPath: Hijab at home.
3. The Biblical Practice of Headcovering
4. I Corinthians 11. Footnote b.

Abraham and the Sacrifice

2006-01-10T18:00:00.000+02:00

Happy Eid everyone!

Here is the Qur'anic account of the story that we celebrate on the Eid al Adha:

So We gave him (Abraham) the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance. And when he attained to working with him, he said: O my son! surely I have seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you; consider then what you see. He said: O my father! do what you are commanded; if Allah please, you will find me of the patient ones. So when they both submitted and he laid him prostrate on his forehead, We called out to him saying: O Ibrahim! You have indeed fulfilled the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good. Most surely this is a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice. And We left (this blessing) for him among later generations: "Peace be upon Abraham." Thus do We reward the doers of good.
(Qur'an 37: 101-110).

Some Muslims point out that unlike Jewish belief, the Qur'an never says that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, nor does it say that Allah gave that dream to Abraham, and that the dream might have been from Satan. However it seems to me that it came from God, and God knows best.

The other main difference between the Muslim and Jewish belief in regards to this incident is that according to Islam, it was Ismaa'il (Ishmael) who was to be sacrificed, whereas in the Bible it was Ishaaq (Isaac), peace be upon them both and upon their father. Ismaa'il is the father of the Arabs, and Ishaaq is the father of the Jews. So why would the Old Testament be altered to say that Ishaaq and not Ismaa'il was to be sacrificed?

Because God says in the Old Testament,

"I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your seed all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22: 16-18)

You see, Abraham had only one son back then, one seed. And God promised that through the descendants of that one seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed! So in order to show their superiority over the other nations of the earth, it would have benefited the Jews greatly to change the word "Ishmael" to "Isaac" in the Old Testament.

"But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them" (Qur'an 2:59)

`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)

Different translation:

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)

The problem is, however, that only the word "Ishmael" was changed into "Isaac", leaving the Old Testament with several contradictions. For although that was the only place where it was stated clearly that Ishmael was the son who was sacrificed, many other places in the Old Testament indirectly prove that Ishmael was that son.

The first contradiction is in the very same couple of lines in Genesis 22, where God says, "because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son". Thus, at the time of the sacrifice, Abraham had only one son. Yet who was Abraham's first son, Ishmael or Isaac? (Looks like I reverted to the Biblical spelling of the names).

As the Old Testament tells us, Sarah was barren and could not conceive, so she gave Hagar to Abraham that he would be able to have a son.

"So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived." (Genesis 16:3),, (Genesis 16:4),

Now we all know that Ishmael was Hagar's son. And he was the first one to be born. Therefore when Abraham was going to sacrifice his one and only son, it must have been Ishmael, as Isaac had not been born yet!

Now Sarah began to hate Hagar after she became pregnant (out of jealousy), and so Hagar ran out into the desert (Genesis 16: 4-8). But an Angel found Hagar in the desert and told her to go back to her mistress Sarah and submit to her (Genesis 16: 9), and that if she did so, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." (Genesis 16:10),.

Now as was said above, the angel told Hagar that if she returned and submitted to her mistress, God will reward her by making her descendants too numerous to count. Therefore her son would be a blessing to her. This confirms that it was Hagar's son Ishmael who was to be sacrificed, for that one and only seed of Abraham was described as having descendants "as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore" (22:17).

The angel of the LORD also said to her:
       "You are now with child
       and you will have a son.
       You shall name him Ishmael,
       for the LORD has heard of your misery. (Genesis 16: 11)

God heard of her misery and so decided to make her son a blessing for her, a son whose descendants will be too numerous to count, and as was said above, through that one seed (for Isaac was not born yet), "all nations on earth will be blessed".

However, another "verse" was added after this, that completely contradicts all the above verses. It seems there might have been conflict between Arabs and Jews when this verse was added, completely going against the meaning of the previous verse and the one mentioned in the very beginning:

He will be a wild donkey of a man;
       his hand will be against everyone
       and everyone's hand against him,
       and he will live in hostility
       toward all his brothers." (Genesis 16: 12)

How is that possible? According to what was said before, God felt compassion for Hagar because she was hated by Sarah and ran off to the desert. So God, having heard of her misery, decided to give her a blessed son if she returned to her mistress, as a reward. A son whose descendants will be too many to count and will be a blessing to the nations of the earth. So how could God then say that her son will be a "donkey of a man"? It is clearly in contradiction to the rest of the Bible and was added later. And how could it say that he will "live in hostility toward all his brothers" when he DID NOT have any brothers yet?

Finally, it is easy to see that the descendants of Ishmael (Ismaa'il) i.e. the Arabs far outnumber the descendants of Isaac (Ishaaq) i.e. the Jews.

Another major contradiction:

"So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael." (Genesis 16: 15-16),

"Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him." (Genesis 21: 5),

Ishmael was born when Abraham was 87 (he was 86 when Hagar became pregnant), Isaac when Abraham was 100. That means there was a difference of about 13 years between Ishmael and Isaac.

Now according to the Bible, Hagar was sent out into the desert ANOTHER TIME, because Sarah had given birth to Isaac and did not want Ishmael to have a part of Isaac's inheritance.

"But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." (Genesis 21: 9-10),

That would mean that when Ishmael went with his mother to the desert the second time, he was 13 years old! But that clearly does not fit into the story as it continues:

"Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.

God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.

God was with the boy as he grew up...." (Genesis 21: 14-20),

According to this story, Ishmael was still a little boy when Isaac was born, and Hagar was sent off to the desert with him (Ishmael). He was a little boy who cried when they ran out of water, and she lifted him up and gave him water to drink. But if Isaac had been born by then, that would make Ishmael 13 yrs old, at least. How do we explain the contradiction?

The reason is because the part about Sarah telling Abraham to get rid of Hagar and her son is false. It was added later to explain why Hagar was sent off to the desert with her son. Whoever wrote it, explained it by saying that Sarah's son had been born and she was jealous and greedy so she sent them away so that they don't share of the inheritance that Abraham would leave to Isaac.

The Islamic Traditions, however, tell us a completely different account. Abraham was commanded by God to take Hagar and Ishmael to the desert and leave them in His care. Ishmael was still a young child or baby. Isaac had not been born yet. There was no hatred between Sarah and Hagar. They were friends and wives on equal terms and there was no jealousy between them (may God be pleased with them and him, and keep their names far from such accusations). Yes Ishmael was still a child when Hagar went to the desert again, and Isaac would be born 13 years later. The story of the sacrifice happened when Ishmael had become old enough to work with his father, probably between age 10-12, while he was still Abraham's only son.

So what's the lesson for today? It was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed by Abraham, for Isaac was yet to be born (peace be upon all three of them).

And what's the other lesson for today? If you want to change a detail in a story, you better be real good or you'll create many contradictions!

Warrior Muslimas 4: The Lone Warrior

2006-01-08T13:43:00.000+02:00

Before getting to our formidable warrior Muslima, we should first learn a little about a man of the name of Zarrar ibn al Azwar. Zarrar was a great Muslim warrior who was known as "The Naked Warrior" because he would throw off his armor and shirt when fighting an enemy to show his desire for martyrdom. Zarrar was popular among the Muslim fighters and was used to boost their morale, as he did in the Battle of Ajnadayn when he challenged Byzantine champions to duels before the battle. He yelled out: "I am the death of the pale faces (cowards), I am the killer of Romans; I am the scourge sent upon you, I am Zarrar Ibn al Azwar". He is said to have slain several Byzantine champions who accepted his duels, including the governers of Tiberias and Amman.[1]

Zarrar was Khalid ibn al Walid's* commander in one of his campaigns during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (r.a), and was commanded to fight the Byzantine army, but was captured. Khalid pursued the Byzantines and saw a lone warrior, attacking and killing enemy soldiers, and then withdrawing. Attacking, killing, withdrawing again. Khalid demanded that the warrior identify himself, so the warrior removed the head covering and said, "I am Khawla, sister of Zarrar!" She was fighting to rescue her brother.

Khalid was very impressed by her courage and skill with the spear so he asked her to join the war party against the Byzantines to free Zarrar. They ambushed the Byzantine contingent that guarded Zarrar, and Khawla fought visciously and killed many men ending the battle with a decisive victory for the Muslims and freedom for her beloved brother.[2]

----
* The famous Muslim general with only one equal in known history: Alexander the Great
1. Battle of Ajnadayn
2. Women and Traditional Muslim Fighting Arts

In the footsteps of Hagar

2006-01-06T12:54:00.000+02:00

I'm not done yet with the "Warrior Muslimas" series, but since the days of Hajj are almost over and I'm in them middle of this whole women's theme, I thought I'd post this:

The Tawaf is about Abraham, the Sa‘y is about Hagar. Only in Islam is a woman the initiator of a form of worship. [1]

One thing all pilgrims must do in the hajj is the Sa'y (Running). It takes place in a corridor called the Masa'a (the place of Sa'y), which runs between two foothills. Here pilgrims walk back and forth seven times at a brisk pace in a rite that imitates the steps of Hagar, Ishmael's mother in the Torah, who rushed between the hills in search of life-giving water for her infant son (or a caravan passing through to help them). The story and the rite express the effort required in a person's search for salvation. The sudden appearance of a well in this desert landscape is the core of a miracle that Muslims believe saved Hagar and saved a branch of Abraham's family in Mecca. Not accidentally, this rite places a mother's story at the heart of the Hajj.[2]

It's also interesting that according to the Bible, Sarah was angry at Hagar and drove Hagar out into the desert. In the Islamic version of the story, Hagar and Sarah were friends and wives on equal terms. However God commanded Abraham to take Hagar and her son to the desert, and to leave them in His care.

-----
1. Contentions, by Abdal-Hakim Murad.
2. Virtual Hajj

Warrior Muslimas 3: Mightier than Men

2006-01-05T10:40:00.000+02:00

Excerpted from the book: The Ideal Muslimah by Dr. Muhammad Ali al-Hashemi
---------

One of the most distinguished women who took part in the battle of Uhud, if not the most distinguished of them, was Nasibah bint Ka'b al-Maziniyyah, Umm Umarah (May Allah be pleased with her). At the beginning of the battle, she was bringing water and tending the wounded, as the other women were doing. When the battle was going in the favour of the Muslims, the archers disobeyed the command of the Prophet, and this turned the victory into defeat...

At this point, Nasibah went forward, with her sword unsheathed and her bow in her hand, to join the small group who were standing firm with the Prophet, acting as a human shield to protect him from the arrows of the mushrikin. Every time danger approached the Prophet she hastened to protect him. The Messenger of Allah noticed this, and later said, "Wherever I turned, to the left or the right, I saw her fighting for me."

Her son Umarah also described what happened on that tremendous day: "On that day, I was wounded in my left hand. A man who seemed to be as tall as a palm-tree struck me, then went away without pursuing me to finish me off. The blood began to flow copiously, so the Messenger of Allah told me, 'Bind up your wound.' My mother came to me, and she was wearing a waist-wrapper, which she had brought for the purpose of wrapping wounds. She dressed my wound, whilst the Prophet was looking on. Then she told me, 'Get up, my son, and fight the people.' The Prophet said, 'Who could bear what you are putting up with, O Umm Umarah?'

She [later] said: The man who had struck my son came by, and the Messenger of Allah said, 'This is the one who struck your son.' I intercepted him and hit him in the thigh, and he collapsed. I saw the Messenger of Allah smiling so broadly that I could see his back teeth. He said, 'You have taken your revenge, O Umm Umarah!' Then we struck him with our weapons until we killed him*, and the Prophet said: 'Praise be to Allah, who granted you victory over him, gave you the satisfaction of taking revenge on your enemy, and let you see the vengeance for yourself."

On this day, Nasibah herself received many wounds whilst she was fighting the people and striking their chests. The Prophet saw her, and called to her son, "Your mother! Your mother! See to her wounds, may Allah bless you and your household! Your mother has fought better than so-and-so." When his mother heard what the Prophet said, she said, "Pray to Allah that we may accompany you in Paradise." He said, "O Allah, make them my companions in Paradise." She said, " I do not care what befalls me in this world."

Umm Umarah's jihad was not confined to the battle of Uhud. She was also present on a number of other occasions, namely the treaty of Aqabah, Al-Hudaybiyah, Khaybar and Hunayn. Her heroic conduct at Hunayn was no less marvellous than her heroic conduct at Uhud. At the time of Abu Bakr's Caliphate, she was present at Al-Yamamah where she fought brilliantly and received eleven wounds as well as losing her hand. It is no surprise that the Prophet gave her the good news that she would enter Paradise, and that she was later held in high esteem by the Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and his commander Khalid Ibn Al-Walid and then by Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattab.

---------
* She hit him on his thighs and he fell on his knees, but he was huge and was still able to kill her so she had to finish him off. This does not go against the command of the Prophet: "Do not kill a wounded person nor run after a fleeing one or kill a captive."

( I removed all the (swt) and the (saw) to make the flow easier, and changed Khalifa to Caliph )

Warrior Muslimas 2: Rumaysa bint Milhan

2006-01-03T21:57:00.000+02:00

In the previous post I discussed the role of women in society and the military, supporting this active role with the story of Umm Haram bint Milhan, who asked the Prophet of Allah (pbuh) to pray that she join a Muslim expedition of warriors to Cyprus, and he prayed to God that she would. This did in fact take place during the Caliphate of Uthman (r.a.), and her resting place in Cyprus is now one of the holiest sites for Muslims.

In this post I will present the example of her sister, Rumaysa bint Milhan, who later became known as Umm Sulaym. As I mentioned in the previous post, the Prophet had a special compassion for Rumaysa and her sister and would often visit them and eat at their houses. When asked about it, he replied that their brother was killed fighting right beside him.

Rumaysa (r.a.) was one of the first women of Medina to accept Islam and taught it to her young son Anas ibn Malik (r.a), infuriating her husband, but that husband was killed by an enemy of his. Afterwards, a man called Abu Talhah came to ask her hand, and she made his conversion to Islam as her mahr (dowry) instead of the gold and silver that he had offered. She actually lectured him about the stupidity of worshipping a piece of wood when he was proposing to her! Abu Talhah became a very devout and ascetic Muslim and they were among those who gave their allegiance to the Prophet at the second Pledge of Aqabah, inviting him to their city.

Rumaysa and Abu Talhah had an exemplary Muslim family life, devoted to the Prophet and the service of Muslims and Islam. The Prophet used to visit their home. Sometimes when the time of Prayer came, he would pray on a mat provided by Rumaysa. Sometimes also he would have a siesta in their house and, as he slept, she would wipe the perspiration from his forehead. Once when the Prophet awoke from his siesta, he asked: "Umm Sulaym, what are you doing?" "I am taking these (drops of perspiration) as a barakah (blessing) which comes from you ," she replied.[1]

She said that ""His sweat smelt nicer than the nicest perfume," and her son Anas would say that "his sweat was pearl-like".[2]

Rumaysa was noted for her great courage and bravery. During the Battle of Uhud, she carried a dagger in the folds of her dress. She gave water to and tended the wounded and she made attempts to defend the Prophet when the tide of battle was turning against him. At the Battle of Khandaq, the Prophet saw her carrying a dagger and he asked her what she was doing with it. She said: "It is to fight those who desert."

"She was devoted to the Prophet and dedicated her son Anas to his service. She took the responsibility of educating her children and she played an active part in public life, sharing with the other Muslims the hardships and the joys of building a community and living for the pleasure of God."[1]

------
1. Rumaysa's Biography
2. The Sealed Nectar

Warrior Muslimas 1: Women's Role in the Military

2006-01-02T12:17:00.000+02:00

DA wrote a great post recently about Muslimas being more involved in sport and activity and how they should be encouraged and not discouraged by the Muslim brothers out there. The post doesn't need anything added to it, so I decided to write a series of posts on a related topic: female Muslim warriors. I think this should help encourage the activity of Muslim women out there in society and maybe encourage them to take up martial arts or something else that is useful to them.

---------------------

Whenever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) went to Quba', he used to visit Umm Haram bint Milhan, who would feed him. She was the wife of 'Ubada bin al-Samit. One day, the Prophet went to her house and she gave him a meal... He fell asleep. He woke up laughing.

She asked him: 'What makes you laugh, O Messenger of Allah?"
He said, "Some people of my followers were displayed before me as warriors fighting for the Cause of Allah and sailing over this sea, kings on thrones."

She said, "O Messenger of Allah! Invoke Allah that He may make me one of them." He invoked (Allah) for her and then laid down his head and slept again. Then once again he woke up laughing.

She asked: "What makes you laugh, O Messenger of Allah?"
He said, "some people of my followers were displayed before me as warriors fighting for the Cause of Allah", and repeated what he had said the first time.

She said, "O Messenger of Allah! Invoke Allah that He may make me one of them."
He said, "You will be amongst the first ones."

Umm Haram sailed out to sea during the reign of Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyan..."

(reported by Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and al-Nisa'i). *

Commentary by Saudi diplomat and poet, Ghazi Algosaibi

According to Algosaibi, the debate over the role of women in society,

"does not take place in the refined courts of jurisprudence. It is a psychological, political, social and cultural struggle between men who believe that the recognition of women's rights enriches their own lives, and men who believe that such recognition negates their masculinity. This kind of dispute can only continue indefinitely. No amount of debate and discussion could bring it to a conclusion.

The Hadith which I have quoted here shows with incomparable clarity how the Prophet, the Imam who leads us to True Guidance, sees women's role in society (and in the military!): he believed it should include going out to sea on military expeditions in the company of men." [1]

Umm Haram's tomb

" Nestled on the edge of a salt lake in southern Cyprus, one of Islam's most important shrines has been restored and now sits as a beacon of hope for the Mediterranean island's ethnic division.

  The United Nations heralded the completion of renovation work at Hala Sultan Tekke mosque at the end of a four-year project that brought together both Greek and Turkish Cypriots to achieve a common goal.

  The mosque is the island's most sacred monument for the mainly Muslim Turkish Cypriots but, ironically, the picture-postcard edifice lies in the Greek Orthodox south of the island.

  "This is not just a symbol of the past, but a symbol of the future where Greek and Turkish Cypriots can come together," said United Nations Development Program (UNDP) manager Andrew Russell.
...

Muslims worldwide revere the ancient site because it reputedly contains the burial place of the Prophet Mohammed's paternal aunt Umm Haram (Hala Sultan in Turkish).

  However, other scholars believe she was the prophet's wet nurse.**

  According to legend, Umm Haram died after falling off her mule and breaking her neck during the first Arab raids on Cyprus around AD 647. That same night a divine power supposedly placed three giant stones where she lay.

  In 1760 Sheikh Hasan discovered Hala Sultan's grave and began spreading the word about her healing powers and a tomb was built there.

  The complex -- comprising a mosque, mausoleum, minaret, cemetery and living quarters for men and women -- was built in its present form while the island was still under Ottoman rule and completed in around 1816.
....

"During the Ottoman period in Cyprus, Ottoman-flagged ships used to fly their flags at half-mast when off the shores of Larnaca and salute Hala Sultan (Umm Haram) with cannon shots," said Turkish Cypriot archaeologist Tuncer Bağışkan.
...

"Let Hala Sultan be a permanent symbol of how the two communities can build a brighter future," said Greek Cypriot engineer Elias Karasselos, who worked on the mosque. "[2]

-----
* On that expedition to Cyprus: Mu'awiya asked the Caliph Umar for permission to send an expedition to Cyprus, and Umar forbade him from doing so. When Uthman became Caliph, Mu'awiya asked him but Uthman refused also because Umar had refused. Many years later, Mu'awiya asked him for permission again, and Uthman said that Mu'awiya may undertake the expedition only if:
1) only volunteers went, and not a single person may go against his will or be commanded to go.
2) Mu'awiya and his wife went with them.
Otherwise Uthman would not allow the expedition. Mu'awiya therefore sailed to Cyprus with his wife, and Umm Haram and her husband went too. There was barely any fighting (they easily overpowered a small Byzantine garrison), and the people of Cyprus agreed to pay a tribute to the Muslims and to refrain from aiding the Greeks against the Muslims.

Three or four years later, the Cypriots broke the agreement and gave ships to the Greeks to support their expeditions, so Mu'awiya was forced to fight them (to stop them from aiding the powerful Byzantine threat), and reached a permanent agreement where the Cypriots would pay a tribute and warn the Muslims of any Greek danger. This was the expedition that the Prophet saw in his second dream.

During the Abbasid Caliphate, al-Mansur said of the Cypriots, "We shall, above everyone else, do justice to them, and not enrich ourselves by oppressing them".

** Umm Haram was neither the Prophet's wet nurse nor his aunt. The Prophet (pbuh) liked to visit her house and the house of her sister Rumaysa and eat with them. He had great respect for Umm Haram, and her husband was one of the greatest of the Prophet's companions.

1. Algosaibi, Ghazi A. Revolution in the Sunnah. London: Saqi Books, 2004.
2. To read full article, click here. Username: gobacktotexas; Password: Bush (courtesy of http://bugmenot.com/)

Concerning Humility

2006-01-01T23:44:00.000+02:00

A Lesson from "The Orchard" by Saadi of Shiraz.
--------------

Thou, O creature of God, wast created of the dust; therefore, be humble as the dust. Be not covetous, nor oppressive, nor headstrong. Thou art from the dust; be not like fire. When the terrible fire raised his head in pride, the dust prostrated itself in humility. And since the fire was arrogant and the dust was meek, from the former were the demons formed, and from the latter mankind.

Three Popes: A Quick Comparison

2005-12-29T11:54:00.000+02:00

Pope Pius XI (d. 1939)

These words were spoken in confidence by Pope Pius XI to Cardinal Facchinetti whom he had just appointed Apostolic Delegate to Libya, and were only made public much later,

Do not think that you are going among infidels. Moslems attain to Salvation. The ways of Providence are infinite.[1]

Pope John Paul II (d. 2005 )

Kissing the Qur'an

Pope Benedict XVI

"Wipe them out—all of them."

Oh wait, I'm sorry, that was Darth Sidius.

Actually he did say that,

"It is true that the Muslim world is not totally mistaken when it reproaches the West of Christian tradition of moral decadence and the manipulation of human life...This imposes on us a serious examination of conscience." [2]

--------
[1] L'Ultima, Anno VIII, 75-76, p. 261 (Florence, 1954).
[2] "Ratzinger denies Christianity ´superior´ to Islam"

Kings and Caliphs on Earth: More on the Environment

2005-12-27T17:09:00.000+02:00

this is a quick addition to my last post on man and the environment... it was sent to me by a social sciences professor that I know. He was telling me about it earlier and I asked him to tell me what he said again to refresh my memory...

---------------------

"I was talking about a movie I'd watched with Peter O'Toole playing Robinson Crusoe. The sequence at the end involves Friday putting Crusoe under custody and taking him to his original people to put Crusoe on trial. Friday wants to execute Crusoe but the tribe say that to do this would be to sink to his level. Crusoe also defends himself and says that he can make up for what he'd done by knowledge, teaching their children about the world, which is what makes Friday so angry in the first place.

So they punish him instead by sending him back to his island again and leaving him there to live by himself. Then you have a shot of Crusoe reading from the bible how God gave man the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea. Then you get a shot of Friday and his people singing how nobody can tell the tree not to bask in the light of the sun.

The contrast here is between a people - the 'primitive' tribesmen who worship nature and respect it and don't see it as theirs to do with as they please, and Crusoe the modern European thinks of nature in terms of 'ownership'. He is a man who has a material and imperialist interpretation of the Bible. Instead of understanding the verses in the bible that are talking about nature in terms of 'taskheer' - wasakkharna lakum ma fi samawati wal ard (in the Quran, God makes nature to serve man and his needs, but nature and man both belong to God) - he thinks in terms of ownership. He interprets God 'giving' man the birds and fish literally, as in that they are given to man to do with as he please - 'ownership'.

If you own a chair, it belongs to you, you can smash it if you like and no one can tell you otherwise because it's yours. In Islam money is the money of God and we are mustakhlaphin in it. We have been given the money, as a trust - amanah - and so we mustn't spend it wrongly and must always remember where the money came from - God - and so not think there is anything particularly special about you and why you are rich and so always remember to give money to the poor. By extension the whole idea of man as khaliphatu allah fil ard (God's viceregent on Earth) is a reference to man's responsibility to God's religion and to the earth and obey God's orders, not 'rule' earth and all its creations as such, in terms of 'ownership'.

In Christianity you have the divine right of kings and various religious arguments that use Adam's status on earth as justification for the king actually owning the land and the people on it. ..."

----------------

The movie is called "Man Friday", from 1975.

The End Days and the Environment

2005-12-25T13:11:00.000+02:00

I'm on a month long vacation which started last week, so I doubt i'll write much.. but who knows i might get the chance..

I do have one quick thought tho:

10 days ago, I heard a lecture by Karen Armstrong on Christian fundamentalism in America... in that lecture she said that she heard - but that she hoped what she heard was wrong- that Ashcroft was asked why their administration is not responding to calls to save the environment... and that he said because it doesnt matter anymore, Rapture was near. Rapture of course is the belief that the true Christians will fly out into the air (to go to Heaven) and to welcome the descending Jesus, while all the others are left behind on earth to meet their doom.

I doubt the Ashcroft story is true, but it's a horrible mentality for anyone to have.

The Prophet Muhammad said,

"When doomsday comes if someone has a palm shoot in his hand he should plant it" (al-Bayhaqi, 3:184)

Also, there was an old man who had neglected his land, and the Prophet's companion Umar ibn al-Khattab asked him why he stopped cultivating it. The man said he was about to die and did not need it anymore, but Umar insisted that he cultivate it anyway, and he personally helped him do that.

As our Prophet has taught us, all humans will stand before God on judgement day, and every person they have harmed will complain about their actions, and every animal, and even the Earth will come forward and complain about how each man harmed her.

When the Earth is shaken by a mighty shaking,
and the earth yields up her burdens,
and man cries out "What is the matter with her?"
On that Day she will tell her tales,
as thy Lord will have inspired her.
On that Day mankind will issue, separately, to be shown their deeds.
Whosoever has done an atom's weight of good will see it,
and whoseoever has done an atom's weight of ill will see it. (Qur'an: 99:1-8).

2005-12-16T10:07:00.000+02:00

CHRISTIAN SUICIDE BOMBERS?

Here I will be discussing the position of the Islamic and Christian texts themselves on suicide and suicide bombing, and not the actions of the followers of these religions who could be misguided.

Suicide

In Islam, suicide is strictly forbidden. “And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allaah is Most Merciful to you. And whoever commits that through aggression and injustice, we shall cast him into the fire, and that is easy for Allaah.” (An-Nisaa 4:29-30).

and the hadith:

“There was among those who were before you, a man who had a wound. The man could not bear the pain of that wound, so he took a knife and cut his hand with it and as a result, bled to death. Allaah then said: “My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly and for this, I have made Paradise forbidden for him.” (Al-Bukhaaree). and many more...

and suicide is even forbidden in the context of Jihad:

In one of the battles that the Prophet and his followers fought, the prophet pointed at a Muslim who was fighting the enemies of Islam and said, "Whoever wishes to see one of the dwellers of Hell, should look at that man". So one of the Muslims decided to observe him to see why he would go to hell even though he was fighting in war against the enemies of Islam. He then returned to the Prophet and said, "I swear that you are the messenger of Allah!" and when the Prophet asked him why he made this comment, he said that he followed that man in battle as he fought against the enemies of Islam, until he was dealt a fatal injury. The man was in so much pain that he could not bear to wait until death took him, and he killed himself with his sword. Sirat-un-Nabi; Bukhari

Thus, suicide in any form and for whatever purpose is completely forbidden in Islam, but the Christian texts do not condemn it. Job, in the Bible, asks God to kill him because of all of his pain and suffering, whereas in the Islamic version of the story Job is patient and keeps thanking God continuosly, despite his unbearable pains. Saul, in the Christian texts, chooses to die by his sword rather than be caught by the Philistines, and the hero Razis does the same when fearing being caught by the wicked. In the Qur'an, Jonah was forced to jump off the ship whereas in the Christian texts he begs the mariner to throw him off so that he may die.[1]

Suicide Bombing

As you can see above, the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet re-tell the stories of many biblical prophets and personalities, giving a different account of what happaned. But one biblical hero who is completely left out of the Qur'an is Samson, Israel's "little sun"[2].

According to the Bible, God sent an angel to Samson's mother, telling her that she will have a very special son and that she should not cut his hair (as his hair will give him incredible power). Samson became so strong that he once killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey! (I wonder if they were all soldiers or if they included women and children). He was also one of the Judges of Israel for 20 years.

When Samson was finally caught by the Philistines, they gouged out his eyes. He was later placed between the two main pillars of a temple during a great celebration. He asked God to give him strength one more time, so that he may pay back the Philistines for the loss of one of his eyes, and asked God that he may die with the Philistines. He pushed against the pillars and brought down the temple, killing more civilian Philistines than all the people he had killed in his entire lifetime! [3]

So this judge of Israel, this special "sun" of Israel whom God wanted to grow up this strong, killed thousands and thousands of innnocent Philistines to pay back for the loss of one eye! And he wanted to go down with them in the process. So if the followers of every religion were actually following the spirit of their religion, we would have Christian and Jewish suicide bombers instead of Muslim suicide bombers!

In fact, suicide bombing is considered unlawful in Islam because of two reasons:
1) It kills non-combatant civilians
2) It involves suicide.

Suicide bombing was only accepted when one of the founders of the Palestinian group Fateh, Khalil El Wazir, told the people that it is acceptable and that those who died in suicide bombings are martyrs and will go to heaven.[4] Khalil El Wazir became known as Abu Jihad.

But since then, many Islamic scholars have denounced suicide bombings as completely unacceptable. But of course such voices are not heard because they dont make interesting news. See for example the fatwa of the famous Salafi scholar al-Albani declaring suicide bombing unlawful. According to him, they will either cause those who do them to reside eternally or temporarily in Hell. He also says that killing Jewish civilians by suicide bombing has no benefit and is harmful to the Islamic call.

More recently, 500 British Muslim religious leaders issued a fatwa saying that suicide bombings are "vehemently prohibited". They continued, "Islam's position is clear and unequivocal: murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.

Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdallah Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia has also issued a fatwa against suicide bombings. There are on the other hand, one must admit, some Arab Islamic authorities who are afraid to speak up against suicide bombing because of all the passion that Arabs have toward the Palestinian cause. Other scholars, like the Shaikh of al-Azhar in Cairo Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, said that suicide bombings against civilians are unacceptable but against fighters they are ok because they are not really suicide, but are "a sort of martyrdom" and in "self defence". He can say whatever he wants but suicide bombing still involves suicide, and they are not the only option.

There is a complete refutation of suicide bombings as Islamic in this pdf file.

How strange it is then, that many misguided Muslims think suicide bombing is acceptable, whereas it is the Bible that shows Samson as a great hero!

------------
* This post was inspired by the quote, "Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures" in the article "Recapturing Islam from the Terrorists " , by Abdul Hakim Murad.
1. The Origins of Suicidal Terrorism
2. The word samson means "little sun".
3. Biblical people: Samson
4. Thomas, Gordon. Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad".

2005-12-08T18:02:00.000+02:00

How the Copts were saved by the Muslims

Since there has been increased talk of tensions between Muslims and Copts in Egypt recently, I thought I'd mention how the Muslims took Egypt and saved the Copts from the Byzantines.

In the seventh century C.E. (aka AD), the Byzantine empire was heavily oppressing the Coptic people in Egypt, imposing heavy taxes on them and trying to convert them to the Greek Orthodox Church. The Copts were "unwilling to pay homage to the Chalcedonian extraction of Christianity" and were therefore "imprisoned and persecuted by their Byzantine masters". The country had also been weakened because of elder Heraclius' revolt against the "vicious government of Emperor Phocas", which was fought out largely on Egyptian soil. This led to younger Heraclius taking the throne of the Byzantine empire.

The Sassanid empire in what is now Iraq and Iran had also attacked Egypt and other Byzantine territories, subjecting the Egyptians "to severe material oppression for a decade".

Benjamin I, the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt, went into hiding from the Byzantine Empire, but they caught his brother Mennas. According to Coptic sources:

And Heraclius seized the blessed Mennas, brother of the Father Benjamin, the patriarch, and brought great trials upon him, and caused lighted torches to be held against his sides until the fat of his body oozed forth and flowed upon the ground, and knocked out his teeth because he confessed the faith; and finally commanded that a sack should be filled with sand, and the holy Mennas placed within it, and drowned in the sea. For Heraclius the misbeliever had charged them, saying: "If any of them says that the council of Chalcedon is true, let him go; but drown in the sea those that say it is erroneous and false." Therefore they did as the prince bade them, and cast Mennas into the sea."

Because of this oppression of the Copts by the Byzantines, and the weakness of the country, Amr ibn al As, a Muslim general with great ambitions, wanted to take Egypt. Amr ibn al As was never exactly a pious Muslim.. He is perhaps most famous, beside for conquering Egypt, as the man who lied and cheated in the arbitration between Ali and Muawiya, causing Muawiya to become caliph unjustly. In any case, Amr knew that the Coptic majority would not fight along side the Byzantines, and this encouraged him to take Egypt, mainly out of political ambitions.

Amr begged the Caliph Umar to allow him to take Egypt, but Umar was not sure if this was the right thing to do at the time. "The conquest of Egypt itself stands in our traditions, both Arab and non-Arab, as an episode in which Amr exerted pressure on the more cautious judgment of Umar and caused the latter reluctantly to yield." Umar told Amr he could go toward Egypt, and that he should expect a letter from him once he made his decision on whether or not he should proceed to cross the border. Umar ended up writing a letter in which he said that Amr must turn back if he had not yet crossed the border, but that if he had already crossed it then he should proceed." Amr received the letter before crossing the border but did not open it until he was well into Egyptian territory, and wrote back to Umar saying that he only read it after crossing the border, and that Umar should send reinforcements.

What is known as fact by historians is that the Copts did not help their Byzantine oppressors. What remains a matter of speculation, however, is whether or not the Copts helped the Muslims take Alexandria from the Byzantines. All of Egypt was controlled by Alexadria and once the Muslims took it, possibly with assistance from the Copts, all of Egypt became theirs.

"The hostility of the Copts [to the Byzantines], amply justified in their own eyes, was probably the decisive factor in terms of local assistance provided to the Muslim troops, particularly in the Delta. This assistance is recorded beyond doubt in the later stages of the campaign by the Arab chroniclers, possibly in exaggerated terms."

Amr sent a letter to Benjamin I, former Coptic partiarch who was in hiding from the Byzantines, saying:

"There is protection and security for the place where Benjamin is, and peace from God, therefore let him come forth secure and tranquil and administer the affairs of his church and the government of his nation..."

Amr "gave orders that Benjamin should be brought before him with honour and veneration and love" and gave the patriarch "full authority to resume his intentions to regather his congregation and make amends for the destruction of the Coptic church spearheaded by Heraclius."

Benjamin was also able to retrieve the head of Saint Mark, founder of the Coptic church in Egypt, that the Greeks wanted to smuggle to Byzantium. He made such "great efforts to help with the rebuilding and revival of the Coptic Church in Egypt", that he became a hero far after his death.

"So deep was the impression of his long reign on the minds of his contemporaries that the legend was circulated among them that not only did the angels carry his noble soul to heaven but it was also escorted by Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, Saint Severus of Antioch, and Saint Theodosius."

Perhaps then it would help both the Muslims and Copts of today to remember how the Muslims once saved the Copts from the terrible oppression of the Byzantines, rid the area of the horribly oppressive Sassanian Empire, and brought back to Egypt its Coptic Patriarch with love and honor, allowing him to rebuild the Coptic church.

Citations from:
- Burke, Jeffrey C. "Coptic-Muslim Relations in the Seventh Century"

2005-12-03T15:19:00.000+02:00

Too busy to update this blog for at least two weeks.

2005-11-28T18:51:00.000+02:00

The Origin of the Bible

bism Allah wabi hamdih,

“Do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation other than in a most kindly manner – except those of them who did wrong and are oppressors – and say ‘we believe in that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to you; for our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that we surrender ourselves.’” (29:46)

Now I do plan to criticize certain things in the Bible (i.e the old and the new testaments), but I certainly do not think them to be completely false. As for the four Gospels, all scholars of Christianity will tell you that they are not the origial Gospel of Jesus (pbuh), but were written between one to four centuries after. The oldest surviving Gospels according to them are the Gospel of Thomas and the lost Gospel that they call 'Q'. The Gospel 'Q' is lost, but parts of it were reconstructed from Matthew and Luke because both Matthew and Luke copied the Gospel Q and incorporated it into their Gospels, adding stories around the quotes of Jesus. So I will say that I do not believe in these four gospels as having been originally the words revealed by God to Jesus.

As for the Torah, I do believe that it was revealed by God, but that certain stories were added to it later, and thus it was corrupted and is not anymore the word of God.

But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them (2:59)

Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith (2:78-79).

And so the Torah can still be considered of divine origin, albeit not all of it. God says,

And when there cometh unto them (Jews) a Scripture (the Qur'an) from Allah, confirming that in their possession... (2:89)...

Also, many Jews came to the Prophet Muhammad asking him to settle their disputes since he was the leader of Medina, and so God revealed the following verse to the Prophet:

Why do they ask you to judge among them, when they have the Torah, containing God's law, and they chose to disregard it? They are not believers. We have sent down the Torah, containing guidance and light.... (5:43-44)

Now I once read about the hidden code in the Book 1 of Genesis that was discovered by some rabbis, and the discovery was so strong that it was included in two scientific journals after being peer reviewed (http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf105/sf105p02.htm). But since then it has been debunked several times, and the case is pretty much dead. Nevertheless, before having heard of it being debunked, I picked up Genesis to read it, and I was stunned by its beauty. It has a beautiful repitition that reminded me immediately of Surat al Rahman and the last half, or maybe third, of Surat al-Shu'araa. Each of the three has a very different type of repitition, but they're all beautiful. In the case of the Genesis, it goes like this:

...
5: And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
....
8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
.....
13. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
...

Now it doesnt sound too beautiful here, because I took away all the parts in between, but if you just read all of Book 1 in Genesis you will be able to appreciate its beauty. I just felt like this was written by He who created the two suras of al-Rahman and al-Shu'araa (and God knows best).

Of course you might be wondering about the authenticity of Genesis more than any other part of the Gospel because it describes the creation of the world in seven days, however you must know that this interpretation is quite wrong, and the Muslim scholars have corrected that false Christian interpretation. First of all, a day with God is not the same as a day for us, because time is relative, and because "day" simply refers to a certain amount of time. Thus God says:

"Verily a day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning (22:47)"

"He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count. (32:5)"

"To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years. Therefore endure with a goodly patience. (70:4-5).

Thus a day could be like 1000 yrs, 50,000 yrs, or more!

And proof of that is in Genesis itself but it was the Muslim scholars who figured it out:

"...but [the period of creation] was a period of time which cannot be measured by a day and night, for the cause of these periods is the sun with its rising and setting, and both the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day of the week. How is it possible to imagine that these days are like the days of our reckoning! The Qur'an says: 'A day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning' (Koran 22: 47). In another verse God says: 'In a day the measure of whereof is as fifty thousand years' (Koran 70: 4). Thus it is obvious that we cannot estimate that period with our method of reckoning, and that it is unverifiable since the beginning of creation."
- Al-Biruni (973-1048)
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_101_150/islam_does_not_inhibit_science.htm

Since the sun and the moon were created in the fourth day according the story of Genesis, then the seven "days" of creation obviously do not mean seven days as measured by the people who live on earth, because our days depend on the earth's movement around the sun.

Actually when I started this post I was intending to "prove" that the Torah was originally reavealed by God because of the code mentioned above, and to explain the small errors that were found with the code by the Islamic account of the eventual corruption of the Torah (I read one article reporting the discovery that said certain imperfections or errors existed in the code, but I can't find that article anymore). However now that I have found that the whole thing has been repeatedly disproved, one of the main points of this post has been lost. But it is sufficient for me to say that while I will be criticizing certain things in the Bible, especially things in the old testament (since the new testament is not even originally true), I do believe that the Torah was originally revealed by God and I am not criticizing the whole thing.

Inspirations continued...

2005-11-27T21:13:00.000+02:00

Regard the Franks!
Behold with what obstinacy they fight for their religion,
while we the Muslims show no enthusiasm for waging holy war.
- Saladin

It might sound strange to you now, but during the crusades the Muslims had no inclination for war. Islam was a civilization flourishing with great sciences and arts, and both Christians and Jews lived among the Muslims and became known for their crafts and their skills. Every emir would have Christians running his administration because they knew many languages, and Jews were famous for the practice of medicine and banking, and as merchants because they had elaborate networks with Jews outside the Muslim world.

One very interesting phenomenon was taking place in Fatimid Egypt. The Fatimids created a caliphate in Egypt to rival the Abbasid Caliphate, but it was rarely the case that the Fatimid Caliph had any real power. In fact even the very creation of the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt came from the encouragement of a Jewish man called Yaqub Ibn Killis. Having been vizier to the last ruler of the Ikhshidid dynasty in Egypt, he knew that Egypt was economically weak and he sought out the Fatimid Caliph in Tunisia and convinced him to move the Caliphate to Egypt. Yaqub rebuilt the whole Egyptian economy and was in charge of all the affairs of goverment, basically ruling the Fatimid Caliphate in the name of the Caliph al-Aziz.

After that, the Fatimid Caliphate in Cairo was governed by several Christian and Jewish viziers who had complete control of every affair of government, because the Caliphs trusted them. One Christian vizier called Bahram became so powerful that he was given not only the title of the vizier and thus overseer of the bureaucracy, but also as the commander-in-chief of the army and thus held the title of The Sword of Islam... Bahram was publically Christian however and invited 20,000 Armenian Christians to come live in Egypt. In this unique case however, Bahram was forced upon the Caliph and the Caliph had no power to remove him, whereas in the other cases the Christian and Jewish viziers ruled by the permission of the Caliphs. In fact, the only time in which Jews and Christians lost their powerful positions in Egypt was in the middle of the reign of the Caliph al-Hakim. Al-Hakim had been very kind to the Christians and Jews in his childhood, but he became very depressed in his middle age and most historians agree that he basically went insane. Even a Christian doctor and historian of the time defended al-Hakim's persecution against the Christians, explaining that he used to be very kind to the Christians and that he was suffering from melancholy and a drieness of the brain. In his later days, al-Hakim reversed his hostility to the Christians and Jews once more, and they once again rose to powerful positions in the Fatimid government (as with the case of Bahram who came after al-Hakim).

Now the Fatimids were attacked by the Crusaders, and they asked for help from Nur ad-Din Zangi, who sent his general Shirkuh accompanied by Shirkuh's young nephew, Saladin. Saladin back then thought that he was being dragged to his death, and was not a man of war. Eventually Saladin would become ruler of Egypt, would officially end the Fatimid Caliphate because it was Shiite, and would then succeed Nur ad-Din and realize Nur ad-Din's dream of uniting Syria. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Now Saladin's generosity to the Crusaders is infamous, and it need not be recounted. What matters here is that the Muslims had been living in harmony with the Christians and Jews, and in the case of Fatimid Egypt, under their power, even though Egypt was a Muslim nation. Let us also recall that Saladin was scared of fighting and wanted nothing to do with it.

"While Saladin was consolidating his power in Syria, he generally left the Crusader kingdom alone, although he was usually victorious whenever he did meet the Crusaders in battle...However, the Crusaders repeatedly provoked him. Raynald of Chatillon, in particular, harassed Muslim trading and pilgrimage routes with a fleet on the Red Sea, a water route that Saladin needed to keep open. Worse, and what made him a legendary monster in the Muslim world, Raynald threatened to attack the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In retaliation, Saladin besieged Kerak, Raynald's fortress.... Then Raynald looted a caravan of pilgrims on the Hajj in 1185, forcing Saladin's response."

Basically, Raynald massacred a caravan of pilgrims, and on another occasion captured another caravan in which Saladin's sister was travelling and it is said that he raped her. I dont want this to go on much longer, but just remember that it was the Muslims who wished to live in peace, and the Christians who were promised Paradise by their Pope for killing the Muslims and capturing Jerusalem. "France, he said, was overcrowded and the land of Canaan was overflowing with milk and honey. "

Of course, not all the crusaders went straight for Jerusalem. Some of them decided to go the opposite direction and commit what some historians call "the first holocaust". "The preaching of the crusade inspired further anti-Semitism. According to some preachers, Jews and Muslims were enemies of Christ, and enemies were to be fought or converted to Christianity."

"Jews were perceived as just as much of an enemy as Muslims: they were thought to be responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the far-away Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home.

The crusaders moved north through the Rhine valley into well-known Jewish communities such as Cologne, and then southward. Jewish communities were given the option of converting to Christianity or be slaughtered. Most would not convert and as news of the mass killings spread many Jewish communities committed mass suicides in horrific scenes. Thousands of Jews were massacred, despite some attempts by local clergy and secular authorities to shelter them. The massacres were justified by the claim that Urban's speech at Clermont promised reward from God for killing non-Christians of any sort, not just Muslims. "

Illustrations of the crusaders massacring the Jews were proudly included in a Bible printed in France in year 1250!

Now this particular post is titled "inspirations", and it was meant to focus more on Saladin's generosity in allowing all the Crusaders who surrendered to live and to take all their possessions with them and escape to other Crusader strongholds. But such information is so easy to find you can do it on your own. So I was inclined more to talk about the Muslim inclination to live in peace with the Jews and Christians, and the Crusader zeal for war (although even that I didnt really get a chance to get into).

We could however reflect on how the Muslims back then, including Saladin, lived by the following principle when war seemed imminent:

"You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of God, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; God knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of God will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.

If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient. (Quran 8:60-61)"

- Imad, Leila S. The Fatimid Vizierate 969-1172. Shwartz, 1990.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_crusade
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

2005-11-26T10:47:00.000+02:00

Inspirations and the spirit of this blog.

bism Allah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim,

When the first crusade was launched against the Muslims, the Muslim cities were divided up among amirs (army commanders), and princes. The amirs fought against each other as secular rulers, and so when the crusaders came, they were not viewed as Christians or as foreigners and enemies to the Muslims, but only as rival kings. Thus many local rulers allied with the crusaders against other local rulers, while many crusaders also allied with the locals against other crusaders! To them, this was a war of kings, not people of different religions and cultures. One of the first of such rulers to defeat the crusader armies (but was just as willing to conquer the cities of other Muslims), was Imad ud-Din Zangi, founder of the Zangid Dynasty. He was a very proud man - and pride is a sin in Islam- and would not listen to anyone who did not address him with his full title:

"The emir, the general, the great, the just, the aid of God, the triumphant, the unique, the pillar of religion, the cornerstone of Islam, ornament of Islam, protector of God's creatures, associate of the dynasty, auxiliary of doctrine, grandeur of the nation, honour of kings, supporter of sultans, victor over the infidels, rebels, and atheists, commander of the Muslim armies, the victorious king, the king of princes, the sun of the deserving, emir of the two Iraqs and Syria, conqueror of Iran, Bahlawan, Jihan Alp Inassaj Kotlogh Toghrulbeg atabeg Abu Sa'id Zangi Ibn Aq Sunqur, protector of the caliph."

But Allah is he who "produces the living from the dead, and the dead from the living" (Quran 10:31), and from such a heedless ruler he brought a hero to Islam whose life was devoted to God. As soon as Mahmud Zangi succeeded his father, he launched attacks at the crusaders and was determined to unify all of Syria under one Muslim ruler -without shedding any Muslim blood- and to unite the various Muslim forces between the Euphrates and the Nile to make a common front against the crusaders. And thus began the first great counter-crusade.

Mahmud Zangi was aided by God for his piety, and met with astounding success, defeating the Crusaders time and time again. It was only in his time of illness that the crusaders were saved from his victories. Another notable time in which the Crusaders were spared was when he heard of the death of King Baldwin III of Jerusalem, whom Mahmud respected. After King Baldwin III's death, Mahmud Zangi refrained from attacking the crusaders, although they were then especially vulnerable, and said, "We should sympathize with their grief and in pity spare them, because they have lost a prince such as the rest of the world does not possess today.”

Mahmud Zangi became known as Nur ad-Din Zangi (The Light of the Religion), as he is known today. But he himself did not like to call himself by that title, in stark contrast to his father. Before going to battle, one man prayed, "May God grant victory to Nur ad-Din". Mahmud's reply was, "Who is this dog Mahmud that God should grant him victory? May God grant victory to the Muslims!"

Even in the eyes of William of Tyre the son of crusaders and historian of the crusades, Nur ad-Din was “a just prince, valiant and wise, and according to the traditions of his race, a religious man.” Furthermore, Nur ad-Din Zangi was very tolerant of the Christians who lived under his territories and only fought the crusaders. As was said before, he refrained from attacking the vulnerable crusaders in Jerusalem when they lost their King out of respect, in contrast with the actions of the crusader Amalric I who immediately besieged Banias upon learning of the death of its emir and extorted a vast amount of money from his widow.

"Nur ad-Din also constructed universities and mosques in all the cities he controlled. These universities were principally concerned with teaching the Koran and Hadith. Nur ad-Din himself enjoyed to have specialists read to him from the Hadith, and his professors even awarded him a diploma in Hadith narration. He had free hospitals constructed in his cities as well, and built caravanserais on the roads for travellers and pilgrims. He held court several times a week so that people could seek justice from him against his generals, governors, or other employees who had committed some crime. In the Muslim world he remains a legendary figure of military courage, piety, and modesty."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zengi
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_ad-Din
- Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, 1985

2005-11-25T17:19:00.000+02:00

In the name of Allah, al-Rahman, al-Rahim,
I begin this blog, as we must begin every action whether large or small, by thanking Allah for all he has bestowed upon us. So all praise is due to God, Lord of the worlds.

Now here is what this blog is all about:

I see Islam being attacked from all kinds of people, and I see many Muslims trying to defend their religion. I myself used to be one of those people, spending hours attempting to clear the name of Islam on forums against hateful posters, and I got tired of it. I know that Islam is the most perfect religion, brought to us by the most praised prophet, chosen by God from among all mankind: Muhammad, may God's peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions. And I know that there is nothing to apologize for in Islam, but most people out there are busy apologizing and defending Islam as if the religion itself is in need of defence. As Islam is the most perfect religion, Muslims are the ones who should be taking the offensive, not the defensive. Muslims are supposed to be saying to the rest of the world: Look at our religion and compare it to your religions, values, or beliefs- why are your beliefs not as sublime as ours? We must demand that the rest of the world look at their faults and model themselves after the high standards set by Islam, standards to which there is no equal anywhere.

And this brings us to another problem we face today. Gone are the days when the Muslim scholars studied the holy books of other religions in detail, while there are countless western scholars who have studied the Quran and the Hadith and every branch of Islamic sciences. They know everything there is to know about Islam, and so they have something they can attempt to criticize . But I do not see any Muslim scholars who spend their lives studying every branch of Christian or Jewish theology and law, and that is perhaps excusable as they do not feel the need to. For when one can see the sun, what good is a torch? But there IS a need to look at other scriptures and to understand them well, so that one can compare them to Islam and show those attackers that they are the ones who are supposed to be defending their beliefs.

Now I have no hatred toward anyone, and I certainly do not intend to create hatred between any people. I just do not think it just that the most pure teaching is under attack while all other teachings are ignored as if they are better.I only wish that the whole world may compare their beliefs to what Islam teaches and perhaps learn to improve themselves.

Because of the touchy subject matter that I will be discussing, I must begin this blog with these prayers taught to us by the Prophet Muhammad, who was sent as a mercy to all mankind (Qur'an 21:107),

"In the name of God, I put my trust in God. O God, I seek refuge in Thee lest I stray or be led astray or cause injustice or suffer injustice or do wrong or have wrong done to me!" - Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Volume 2, Number 67b.

And the prayer that the Prophet made everytime he left his house:

"O Allah! I seek refuge in Thee lest I stray or be led astray, or slip or made to slip, or cause injustice, or suffer injustice, or do wrong, or have wrong done to me." (Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 5075).