Many have interrupted Obama's recent proclamation to suspend deployment of US missile shield components to Poland and the Czech Republic as proof that finally America is serious about recasting its relations with Russia in a more positive light. However, subsequent statements by members of Obama's administration about future plans for missile defense dubbed ‘phased adaptive approach' are likely to forestall warming of ties between Moscow and Washington.
For instance in a New York Times opinion piece, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized his detractors for describing the new plan as "distorted as some sort of concession to Russia". He further emphasized that the new proposals would bolster European security. "We are strengthening-not scrapping-missile defense in Europe," he wrote.
Away from the public bickering over the effectiveness of the phased adaptive approach, one cannot help but notice that America is most interested in resetting its relations with Iran and not Russia.
New revelations about Iran's diminished missile capabilities now set the stage for the normalization of relations between Tehran and Washington. Downplaying the Iranian threat last month, Robert Gates said, "the intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran's short- and medium-range ballistic missiles...is developing more rapidly than previously projected" and "the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles capabilities has been slower to develop than was estimated in 2006." Gates sudden reassessment follows a familiar pattern frequently employed by US officials to downgrade the peril of Iran's military assets-whenever the situation most demanded it. Previously, under the Bush administration, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) revised its estimate from 2010 to 2015 the date by when Iran would possess and atomic bomb.
Additionally, and more significantly, the NIE claimed that Iran had abandoned plans to weaponize its nuclear programme in 2003. NIE claims were a severe below to Israeli plans to attack Iran, and at the time was widely derided by officials of the Jewish State. At the end of last year, America also refused to sell Israel advanced versions of its bunker-busters bombs and downplayed Israel's show of air power over the Mediterranean. America's lack of support to its most trusted ally in the region clearly underscores that American intentions towards Iran are not nefarious at all.
America's ambivalence towards Iran was again on display when another close ally Britain found its sea personnel captured by Iranian forces. American indifference was intentional as she feared that Britain engineered the naval fiasco to instigate an attack on Iran. Likewise, the US offered very little public support to European voices that vociferously bellowed out calls for the Iranian protestors to topple the Iranian regime.
When scrupulously analysed each event presented America with a unique opportunity to initiate regime change in Iran that many politicians in Washington coveted for. But Washington chose not to do so. On the contrary, America acted in a strange manner-she either watched as a silent spectator or diplomatically mobilized efforts to cool down tensions. The out of character behaviour when measured against the ubiquitous fiery rhetoric that emanated from the corridors of power in Washington suggests to any reader of political events that the two countries are working in cohorts to cement America's hegemony in the region.
America's reliance on Iran to stabilize Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon is too precious to be squandered by any crude attempts undertaken by her closest allies to attack Tehran.
The overly inflated threat from Iran's benign nuclear programme by the incessant news coverage has conveniently provided America with the necessary pretext to augment its military ties with Israel and the Gulf countries. Not to mention it also provides America with new avenues to strengthen her missile defense shield abroad and aid nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East under the guise of peaceful nuclear pacts and in the shadow of nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia. There is little doubt that America will exploit such pacts to ward off competition from Russia, China, and Europe to control cheap Middle Eastern oil.
All of this brings us to the present nuclear talks between Iran and the big six powers. The talks will only conclude, when America is fully satisfied that she can no longer achieve any of her strategic objectives and that her surrogates in Iran have been completely exhausted and are unable to execute her plans. At that juncture, America will settle the nuclear issue and may even allow Iran to keep nuclear weapons in exchange for strict controls.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Monday, 15 June 2009
Women and Shariah
Women and Shariah: Unraveling the myths
Whenever the word "Shariah" is mentioned, the oppression and mistreatment of women comes to the mind of many in the West. The Muslim community is all too familiar with words and phrases that are commonly associated with the subject of "Women and Shariah" in the Western media: second-class citizen, discrimination, injustice, violence, inferior to men, patriarchal, insignificant in society, enslaved to men and the list goes on.
One of the arguments presented by the West as to why they believe that the Shariah oppresses the woman is that the laws are restrictive towards the woman and particularly do not allow her personal,or sexual freedom. -They quote the dress code, segregation and the prohibition of socialising between the sexes, and the severe punishments for fornication or adultery. However, these liberal values come wrapped in their own set of problems. For example, they have allowed the sexual exploitation of women through the pornographic, advertisement and entertainment industries that have degraded the status of the woman in society. This has led to rising sexual harassment, abuse, and even rape. According to the British Crime Survey 2007, 230 women were raped every day in the UK. According to the British Crime Survey 2004, one in four women in the UK have faced some form of sexual assault since the age of 16. The US Department of Justice has reported figures regarding sexual assault in the US that indicate that a woman is sexually assaulted every 2 minutes. How much choice does a woman really have to engage in basic actions such as travel, work, education and taking her children to the park without fear of harassment or harm?
Islam does not believe in securing unlimited individual freedom but aims to protect other values within society. Values such as chastity, honour and respect of men and women alike, strong marriages, strong family units where every child is born within wedlock, knowing its father and mother and knowing who is responsible for its financial, physical and emotional welfare. It also believes in the cooperation of men and women within society - in education, economics, politics and societal life in general. It does not simply look at what will ensure maximum pleasure for individuals within society, but what is best for the harmony, safety, and respect for the community as a whole.
It believes the idea of men and women viewing one another in a purely sexual manner produces a culture of promiscuity and adultery that creates an obstacle in their cooperation and harms the other values it seeks to protect within society. It therefore sets down laws, rules and limitations to regulate the relationship between men and women in society to try and ensure that the triggering of the sexual desire and sexual relations are restricted to marriage and kept away from public life. The dress code, the prohibition of the socializing between the sexes, the prohibition of the use of the woman's body to sell any product or service, and the severe punishments for fornication, adultery and slander against the reputation of an individual, are all examples of such laws. The aim being to produce a society where women can interact with men and have an active public life that is productive, safe, and based upon mutual respect.
Another accusation brought against the Shariah is that it discriminates against the woman, is patriarchal and gives her inferior status to the man. -e reason given is the lack of gender equality in various laws. They quote the difference in the process of divorce between men and women, differences in the laws on inheritance, testimony, polygamy, roles and rights in marriage, and so on.
If we examine this concept of "Gender Equality", the irony is that in itself it is a patriarchal concept for it places the man as the figure head or goal that the woman aspires to reach. Over the generations many Western feminists have accepted that it brings its own set of contradictions and dilemmas. For example, the dilemma of how a woman can call for equality which negates the relevance of gender in public life but at the same time call for pregnancy or maternity rights or flexible working hours based on sex difference. The call for gender-neutral laws that do not recognise the obvious differences between the sexes may actually contribute to injustices against women. For example, employers could expect the same commitment at work with respect to time and physical activity of women who are pregnant or have young children. In addition, the concept of gender equality, which theoretically produced the "have it all woman" in reality produced the "do it all" woman - who continued to burden the household responsibility but now also had to burden the financial maintenance of the family through struggling to maintain a demanding career.
Islam has ordered that the man view the woman with great respect and honour. The Prophet(saw) said, "-The world and all things in the world are precious but the most precious thing in the world is a virtuous woman." The Messenger(saw) gave many sayings to elevate the status that the woman has in society, breaking away from the lowly status that women had as second class citizens enslaved to men in the Arab society. He (saw) said "The believer who has the most perfect faith is the one whose behaviour is the best and the best of you are the ones who are best to their women". It is this view towards the woman and the accountability to the Creator that acts as the primary guard to disrespect, discrimination, and harm of the woman.
With regards to gender equality, Islam does not compare the woman against the man or look at what is best for the woman verses what is best for the man when setting down all rights and responsibilities in family life or society. Rather it looks at the needs of the man and woman as a human being and what is best for family life and the community as a whole to achieve harmony.
Therefore, in certain areas the rights and rules are the same. For example access to basic needs, education, healthcare, economic rights, access to justice, the same punishment for the same crime, having a political voice in society and the right to vote for the leader of the state. In some areas the responsibilities are the same, for example the prayers, the fasting, the Hajj, the paying of the zakat, the carrying of the dawa and accounting the rulers. However, in some issues the rights and roles are different between the man and the woman, for example, the process of divorce, the dress code, inheritance, polygamy, the need for 2 female witnesses to provide testimony in certain court cases against one man, custody of the child, and the roles and rights in marriage and family life.
Therefore, in some areas, Allah (swt) has given the man certain rights He has not afforded to the woman and in other issues He (swt) has given the woman rights He has not afforded to the man. Islam does not see difference as a problem nor as discrimination for it does not view one role or right above another. For example, in family life Islam defines the responsibility of the man as the breadwinner and the woman as the homemaker and the nurturer of the children. One role is not above another, but both are essential for the functioning of a family and the progress of society as a whole. Within Islam the woman is to be financially supported by the male members of her family, her community, and by the state. Therefore, although the woman is permitted to work, there should be no societal or financial pressures upon her to do so if she chooses not to. This is crucial as the woman cannot compromise her vital role of being a wife and mother and of nurturing the thinking and behaviour of the future generations.
In summary, the roles and rights of men and women in Islam are complementary rather than competitive. Simply looking at what is best for the woman verses what is best for the man can sometimes overlook what is best for the children, for a strong marriage and for a harmonious family life. It believes strongly in cooperation rather than in gender battles.
As Muslims living in the West, we are in a prime position to challenge the lies being propagated about Islam and the Shariah. We have a great responsibility to not only defend the Islamic rules but to show others the failings of the capitalist secular liberal creed in solving the problems that women face within society. We have a duty to present the truth and beauty of the Islamic system in addressing the status and position of women within society and a duty to present the beauty of the Shariah in regulating the relationship between men and women to produce true cooperation and harmony in society.
Whenever the word "Shariah" is mentioned, the oppression and mistreatment of women comes to the mind of many in the West. The Muslim community is all too familiar with words and phrases that are commonly associated with the subject of "Women and Shariah" in the Western media: second-class citizen, discrimination, injustice, violence, inferior to men, patriarchal, insignificant in society, enslaved to men and the list goes on.
One of the arguments presented by the West as to why they believe that the Shariah oppresses the woman is that the laws are restrictive towards the woman and particularly do not allow her personal,or sexual freedom. -They quote the dress code, segregation and the prohibition of socialising between the sexes, and the severe punishments for fornication or adultery. However, these liberal values come wrapped in their own set of problems. For example, they have allowed the sexual exploitation of women through the pornographic, advertisement and entertainment industries that have degraded the status of the woman in society. This has led to rising sexual harassment, abuse, and even rape. According to the British Crime Survey 2007, 230 women were raped every day in the UK. According to the British Crime Survey 2004, one in four women in the UK have faced some form of sexual assault since the age of 16. The US Department of Justice has reported figures regarding sexual assault in the US that indicate that a woman is sexually assaulted every 2 minutes. How much choice does a woman really have to engage in basic actions such as travel, work, education and taking her children to the park without fear of harassment or harm?
Islam does not believe in securing unlimited individual freedom but aims to protect other values within society. Values such as chastity, honour and respect of men and women alike, strong marriages, strong family units where every child is born within wedlock, knowing its father and mother and knowing who is responsible for its financial, physical and emotional welfare. It also believes in the cooperation of men and women within society - in education, economics, politics and societal life in general. It does not simply look at what will ensure maximum pleasure for individuals within society, but what is best for the harmony, safety, and respect for the community as a whole.
It believes the idea of men and women viewing one another in a purely sexual manner produces a culture of promiscuity and adultery that creates an obstacle in their cooperation and harms the other values it seeks to protect within society. It therefore sets down laws, rules and limitations to regulate the relationship between men and women in society to try and ensure that the triggering of the sexual desire and sexual relations are restricted to marriage and kept away from public life. The dress code, the prohibition of the socializing between the sexes, the prohibition of the use of the woman's body to sell any product or service, and the severe punishments for fornication, adultery and slander against the reputation of an individual, are all examples of such laws. The aim being to produce a society where women can interact with men and have an active public life that is productive, safe, and based upon mutual respect.
Another accusation brought against the Shariah is that it discriminates against the woman, is patriarchal and gives her inferior status to the man. -e reason given is the lack of gender equality in various laws. They quote the difference in the process of divorce between men and women, differences in the laws on inheritance, testimony, polygamy, roles and rights in marriage, and so on.
If we examine this concept of "Gender Equality", the irony is that in itself it is a patriarchal concept for it places the man as the figure head or goal that the woman aspires to reach. Over the generations many Western feminists have accepted that it brings its own set of contradictions and dilemmas. For example, the dilemma of how a woman can call for equality which negates the relevance of gender in public life but at the same time call for pregnancy or maternity rights or flexible working hours based on sex difference. The call for gender-neutral laws that do not recognise the obvious differences between the sexes may actually contribute to injustices against women. For example, employers could expect the same commitment at work with respect to time and physical activity of women who are pregnant or have young children. In addition, the concept of gender equality, which theoretically produced the "have it all woman" in reality produced the "do it all" woman - who continued to burden the household responsibility but now also had to burden the financial maintenance of the family through struggling to maintain a demanding career.
Islam has ordered that the man view the woman with great respect and honour. The Prophet(saw) said, "-The world and all things in the world are precious but the most precious thing in the world is a virtuous woman." The Messenger(saw) gave many sayings to elevate the status that the woman has in society, breaking away from the lowly status that women had as second class citizens enslaved to men in the Arab society. He (saw) said "The believer who has the most perfect faith is the one whose behaviour is the best and the best of you are the ones who are best to their women". It is this view towards the woman and the accountability to the Creator that acts as the primary guard to disrespect, discrimination, and harm of the woman.
With regards to gender equality, Islam does not compare the woman against the man or look at what is best for the woman verses what is best for the man when setting down all rights and responsibilities in family life or society. Rather it looks at the needs of the man and woman as a human being and what is best for family life and the community as a whole to achieve harmony.
Therefore, in certain areas the rights and rules are the same. For example access to basic needs, education, healthcare, economic rights, access to justice, the same punishment for the same crime, having a political voice in society and the right to vote for the leader of the state. In some areas the responsibilities are the same, for example the prayers, the fasting, the Hajj, the paying of the zakat, the carrying of the dawa and accounting the rulers. However, in some issues the rights and roles are different between the man and the woman, for example, the process of divorce, the dress code, inheritance, polygamy, the need for 2 female witnesses to provide testimony in certain court cases against one man, custody of the child, and the roles and rights in marriage and family life.
Therefore, in some areas, Allah (swt) has given the man certain rights He has not afforded to the woman and in other issues He (swt) has given the woman rights He has not afforded to the man. Islam does not see difference as a problem nor as discrimination for it does not view one role or right above another. For example, in family life Islam defines the responsibility of the man as the breadwinner and the woman as the homemaker and the nurturer of the children. One role is not above another, but both are essential for the functioning of a family and the progress of society as a whole. Within Islam the woman is to be financially supported by the male members of her family, her community, and by the state. Therefore, although the woman is permitted to work, there should be no societal or financial pressures upon her to do so if she chooses not to. This is crucial as the woman cannot compromise her vital role of being a wife and mother and of nurturing the thinking and behaviour of the future generations.
In summary, the roles and rights of men and women in Islam are complementary rather than competitive. Simply looking at what is best for the woman verses what is best for the man can sometimes overlook what is best for the children, for a strong marriage and for a harmonious family life. It believes strongly in cooperation rather than in gender battles.
As Muslims living in the West, we are in a prime position to challenge the lies being propagated about Islam and the Shariah. We have a great responsibility to not only defend the Islamic rules but to show others the failings of the capitalist secular liberal creed in solving the problems that women face within society. We have a duty to present the truth and beauty of the Islamic system in addressing the status and position of women within society and a duty to present the beauty of the Shariah in regulating the relationship between men and women to produce true cooperation and harmony in society.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
One State Solution
One State Solution: A Zionist Dream
Recent events in Palestine have raised many concerns about the practicality of the so-called ‘Two States Solution’. Political analysts are now perplexed, thinking as to whether this ‘solution’ will ever really work. Political commentators are now seriously questioning whether this proposal is realistic and if Israel will ever treat its potential neighbour, the imaginary state of independent Palestine, with fairness and justice? The overwhelming majority of these commentators and analysts, having witnessed Israeli barbarity in Gaza, will reject the notion of trusting Israeli authorities altogether and will propose many different solutions. A different solution is already in existence, which, is deliberately ignored by the powers vested with the responsibility to diffuse this conflict. This solution is a ‘One State Solution’[1], which has worked perfectly well in the past and still has the potential to restore the same prosperous and peaceful co-existence – which lasted for centuries - between the Muslims, Jews and Christians: The Golden Age of Islam.
The Islamic system is the only system that carries the capacity of treating others with complete fairness. Under the Islamic system, Jews lived in harmony and peace for over one thousand years and some of the Jewish scholars/historians remember that era as the ‘Islamic Golden Age’. Whenever the non-Muslim powers took control of any land, they failed to demonstrate impartiality and justice towards the other, especially, in political as well as socio-economic affairs.
In recent years, the British government has exerted immense pressure on Muslim leaders to combat anti-Semitism in the Muslim community. Muslims are however, the least deserving people to be accused of fostering anti-Semitism, as the facts presented below will amply demonstrate that the Jews were not treated in Islamic lands as they were treated elsewhere. The following discussion will substantiate the value and necessity of reviving the ‘One State Solution’ for Palestine, a solution that will provide freedom and security to all.
Jews had reached the peak of their prosperity under Islamic rule. Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (915-990 CE) was the chief minister of the Islamic Caliphate of Cordova, governed by the most powerful monarch in Western Europe, Abdur-Rahman III. Hasdai’s position inevitably benefited his people, as he made inquiries into the affairs of his brethren scattered as far as Caucasus. In a letter to the Jewish Khazar King Joseph, he elaborated upon his fortunate position in the Islamic lands:
‘Praise be to the beneficent God for his mercy towards me! Kings of the earth, to whom his [the Caliph’s] magnificence and power are known, bring gifts to him, conciliating his favour by costly presents, such as the king of the Germans, the king of the Gebalim, the king of Constantinople, and others. All their gifts pass through my hands, and I am charged with making gifts in return. (Let my lips express praise to the God in heaven who so far extends his loving kindness towards me without any merit of my own, but in the fullness of his mercies.) I always ask the ambassadors of these monarchs about our brethren the Jews, the remnant of the captivity, whether they have heard anything concerning the deliverance of those who have pined in bondage and had found no rest.’ [2]
Due to an active implementation of the Zionist apartheid policy in Palestine, one can never imagine a Palestinian Muslim becoming the prime minister of Israel. Samuel Ibn Nagrella ha-Nagid (993-1056 CE) was another powerful Jewish chief minister of Granada in Islamic Spain who served his people well. Abraham Ibn Daud (ca. 1161), a Jewish chronicler, elaborated upon ha-Nagid’s significance for the spread of the Jewish tradition:
‘He achieved great good for Israel in Spain, the Maghreb, Ifriqiya, Egypt, Sicily, indeed as far as the academy in Babylonia and the Holy City. He provided material benefits out of his own pocket for students of Torah in all these countries. He also purchased many books – [copies] of the Holy Scriptures as well as of the Mishna and Talmud, which are also among the holy writings. Throughout Spain and the countries just mentioned, whoever wished to devote full time to the study of the Torah found in him a patron. Moreover, he retained scribes who would make copies of the Mishna and Talmud, which he would present to students who were unable to purchase copies themselves, both in the academies of Spain as well as of the other countries we mentioned. These gifts were coupled with annual contribution of olive oil for the synagogues of Jerusalem, which he would despatch from his own home. He spread Torah abroad and died at a ripe old age after having earned four crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of power, the crown of Levite, and towering over them all, by dint of good deeds in each of these domains, the crown of a good name.’ [3]
Samuel ibn Nagrella’s fortune and his influence benefited the Jews worldwide. This was only made possible because of his position as a chief minister of an Islamic power, and the relaxed attitude of the Muslim government towards the Jewish faith. For the Jews, this was certainly a practical manifestation of the promise made by Allah in the Quran:
‘And We have sent you (O Muhammad [SA]) not but as a mercy to mankind’ [4]
The mercy that Prophet Muhammad was sent with was not restricted to the Muslims alone, rather Islamic domination was to bring prosperity for others too. Note, that all the Jewish activities, under the patronage of Samuel Ibn Nagrella, mentioned above by Ibn Daud were taking place in the lands controlled by the Muslims. In other words, the freedom and autonomy allowed by the Shariah Law enabled the Jews to carry out their religious pursuits without any hindrance. Can one imagine an independent Islamic university or Madrasa functioning freely in the present day Tel Aviv? One needs not to be a genius to find an answer to this question. Bahya ibn Paqudah, a medieval Andalusian Jewish writer, describes the prosperous existence of the Jews in the Islamic lands in a treatise titled Kitab al-Hidaya (ca. 1080):
‘If one of our contemporaries looks for similar miracles now, let him examine objectively our situation among the Gentiles [Muslims in this case] since the beginning of the Diaspora and the way our affairs are managed in spite of the differences between us and them both secret and open, which are well known to them. Let him see that our situation, as far as living and subsistence are concerned, is the same as theirs, or even better, in times of war and civil disturbances. You see how both their leaders and their vulgar peasants toil much more than the middle and lower classes among us, according to our Lord’s promise contained in the Scriptures.’ [5]
Ibn Paqudah’s satisfaction concerning Jewish prosperity in Islamic Spain was not due to any other reason than the effective adherence by the authorities to the Islamic regulations with regards to the treatment of the non-Muslim subjects. He even acknowledges that ‘in spite of the differences between us and them both secret and open, which are well known to them’ the Jewish living conditions were some times better than those of the Muslims. This can not be attributed to anything other than the commandments in the Quran whereby Muslims are asked by God to uphold justice at all times, even towards those they may dislike:
‘O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety; and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is well-acquainted with what you do.’ [6]
Can a Palestinian citizen assert with confidence, like ibn Paqudah, today that his living standard is at least similar to that of an Israeli? The question of an ‘even better’ living standard for a Palestinian is as laughable as an American promise to deliver a just solution in the region. Benjamin of Tudela, a Spanish Jew who travelled to Baghdad in the year 1168 CE, described the situation of the Iraqi Jewry in these words:
‘In Baghdad there are about forty thousand Jews, and they dwell in security, prosperity, and honour under the great Caliph [al-Mustanjid, 1160-70 CE], and amongst them are great sages, the Heads of the Academies engaged in the study of the Law…’ [7]
The security, prosperity, and honour conferred upon the Jews of Baghdad is not surprising if one considers the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his immediate followers in regards to protecting non-Muslim minorities living under Islamic governance. In the book of Sahih al-Bukhari, Prophet Muhammad (SA) is reported to have said:
‘Any one who kills a non-Muslim (Mu’ahid [protected one]) protected by the Islamic state will not smell the fragrance of paradise even though one can identify it from the distance of 40 years journey.’ [8]
Al-Bukhari narrated that even the immediate followers of the Prophet (SA) exercised maximum care in regards to fulfilling the promises of protection made with the non-Muslim citizens:
‘Omar bin Khattab [the 2nd Caliph] said on his death bed that whoever shall succeed me must fulfill the promises of Allah and his Messenger. Whatever treaty has been made with non-Muslims must be respected by my successor. He shall fight (if he has to) to protect them and he shall not put a burden upon them which they can not bear.’[9]
Will the Muslims in Palestine ever live in ‘security’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘honour’ the likes of which were enjoyed by the 12th century Iraqi Jews? In 1420 CE Rabbi Yitzhak Tsarfati wrote a letter to his persecuted German brothers from the Ottoman Turkish territory (Edirne [Adrianople]) inviting them to join him in prosperous and tolerant Islamic lands:
‘Your cries and laments have reached us. We have been told of all the sorrows and persecutions which you suffer in German lands. Listen, my brothers…if you…knew even the tenth of what God has blessed us with in this land, you would give heed to no further difficulties. You would embark at once to us…Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame…You will be free of your enemies. Here you will find peace.’ [10]
‘Here you will find peace’, is the concluding statement Rabbi Yitzhak used in his letter. This peace was an outcome of the justice delivered by the Ottoman authorities. If the Ottomans were just, this was due to the ideal they followed. The Prophet of Islam told his followers that on the Day of Judgment, when there will be no other shade, seven will be under the shade of Allah’s throne and a just ruler is at the top of the list [11]. Does a Muslim from Palestine have similar peace or can he invite other persecuted Muslim brothers and sisters to his homeland using the words of Rabbi Yitzhak? Are the Muslim men, women and children enjoying even the tenth of the prosperity the Israelis are enjoying today? Again the answer is easy to deliver, even by a Palestinian toddler. Even the Jewish pilgrims were protected from any injuries unlike today’s situation in Jerusalem. The Muslims are asked to produce all kinds of draconian paper work and endure humiliating security checks before they can even think of gazing upon the third most important land mark in Islam: Masjidul-Aqsa. In a stark contrast, an Italian Rabbi, Obadiah Yareh Da Bertinoro, travelled to Jerusalem in 1486 CE and he wrote a letter to his father telling him about the country and its people:
‘The Jews are not persecuted by the Arabs in these parts. I have travelled through the country in its length and breadth, and none of them has put an obstacle in my way. They are very kind to strangers, particularly to anyone who does not know the language; and if they see many Jews together they are not annoyed by it. In my opinion, an intelligent man versed in political science might easily raise himself to be chief of the Jews as well as of the Arabs…’ [12]
The Muslim scientists and academics are unable to achieve anything in the laboratories in Tel Aviv or any of the Israeli controlled institutions for that matter. One may argue that this may be due to the security threat posed by the Palestinian resistance. But the question ultimately boils down to what has caused this security threat to occur? Lack of justice and violation of rights naturally produces anxiety and fervour for resistance. Historically speaking, the Jews had no desire to resist Muslims in any way due to the prosperity they enjoyed under Islamic rule. They did, however, resist the Christian powers, as they were very often persecuted and provoked. A Jewish historian Elijah Capsali describes the Jewish prosperity in the Ottoman Empire in this way:
‘The Jews gathered together from all the cities of Turkey, both far and near, each person coming from his own place, and the community gathered in Constantinople in its thousands and its tens of thousands. The heavens helped them, too, and the king provided them perfect estates and houses filled with all kinds of goodness. The Jews resided there with their families and their clans; they were fruitful and swarmed and multiplied, and the land was full of them. From that day on, whenever the king conquered a place where there were Jews, he would immediately shake them up and drive them from there – and despatch them to Constantinople, the seat of his kingdom, and he would pick them up and cuddle them for ever. Now, since the Jews feared the Lord, he provided them with houses filled with all kinds of goodness in a place where formerly, at the time of the King of Byzantium, there were only two or three congregations, the Jews increased in numbers, becoming a people with more than communities, for the land could not support them altogether – for their property was overwhelming.’ [13]
‘For their prosperity was overwhelming’, having read this, can one still assert with reasonability that the Muslims were ever anti-Jewish or ant-Semitic? Islamic behaviour towards the Jews has been consistently filled with kindness and sympathy. This is due to the law Muslims follow, which is derived from the Quran and Sunnah. The Holy Quran instructs the Muslims to be kind to those who do not fight them for their religion:
‘Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity’.[14]
The Jewish chroniclers themselves testify to the Islamic kindness towards the weak and vulnerable. The Portuguese Jewish chronicler Samuel Usque elaborates upon the Jewish migrants’ situation in the city of Salonika, which was under the Ottoman rule:
‘The majority of my children who have been persecuted and exiled from Europe and many other parts of the world have taken refuge in this city, and she embraces them and receives them with as much love and good will as if she were Jerusalem, that old and ever pious mother of ours.’ [15]
Having read so many Jewish testimonies, one can easily see that the Jews found a safe haven in the Islamic lands and this fact alone is enough to convince one to place one’s confidence in the Islamic ‘One State Solution’. Those persecuted Jews who took refuge with the Muslims were also treated as friends and furthermore, their vulnerable situation was not exploited by the Muslim authorities. An Italian Jewish traveller, David dei Rossi, travelled through the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century. He documented his observations about Jewish people living in Safed in these words:
‘The Exile here is not like in our homeland. The Turks hold respectable Jews in esteem. Here and in Alexandria, Egypt, Jews are the chief officers and administrators of the customs, and the king’s revenues. No injuries are perpetuated against them in all the empire. Only this year, in consequence of the extraordinary expenditure caused by the war against Shah Tahmsap al-Sufi, were the Jews required to make advances of loans to the princes.’ [16]
The aforementioned primary testimonies provide a vivid perspective on the Jewish experience in Muslim lands, however, it is equally prudent to ponder upon the views of the contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish historians. The following paragraphs will shed light upon some of the modern works on the Islamic behaviour towards the Jews.
Some contemporary views:
Karen Armstrong notes in her History of Jerusalem that the Jews hailed the early Islamic conquest of the Byzantine lands as a mercy from God:
‘Toward the end of the seventh century, a Hebrew poem hailed the Arabs as the precursors of the Messiah and looked forward to the ingathering of the Jewish exiles and the restoration of the Temple. Even when the Messiah failed to arrive, Jews continued to look favourably on Islamic rule in Jerusalem. In a letter written in the eleventh century, the Jerusalem rabbis recalled the “mercy” God had shown his people when he allowed the “Kingdom of Ishmael” to conquer Palestine. They were glad to remember that when the Muslims arrived in Jerusalem, “there were people from the children of Israel with them; they showed them the spot of the Temple and they settled with them until this very day.”…In about 750 the Jewish author of “The Mysteries of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai” saw the building [the Dome of the Rock] as a prelude to the messianic age. He praises the Muslim Caliph as “a lover of Israel” who had “restored the breaches of Zion and the breaches of the Temple” [17]
After having studied some early Jewish sentiments about the Muslim compassion, Karen Armstrong further concludes that:
‘The Muslims had established a system that enabled Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in Jerusalem together for the first time.’ [18]
What Karen Armstrong failed to acknowledge was the fact that, under Islamic governance, it was not only the first time in Palestine but also the last time when the Jews, Muslims and Christians lived together in peace. And if this is proven to be accurate historically, then all sincere peace-brokers in the region and elsewhere should propagate the return of the Islamic system. History has proven beyond any element of doubt that this is the only long-term and durable solution for Palestine: ‘The One State Solution’.
Professor Dean Phillip Bell, who is dean and professor of Jewish history at Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies in Chicago, had similar views in regard to the Jewish treatment at the hands of Muslims:
‘Jews under medieval Islam never suffered from the same general negative perception as in the Christian West. Despite regional variations and high medieval political instability, in medieval Islam multicultural environments, combined with active engagement in sciences and literature, led to something of an Islamic golden age for the Jews, at least according to most historical accounts. It has been primarily in the context of recent political developments that the once assumed positive views of Jewish life under medieval Islam have been seriously questioned.’ [19]
Professor Bell’s comments are self explanatory and decisive, not requiring any further elaboration. Zion Zohar, an American Jewish historian, confirms the Jewish appreciation of the Muslim arrival in Spain (711 CE) in this way:
‘Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution…Born during this era of Islamic rule, the famous Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (circa 900-1200) produced such luminaries as: statesman and diplomat Hasdai ibn Shaprut, vizier and army commander Shmuel ha-Nagid, poet-philosophers Solomon Ibn Gabriol and Judah Halevi, and at the apex of them all, Moses Ben Maimon, also known among the Spaniards as Maimonides.’ [20]
This prosperity and the Golden Age did not just end in the Middle Ages, rather this pattern continued for many centuries to come. In some places Jews were so comfortable with the Islamic system that they deliberately applied to Shari’ah courts for the purpose of attaining justice and arbitration, even when they had complete autonomy in their religious affairs [i.e. they had their own courts to refer to]. For instance, Amnon Cohen, another American Jewish historian, studied the 16th century documents stored in the archives of the Shari’ah religious court of Jerusalem (commonly known as sijill), whereby he found 1000 Jewish cases filed form the year 1530 to 1601 CE. Cohen published his research in 1994 and during his research he made some astonishing discoveries, as he himself states:
‘Cases concerning Jews cover a very wide spectrum of topics. If we bear in mind that the Jews of Jerusalem had their own separate courts, the number of cases brought to Muslim court (which actually meant putting themselves at the mercy of a judge outside the pale of their communal and religious identity) is quite impressive[21]…The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…The Jews went to court to resolve much more than their conflicts with Muslim or Christian neighbours. They turned to Shari’a authorities to seek redress with respect to internal differences, and even in matters within their immediate family (intimate relations between husband and wife, nafaqa maintenance payments to divorcees, support of infants etc.).’[22]
Cohen further elaborates upon the Jewish condition in the 16th century Ottoman Jerusalem:
‘Their possessions were protected, although they might have had to pay for extra protection at night for their houses and commercial properties. Their title deeds and other official documents indicating their rights were honoured when presented to the court, being treated like those of their Muslim neighbours[23]…The picture emerging from the sijill documents is baffling. On the one hand we encounter recurring Sultanic decrees sent to Jerusalem – in response to pleas of the Jews – to the effect that “nothing should be done to stop them from applying their own law” regarding a variety of matters. There are also many explicit references to the overriding importance of applying Shari’a law to them only if they so choose. On the other hand, if we look closely at some of the inheritance lists, we see that the local court allocated to female members of Jewish families half the share given to male members, exactly as in Islamic law. This meant, ipso facto, a significant improvement in the status of Jewish women with respect to legacies over that accorded them by Jewish tradition, although it actually meant the application of Islamic law in an internal Jewish context [24]…he [the Muslim Judge] defended Jewish causes jeopardized by high-handed behaviour of local governors; he enabled Jewish business people and craftsmen to lease properties from Muslim endowments on an equal footing with Muslim bidders; more generally, he respected their rituals and places of worship and guarded them against encroachment even when the perpetrators were other Muslim dignitaries.[25]’
And finally Amnon Cohen describes the effective practicality of the Islamic One State Solution for the Jewish interests:
‘No one interfered with their internal organisation or their external cultural and economic activities…In a world where civil and political equality, or positive social change affecting the group or even the individual were not the norms, the Sultan’s Jewish subjects had no reason to mourn their status or begrudge their conditions of life. The Jews of Ottoman Jerusalem enjoyed religious and administrative autonomy within an Islamic state, and as a constructive, dynamic element of the local economy and society they could – and actually did – contribute to its functioning.’[26]
Therefore, the modern scholarly opinions too seem to suggest that the Muslims were never anti-Semitic nor did they ever persecute Jews because of their religion. If the Muslims have this historical record then they should be allowed to run the affairs of Palestine and other Islamic lands ensuring that the Islamic law is implemented comprehensively, as it was the effective implementation of this law in the first place which produced the ‘Golden Age’ discussed above. The ‘One State Solution’ based upon the Islamic model supported by Shari’ah is a cohesive model that allows a diverse multitude of ethnicities to co-exist and enjoy the same freedoms and rights that are thwarted by the Zionist state today. The ‘Two State Solution’ based upon Secular Democracy does not qualify to be a solution for the conflict, but rather will only intensify the divisions between the Muslim Palestinians. Furthermore, the proposal of the ‘Two State Solution’ is divisive and advocates the segregation of a ‘Jewish’ Sate from a Secular ‘Muslim’ state, proving that it is not a long term solution for the Middle East.
The Israeli authorities are not to be trusted, as their policies are adverse to peace and stability, and these policies are harmful for both the Muslim and the Jewish people. Orthodox Jews are also severely persecuted in Israel due to their opposition to the apartheid state of Israel. Neturei Karta Internationa[27] and International Jewish Anti Zionist Network[28] are two Jewish organisations working hard to show their solidarity with the Palestinian people. This in itself proves that not all the Jews sympathise with the Zionist cause. The 60 years Israeli criminal record alone should suffice to convince one to disqualify this terrorist state from taking charge of the holy land. Re-implementation of Islam and Islamic values alone can bring back the ‘Golden Age of the House of Jacob’, as the Muslims are bound to follow the teachings of their prophet concerning Jews, which are to be found in the treaty of Madina:
‘It is incumbent on all the Muslims to help and extend sympathetic treatment to the Jews who have entered into an agreement with us. Neither an oppression of any type should be perpetrated on them nor their enemy be helped against them.’[29]
Saturday, 21 February 2009
An "Extremist"
CONTEST 2: UK Government Leaked Plans to Label Every Muslim an "Extremist"
Draft plans by the British government were leaked to the Guardian newspaper and BBC Panorama this week, which expose that the British government is once again playing politics with terrorism. The plans have nothing to do with preventing 'violent extremism' or promoting ‘community cohesion' as they tell people. The leak provides yet more evidence that the government's projects and funding for mosques, community centres, youth groups and women's groups are aimed at changing the deen that the Muslims hold. These projects are about gathering intelligence (though the police deny this) and their grants are so our communities become addicted to government money, so they can then dictate to us what we can and cannot think, believe or say
According to the Guardian, under the draft of the strategy Muslims would be considered as ‘extremists' if they believe in some of Islam's core ideas.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you advocate a Caliphate (Khilafah) in the Muslim world - an Islamic state that unifies Muslim countries.
This Khilafah was explained by Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:
"Bani Israa'il were ruled by the Prophets, every time a Prophet died he was followed by another Prophet, and there will be no Prophets after me, and there will be Khulafaa and they will be many. [What do you order us?] Fulfil your pledge of allegiance to them one after another, and give them their rights, and truly Allah will ask them about their responsibilities."
(Muslim)
But according to the British governments draft plans it is unacceptable for the Muslim Ummah to have a Khalifah. According to these draft plans other states in the world may seek strength through ever closer unity but the Muslim Ummah must remain divided - ruled by tyrants and despots who serve the west. According to these draft plans a Muslim can support political movements in Zimbabwe or Burma, but must cut their ties with the growing Islamic revival and the call for Khilafah and end to dictatorship in the Muslim world.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you promote Shariah law - the law of Allah سبحانه وتعالى derived from the Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa as- Sahabah and Qiyas. It is a law that is principled, which does not bend when placed under pressure, and that cannot be manipulated for any lobbyist. They manipulate the laws to suit capitalists and corporate interest groups even try to sell positions in the US Senate and votes in the House of Lords. The Shariah is the fundamental basis of Islamic law and the basis of the Muslims way of life. By attacking the Shariah their aim is for Muslims to abandon the halal and haram, the fard and the Sunnah and adopt their corrupt kufr criteria of benefit and pleasure that has brought so much harm to their own society.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you believe in Jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world including armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military. So, for the British government, when the Israeli war machine massacred over 1300 people in Gaza, including hundreds of children, it would be ‘extremist' for the Muslims to resist this massacre - despite the fact that Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us:
وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ
"And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits" (Al-Baqara, 2:190)
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah. Islam has given us clear rules for relationships, marriage and families. These values are in decay in this society. Peoples' sexual desires are fulfilled in any way creating a society that is in moral decline. They are trying to impose upon us the same breakdown of families, unhappiness of children, and promiscuity and immorality that is so damaging western societies.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan - even though this government sent these soldiers there to invade someone else's country; to kill and be killed in failed colonial wars which were motivated by greed and the seeking of wealth and power.
Muslims the world over are being forced to leave their Islamic values and adopt western ones. This is what they mean when they say that the war on terror is to spread 'freedom and democracy'. This is what was said in a report by a think-tank called Civitas that advises British politicians when they said:
"it is not enough for the vast majority of decent, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims to renounce terror in principle: they also need to renounce the view - frequently expressed by Islamists - of an inevitable war between Islam and the rest of the world. If they choose to live in Western liberal democratic societies, they must accept the values of liberal democracy - as Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and others have done for many years."
It is clear to everyone that this war on terror is nothing less than a cover for a wider war against Islam. Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us in the Quran in that:
وَلَن تَرْضَى عَنكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ
"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) unless you follow their millah (religion)."
(Al-Baqarah, 2:120)
Yet the values of liberal democracy, which they expect Muslims all over the world to adopt as their political and social ‘religion', are not even values that all people in Britain believe in. About 40% of people in mainstream society do not vote in elections, and many of the remaining 60% do not trust their elected politicians. Every week we read alarming reports about how badly children, the elderly, women, immigrants and asylum seekers are treated or how people with a religious conviction or illiberal view are treated by liberal society. And we now also see the collapse of disaster capitalism, which has been the back bone of the secular liberal democratic system for the past 200 years.
Brothers and Sisters! Are these values, forced upon us in the UK and in the Muslim world, the values that we wish for ourselves and our children to adopt? Have we not seen the harm caused by the values in the west? Their way of life is one that has failed to bring harmony for their own society never mind for humanity. Their way of life is one that has encouraged individualism and selfishness, and the craving for material wealth. It is one that has meant ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' even if it meant through colonising the world and making hundreds of millions of others suffer.
Every one of us has to understand that this is nothing less than an attempt to change the deen of the Muslims. Sometimes they have attacked the women's dress code and sometimes they have attacked the modesty and family values of Muslims. At worse we have even seen our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Noble Quran attacked. Yet this is what our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم faced in his struggle in Makkah. He faced personal attacks, attacks on Islam, lies and slander. They labelled him صلى الله عليه وسلم with all kinds of names. Yet he responded with an intellectual dawah showing the superiority of the sublime Islamic values over those of kufr; proving the truth of the Islamic belief over other beliefs; meeting falsehood with the truth of Islam. And Allah made His صلى الله عليه وسلم call victorious.
This should be our calling when faced with this attack. The response to this is that every Muslim has to know his or her deen, and know the political and social values that are being forced on us - not just here but all across the Muslim world.
We should oppose government attempt to control our institutions but we should demonstrate and explain the superiority of the Islamic values and prove the truth of the Islamic belief. We must stand for Islam and expose falsehood when we see it.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى commands us:
ادْعُ إِلِى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ
"Invite to the Way of your Lord with hikmah and fair preaching and argue with them in a way that is better."
(An-Nahl, 16:125)
That is our duty - to focus our efforts towards this dawah in the west, as well as supporting the call to replace tyranny, dictatorship and kufr in Muslim lands with a just Islamic leadership that rules by Quran and Sunnah - the Khilafah, which can show the world what the justice of Islam can bring for humanity.
As to the success or failure of these plans, the very fact they have resorted to using bribery and force against Muslims, in order to achieve these goals, proves they cannot deal with Islamic ideas intellectually and that they have lost the battle of ideas. If any individual Muslim were to abandon the truth, he would do so to his own loss. But their plans can never succeed in replacing Islam in the heart of the Muslim community or anywhere in the world for Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us:
يُرِيدُونَ أَن يُطْفِؤُواْ نُورَ اللّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَيَأْبَى اللّهُ إِلاَّ أَن يُتِمَّ نُورَهُ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ
"They seek to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths; but Allah refuses but to perfect His light, though the disbelievers may resent it."
(At-Tawba, 9:32)
Draft plans by the British government were leaked to the Guardian newspaper and BBC Panorama this week, which expose that the British government is once again playing politics with terrorism. The plans have nothing to do with preventing 'violent extremism' or promoting ‘community cohesion' as they tell people. The leak provides yet more evidence that the government's projects and funding for mosques, community centres, youth groups and women's groups are aimed at changing the deen that the Muslims hold. These projects are about gathering intelligence (though the police deny this) and their grants are so our communities become addicted to government money, so they can then dictate to us what we can and cannot think, believe or say
According to the Guardian, under the draft of the strategy Muslims would be considered as ‘extremists' if they believe in some of Islam's core ideas.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you advocate a Caliphate (Khilafah) in the Muslim world - an Islamic state that unifies Muslim countries.
This Khilafah was explained by Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:
"Bani Israa'il were ruled by the Prophets, every time a Prophet died he was followed by another Prophet, and there will be no Prophets after me, and there will be Khulafaa and they will be many. [What do you order us?] Fulfil your pledge of allegiance to them one after another, and give them their rights, and truly Allah will ask them about their responsibilities."
(Muslim)
But according to the British governments draft plans it is unacceptable for the Muslim Ummah to have a Khalifah. According to these draft plans other states in the world may seek strength through ever closer unity but the Muslim Ummah must remain divided - ruled by tyrants and despots who serve the west. According to these draft plans a Muslim can support political movements in Zimbabwe or Burma, but must cut their ties with the growing Islamic revival and the call for Khilafah and end to dictatorship in the Muslim world.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you promote Shariah law - the law of Allah سبحانه وتعالى derived from the Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa as- Sahabah and Qiyas. It is a law that is principled, which does not bend when placed under pressure, and that cannot be manipulated for any lobbyist. They manipulate the laws to suit capitalists and corporate interest groups even try to sell positions in the US Senate and votes in the House of Lords. The Shariah is the fundamental basis of Islamic law and the basis of the Muslims way of life. By attacking the Shariah their aim is for Muslims to abandon the halal and haram, the fard and the Sunnah and adopt their corrupt kufr criteria of benefit and pleasure that has brought so much harm to their own society.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you believe in Jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world including armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military. So, for the British government, when the Israeli war machine massacred over 1300 people in Gaza, including hundreds of children, it would be ‘extremist' for the Muslims to resist this massacre - despite the fact that Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us:
وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ
"And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits" (Al-Baqara, 2:190)
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah. Islam has given us clear rules for relationships, marriage and families. These values are in decay in this society. Peoples' sexual desires are fulfilled in any way creating a society that is in moral decline. They are trying to impose upon us the same breakdown of families, unhappiness of children, and promiscuity and immorality that is so damaging western societies.
They will accuse you of ‘extremism' if you fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan - even though this government sent these soldiers there to invade someone else's country; to kill and be killed in failed colonial wars which were motivated by greed and the seeking of wealth and power.
Muslims the world over are being forced to leave their Islamic values and adopt western ones. This is what they mean when they say that the war on terror is to spread 'freedom and democracy'. This is what was said in a report by a think-tank called Civitas that advises British politicians when they said:
"it is not enough for the vast majority of decent, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims to renounce terror in principle: they also need to renounce the view - frequently expressed by Islamists - of an inevitable war between Islam and the rest of the world. If they choose to live in Western liberal democratic societies, they must accept the values of liberal democracy - as Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and others have done for many years."
It is clear to everyone that this war on terror is nothing less than a cover for a wider war against Islam. Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us in the Quran in that:
وَلَن تَرْضَى عَنكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلاَ النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ
"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) unless you follow their millah (religion)."
(Al-Baqarah, 2:120)
Yet the values of liberal democracy, which they expect Muslims all over the world to adopt as their political and social ‘religion', are not even values that all people in Britain believe in. About 40% of people in mainstream society do not vote in elections, and many of the remaining 60% do not trust their elected politicians. Every week we read alarming reports about how badly children, the elderly, women, immigrants and asylum seekers are treated or how people with a religious conviction or illiberal view are treated by liberal society. And we now also see the collapse of disaster capitalism, which has been the back bone of the secular liberal democratic system for the past 200 years.
Brothers and Sisters! Are these values, forced upon us in the UK and in the Muslim world, the values that we wish for ourselves and our children to adopt? Have we not seen the harm caused by the values in the west? Their way of life is one that has failed to bring harmony for their own society never mind for humanity. Their way of life is one that has encouraged individualism and selfishness, and the craving for material wealth. It is one that has meant ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' even if it meant through colonising the world and making hundreds of millions of others suffer.
Every one of us has to understand that this is nothing less than an attempt to change the deen of the Muslims. Sometimes they have attacked the women's dress code and sometimes they have attacked the modesty and family values of Muslims. At worse we have even seen our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Noble Quran attacked. Yet this is what our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم faced in his struggle in Makkah. He faced personal attacks, attacks on Islam, lies and slander. They labelled him صلى الله عليه وسلم with all kinds of names. Yet he responded with an intellectual dawah showing the superiority of the sublime Islamic values over those of kufr; proving the truth of the Islamic belief over other beliefs; meeting falsehood with the truth of Islam. And Allah made His صلى الله عليه وسلم call victorious.
This should be our calling when faced with this attack. The response to this is that every Muslim has to know his or her deen, and know the political and social values that are being forced on us - not just here but all across the Muslim world.
We should oppose government attempt to control our institutions but we should demonstrate and explain the superiority of the Islamic values and prove the truth of the Islamic belief. We must stand for Islam and expose falsehood when we see it.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى commands us:
ادْعُ إِلِى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ
"Invite to the Way of your Lord with hikmah and fair preaching and argue with them in a way that is better."
(An-Nahl, 16:125)
That is our duty - to focus our efforts towards this dawah in the west, as well as supporting the call to replace tyranny, dictatorship and kufr in Muslim lands with a just Islamic leadership that rules by Quran and Sunnah - the Khilafah, which can show the world what the justice of Islam can bring for humanity.
As to the success or failure of these plans, the very fact they have resorted to using bribery and force against Muslims, in order to achieve these goals, proves they cannot deal with Islamic ideas intellectually and that they have lost the battle of ideas. If any individual Muslim were to abandon the truth, he would do so to his own loss. But their plans can never succeed in replacing Islam in the heart of the Muslim community or anywhere in the world for Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us:
يُرِيدُونَ أَن يُطْفِؤُواْ نُورَ اللّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَيَأْبَى اللّهُ إِلاَّ أَن يُتِمَّ نُورَهُ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ
"They seek to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths; but Allah refuses but to perfect His light, though the disbelievers may resent it."
(At-Tawba, 9:32)
Sunday, 18 January 2009
HADITH
From Mu'adh bin Jabal رضي الله عنه who said: I said:
"O Messenger of Allah, tell me of a deed which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from the Hell-fire." He said: "You have asked me about a great matter, yet it is, indeed, an easy matter for him to whom Allah Almighty makes it easy. (It is ) that you worship Allah without associating anything with Him, that you perform the prayers, that you pay the zakat, that you fast during Ramadan, and that you make the pilgrimage to the House."
Then he said: "Shall I not guide you to the gates of goodness? Fasting is a shield; charity extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire; and a man's prayer in the middle of the night." Then he recited:
تَتَجَافَى جُنُوبُهُمْ عَنِ الْمَضَاجِعِ يَدْعُونَ رَبَّهُمْ خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ
فَلَا تَعْلَمُ نَفْسٌ مَّا أُخْفِيَ لَهُم مِّن قُرَّةِ أَعْيُنٍ جَزَاء بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ
"Who forsake their beds to cry unto their Lord in fear and hope, and spend of that We have bestowed on them. No soul knoweth what is kept hid for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do."
[Surah al-Sajdah 32: 16-17]
Then he said: "Shall I not also tell you of the peak of the matter, its pillar, and its topmost part?" I said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah." He said: "The peak of the matter is Islam (submission to Allah), the pillar is prayer; and its topmost part is jihad." Then he said: "And shall I not tell you of the controlling of all that?" I said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah". So he took hold of his tongue and said: "Restrain this." I said: "O Prophet of Allah, will we be held accountable for what we say?" He said: "May your mother be bereft of you! Is there anything that topples people on their faces (or he said, on their noses) into the Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?"
Related by Al-Tirmidhi, who said it was a fine and sound.
"O Messenger of Allah, tell me of a deed which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from the Hell-fire." He said: "You have asked me about a great matter, yet it is, indeed, an easy matter for him to whom Allah Almighty makes it easy. (It is ) that you worship Allah without associating anything with Him, that you perform the prayers, that you pay the zakat, that you fast during Ramadan, and that you make the pilgrimage to the House."
Then he said: "Shall I not guide you to the gates of goodness? Fasting is a shield; charity extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire; and a man's prayer in the middle of the night." Then he recited:
تَتَجَافَى جُنُوبُهُمْ عَنِ الْمَضَاجِعِ يَدْعُونَ رَبَّهُمْ خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ
فَلَا تَعْلَمُ نَفْسٌ مَّا أُخْفِيَ لَهُم مِّن قُرَّةِ أَعْيُنٍ جَزَاء بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ
"Who forsake their beds to cry unto their Lord in fear and hope, and spend of that We have bestowed on them. No soul knoweth what is kept hid for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do."
[Surah al-Sajdah 32: 16-17]
Then he said: "Shall I not also tell you of the peak of the matter, its pillar, and its topmost part?" I said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah." He said: "The peak of the matter is Islam (submission to Allah), the pillar is prayer; and its topmost part is jihad." Then he said: "And shall I not tell you of the controlling of all that?" I said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah". So he took hold of his tongue and said: "Restrain this." I said: "O Prophet of Allah, will we be held accountable for what we say?" He said: "May your mother be bereft of you! Is there anything that topples people on their faces (or he said, on their noses) into the Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?"
Related by Al-Tirmidhi, who said it was a fine and sound.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Resolution 1860
Disgraceful slap in the face of the rulers in the Islamic Lands
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Resolution 1860 is a disgraceful slap in the face of the rulers in the Islamic Lands, Not content with denying Gaza the help of the Muslim armies, they surrender it to the ZIONIST through international resolutions
This morning the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 1860 regarding the brutal hostility against the Gaza Strip. This resolution’s wording employs malicious, political cunning, as used previously in Resolution 242, after the hostility in 1967, which mentions withdrawal from “territories,” without specifying withdrawal from “the territories,” and thus granting the state of Isreal scope to remain on territories that it seized!
With regards to Resolution 1860, its does not mention withdrawal from Gaza, rather it limits itself to a ceasefire “leading” to withdrawal! And “how” or “what” is “leading.” And how is it such a resolution, intentionally cloaked with ambiguity, end the Jewish hostility, when they have never ended hostility for other even clearer resolutions?!
The Security Council resolution is not worth the paper it is written on. Moreover there are many resolutions that the Jews ignored, that now fill their dustbins! Despite this, America and its allies prevented the issuing of any Security Council resolution that insists on cessation of hostilities, in order to give the state of Jews an opportunity to continue to spill blood in Gaza, in brutal hostility, until the state of Jews achieves its objectives.Following and emulating America, the rulers in the Muslim lands fulfilled America’s will, willingly and fearfully, so they differed, disagreed and they did not gather…
And when the state of Jews faced great resistance and it was clear to the state of Jews that it was unable to achieve its objectives through military actions, and that the matter will prolong to the time that is due for their elections, when they need an environment of “victory,” whether by war or peace, up to the elections and during them, America then became active in realizing their goals for them through the means of the Security Council. Condoleezza Rice was steering the meetings and she moved her pawns amongst the rulers and they started to move, making pilgrimage to the Security Council, to merge their days and with their nights in unrelenting efforts… And they are the ones who look at helping Gaza with the look of the one who is dazed by death, at a time when if a single front, or even a few fronts, were opened, by these rulers the state of Jews would be shaken if not completely annihilated.These rulers are the “sponsors” of the resolution that allows the state of Jews to achieve what it could never achieve through its hostility! And the resolution keeps the Israeli army in Gaza, whilst sanctioning the Gaza strip of any means of strength and weaponry, and this does not change anything, despite the cosmetic mention of relieving food sanctions!…
And to market this resolution, America abstained from voting for it, as if it were not behind it and so that the Muslim rulers are able to give the impression that they achieved a big victory without America’s help, but they are lying and anyone who has a mind that can comprehend will realize that if America was not behind the resolution, it would not have allowed it to be passed.
O Muslims!
Indeed, it was true what the most truthful RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
إذا لم تستح فاصنع ما شئت
"And if you have no shame than do what you wish"
And as for these rulers who are looking on as pure blood is spilled in Gaza of Hashim (named after the grandfather of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم), they neither mobilize the armies nor launch rockets and bombers, but instead they prevent the volunteer fighters from fighting…! Yet they fall head over heels to endorse the resolution that prohibits weapons and the means of strength for Gaza and ensures the Jewish army’s occupation of it, may Allah fight them for what they do.Any one who looks to the Palestine-occupying entity of the Jews, which is surrounded by these rulers, would realize that the existence of this entity relies upon the existence of these rulers. Not only are the Jews protecting themselves, so are the rulers on their behalf. And America and the other Western states would not be able to protect this entity effectively, if there were a single righteous man amongst them!!
O Muslims!
As we mentioned many times before, and we re-iterate now, anyone who wants to annihilate the entity of Jews and return Palestine to the Abode of Islam, he has to work for the sincere ruler, the sincere state, the Khilafah Rashida. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
الإمام جنة يقاتل من ورائه ويتقى به
"Indeed, the Imam (Khaleefah) is a shield, from behind whom you fight and by whom you are protected."
And then the state of isreal will cease to exist, as will other colonialist, occupying kufr, states that are stronger and more effective than the entity of the Jews, and they will all be in humiliation.
نَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ
“And this is a reminder for those who have a believing heart and hearing, so bear witness.”
[Surah Kaf 50:37]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
