Fadfadation

The Finale: Islam and the Spread by the Sword…

2008-09-01T09:50:00.021+03:00

It is a common complaint\accusation among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force.

Within the same line, come the following questions\accusations:

· How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?
· Islam is a violent religion!
· Islam was forced on people! People were forced into Islam!
· Islam would not have as many followers if it wasn’t spread by the sword!

In following Post I will try historically and logically to make it clear, that Islam was far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

Major Muslims Distribution

· Religiously

Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt).

God sent us a clear rule…
With which sword was Islam spread I ask?
Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to “spread” Islam, because the Qur’an says in the following verse: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear"

Even our Prophet (PBUH) said (meaning of): “Do not kill an old man, a woman, a child, a worshiper, a priest, or even a man if he has no weapon (not going to fight you). Do not cut tree or bury a well. Do not kill the wounded and do not mutilate a corpse”.

How come the Prophet and Quran say these things and then people think that Muslims were going putting people under the blade to either embrace Islam or get chopped off!

Forcing people is incorrect and not to be used by Muslims, for more details about this check my previous post "Islam Forces People To Embrace It - Truth Or Fiction ".

Even the first verses for waging war were revealed, they were very clear about the context of which this could\should happen; it is to be done to protect mulsims from injustice that happened to them. It went as follows:

.‏ (أذن للذين يقاتلون )‏ أى اعتدى عليهم فمن حقهم الرد -‏ (‏ بأنهم ظلموا وإن الله على نصرهم لقدير. الذين أخرجوا من ديارهم بغير حق إلا أن يقولوا ربنا الله ..‏ )‏

Meaning of: “Permission (to fight back) has been granted to the ones who are fought against because injustice has been done to them, and God is capable of making them win. They are the ones who were unjustly driven out of their lands\homes just because they believed that Allah is their God”.

· Historically

Now let’s talk numbers and historical facts…

Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?”

Answer is "Non!". No armies were sent to either country, yet Islam has spread through them.

East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?”

The answer again: “Non!”

Muslims in Spain in Comparison to Christians in the Islamic World:
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the Sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan (the call for prayers). They wiped out Muslims totally! they killed all people or forced them to convert.

They even destroyed all the monuments belonging to them (except for a handful of Masjid which no prayers were to take place in).

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are millions of Arabs who are Christians estimated 10 million in Egypt alone).

If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian (Like what happened to Muslims in Spain).

More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam (by the sword as non-muslims would say).
Today, more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

· Logically

Just to give you an idea of a couple of western historians who actually thought of Islam in a rational way:

De Lacy O’Leary:
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8):
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.”

Thomas Carlyle:
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book “Heroes and Hero worship”, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: “The sword indeed, but where will you get your word? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

People might say: ”how come Islam or what is right (per muslims’ view) has to be done by the sword? Islam sent armies to Persian, Syria, Egypt, Turkey and others. Can you say they didn’t?”

Yes, it is true that Muslim armies to those countries. But, there are two sides that have to be put in perspective before judging why the armies were sent, and what were the consequences…

1- Going to War…

The Conquests Of Salah el Din

Peace in Islam is the norm, war was\is to fight for what is right and just.
War is legitimate if it is for the right reasons and as the last resort (stress on the latter part).

Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
There are many, who would disrupt peace and harmony for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

As God said:

(‏ ولولا دفع الله الناس بعضهم ببعض لهدمت صوامع وبيع وصلوات ومساجد يذكر فيها اسم الله كثيرًا ولينصرن الله من ينصره إن الله لقوى عزيز )

(‏ ولولا دفع الله الناس بعضهم ببعض لفسدت الأرض )‏

Meaning of: "If it wasn’t for people who are willing to protect justice and what is right, this world would have fallen into extreme corruption".

OK, so going for war... why did we?
The philosophy behind it is “everything that is between people and the freedom of choice has to be removed”.

Let’s go back 1400 years ago (when Islam was revealed)…
There were 2 super powers (The Persian and The Roman Empires). At that time Islam started uniting the Arabs (who became muslims) in the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries).

At that point of time, Prophet Mohammed decided to send messengers to all countries reachable at that time. Yemen, Egypt, Persia and Asham (Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine) were a few countries he sent messengers to.

Being a prophet with a message from God, he had a message he wanted to deliver to all mankind. Because he was sent as mercy to all mankind, as stated in Al Anbya’a SURA:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ

And the Prophet and his followers are to deliver and publicize that message to all mankind, as stated in Ibrahim SURA:

هَذَا بَلاغٌ لِلنَّاسِ وَلِيُنْذَرُوا بِهِ وَلِيَعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَلِيَذَّكَّرَ أُولُو الأَلْبَابِ

And in AL A’araf SURA:

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ لا إِلَهَ إِلا هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

And mentioning the Prophet’s mission (as all prophets) is to deliver God’s message, as stated in Al Ma’eda SURA:

مَا عَلَى الرَّسُولِ إِلا الْبَلاغُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا تُبْدُونَ وَمَا تَكْتُمُونَ

And after the message is delivered, everyone had the right \freedom to believe and follow or not, as stated in Al Bakara SURA:

لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى لا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

Back at that time, there were no radios, TVs, newspapers, e-mail, mail, satellite or Internet or any other mean of delivering a message (putting aside such an important message).

Back then and for many centuries, the most efficient way to deliver a message to a whole nation (in the shortest time) was going right to the top of that nation and delivering the message.

This is why massagers were sent directly to the top of the nations (governing rulers…etc.).

To each of the leaders, Prophet Mohammed said that: “if you do not follow us, then you will be held responsible for the people of the country not receiving the message”…

بعث رسول الإسلام برسائله إلى هؤلاء الأباطرة والملوك، يدعوهم إلى الإسلام: حملهم – إذا لم يستجيبوا للدعوة - إثم رعيتهم معهم. فقال لكسرى: "فإن لم تسلم فعليك إثم المجوس" وقال لقيصر: "فعليك إثم الإريسيين" وقال للمقوقس في مصر "فعليك إثم القبط". وهذا يؤكد المثل السائر في تلك الأزمان: الناس على دين ملوكهم. فأراد الإسلام أن يرد الأمور إلى نصابها، ويعيد للشعوب اعتبارها واختيارها، فلا يختارون هم بأنفسهم لأنفسهم. ولا سيما في هذه القضية الأساسية المصيرية، التي هي أعظم قضايا الوجود على الإطلاق: قضية دين الإنسان، الذي يحدد هويته، ويحدد غايته، ويحدد مصيره.

And to make his message clearer, The Prophet used to add the verses:

تعالى -: "قل يا أهل الكتاب تَعَالَوا إلى كلمة سواءٍ بيننا وبينكم ألا نعبدَ إلا الله ولا نشركَ به شيئًا ولا يتخذَ بَعْضُنا بعضًا أربابًا من دون الله فإن تَوَلَّوا فقولوا اشَهَدُوا بأنَّا مسلمون"

Meaning of: “We should unit O people of the Book (Christians, and Jews) to worship non but the ONE and not worship any other. And we (as mankind) are not to take one of us as a God\idol besides God himself. And if they (the people of the Book) do not follow, then state that we are Muslims (giving in only to God)”.

In other words, what Prophet Mohammed did was invite the head of Countries to embrace Islam, which in turn would give access to the population to reveal the message of God. And after that, give everyone the freedom to believe or not.

If the heads of states did not want to embrace Islam, then they are NOT to stop the publicizing of Islam (as a word of the Lord) in their countries. As in: “Let people decide for themselves and don’t stand in the way”.

Islam did not invent this, and Prophet Mohammad was not the first to do this…
When delivering a message for example… Moses did the same, he was ordered by God to go directly to the Pharaoh (the highest power in Egypt) and introduced God’s religion to him. If the Pharaoh had embraced the message of God, so would have all his land (Egypt).

And when protecting religion or what is right, the followers had to go to war. Just like what Prophets David and Soliman had to do in their time.
The concept is the same!

Even the first war that was between the united Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula and the Romans, It was because the Romans allied with the Ghasaasena (a nation in the north of the Arabian peninsula) and agreed to annihilate the Muslims once and for all. Their army was 200,000 strong.

Islam did from then on go to war with the Romans and Persians as a way to protect itself and to remove anyone who will stop muslims publicizing the message.

That is why now, there are no calls for war against the west to simply because the ways to deliver the message of Islam are many (internet, conferences, cultures mingling, travelling…etc.).

2- After winning the war…

When Muslim Armies went into each country, no one was forced into Islam (logically speaking), because if the sword was used then one of two results would have happened (over 1400 years):
· People annihilated because they do not want to follow it.
· Everyone turned into Islam.

And as a matter of fact, no nation was demolished on the hands of Muslims (unlike what happened to Muslims in Spain for example) nor did everyone embrace Islam (in the Islamic world there are millions of Christians, Jews, and others. 10 million Christians in Egypt alone).

The interesting thing is that even invaders whom invaded muslim countries over the past 1400 most of them have converted to Islam. For example, The Mongols whom took over Iraq, Iran and Syria… over the years they (the invaders) embraced Islam.

Now I ask you what of sword was on the invaders neck to make them embrace Islam?!!!!

The answer: “Non!”.

Actually, many accounts state that people did not embrace Islam except after years from when Muslims came into their countries. That is because only over time and persuasion did people believe in it! Not by the sword!

To conclude and summerize, the sword obviously was NOT used to subdue and force people into Islam!
Religiously, God and Prophet Mohmmed’s orders were clear: “ force is not to be used to make people embrace Islam”.
Historically and logically, Islam was spread because of something more powerful than a sword…it was the Sword of the Intellect... it was the message itself that made the difference!

The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
“Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.”
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

One might ask: “OK, I see your point, but do you want to convince us that no atrocities happen in the name of Islam?”

Of course there were shameful things that happened! after all , it has been 1400 years and humans are\were\will be involved. Not everyone is a good Muslim or human. What is wrong is wrong!

But, for sure Islam was NOT spread by the sword (as a belief), and this is what I hope I made clear in this post!

Shiekh Youssef Al Qaradawi once said: “A sword can conquer a land and invade a country. But, it can never conquer a heart”.

And that is exactly what Islam did to its followers!

Sources:

Islamic Research Foundation - IRF (South Africa)
IslamOnline
Various Readings

Mood: Veni vidi vici …

Thank You And Goodbye..

2008-09-01T10:13:00.005+03:00

What do you know, the time has come for me to close this space. And i could not find a better day than 1st of Ramadan 1429 (1st of September 2008) for such an occasion.

I am not sure if I will blog again or not, this is something only time will decide. As far as I am concerned, after 2 years and 5 days... this Blog has done its purpose.

Fadfadation places his hand on the "Submit" button for maybe the last time ever... and...

**Click**

Inheritance in Islam: Answering The Accusations "Why Men Inherit More"...

2008-08-19T07:07:00.009+03:00

Some muslims are taking the non-muslim concept of inheritance, and want to force on muslim countries the rule that a “woman should get the same inheritance ratio as a man” (already applied in Tunis lelasaf :\ ).

In Islam, a man inherits twice as much as a woman (in most cases).
For non-muslims and some muslims (lelasaf bardo) see that as unfair and weird.

I can understand that non-muslims find it strange and unfair. Simply, because they come from a totally different background and do not know why such a ruling exists.
Yet, I am disappointed that some of my people (muslims) are tottering along with the demands of making a woman inherit exactly the same ratio as a man (1:1) without thinking of what God said and at the same time, without thinking logically about their demands.

Lets put it this way,

People (or some enthusiastic muslim feminists loosely speaking) who demand a woman to inherit exactly the same ratio as a man (1:1) use this argument (was used with me in a recent discussion I had with someone):

“A woman should inherit exactly like a man, she is no less than him. It is unfair and makes no sense.
There was a recent survey that mentions that %25 of Egyptian women are the only providers for their families. Giving them the same inheritance as men would help those women support their families.

More inheritance for those women… more money… better family support!”

To answer this, there are two sections:

Religious:

قوله تعالى: ( يُوصيكم اللهُ في أولادِكم للذكَر مثلُ حظِّ الأنثيين)، (النساء 11)

Meaning of: God told us that for our children, a man gets twice the inheritance as a woman.

So, there is a rule that we (muslims) have to abide to.
And as muslim we know that God didn’t descend an order or rule that is only fit for today and not tomorrow. Especially, when it is related the family structure (the family being the most important unit in Islamic society).

Let me elaborate in the following point…

Logical:

Just a little background on the Muslim family and inheritance laws:

1 -Such a rule (man inheriting twice as much as a woman) in Islam is directly related to the structure of a family in Islam, and how a family should be (per Islamic ideology).

The family structure in islam consists of a father (husband) who is responsible for all his family (wife, children, parents if they are financially incapable, brothers and sisters and their off spring if they are young or financially incapable).

In other words, the man in the family is responsible for taking care of his whole family.
This does not mean that the rest of them are useless or incapable of doing things in society…not at all. Actually, work and development is a duty for all members of the family.

But, just like any ship has a captain, in Islam the captain of the ship is the father (the male).

Yes, in many cases the father passes away, and the mother steps in. And she does an excellent job.

Yes, in many cases men are dirt bags and do not do their duties. And women end up trying to pickup where the man failed.

Yes, in many cases a man and a woman "willingfully agree" to share expenses and so on.

But, what we are stating here is the rule for all, the general rule that organizes a family. The usual family (father, wife and off spring). For each rule there are special cases (as the above two examples for instance).

2- The ruling is also related to what responsibilities are put on the man:

For instance, In islam a man has to…

He has to pay a woman he will marry “MAHR” (wedding gift money). She doesn’t need to pay him anything.

He has to give her (the wife) monthly allowances for herself, the kids and the house expenditures. Per Islam she is not “obliged” to pay a nickel (except if there is a necessity, and she is willing to do it! It’s her choice!).

The more money the man makes, the more he has to pay his wife, as God said:
، كما قال تعالى: ( لِينفِق ذو سعَةٍ مِن سَعتِه ). (الطلاق 7)

If the man divorces his wife, he has to pay her “Mo’akhar Sadaak”. She doesn’t have to pay him anything (usual cases).

The man has to pay for his children’s education and expenses. Again, per Islam she is not “obliged” to pay a nickel (except if there is a necessity and she is willing to do it! It’s her choice!).

When a niece or nephew (without parents for example) needs help, the man (their uncle) has to help them out (as long as he can of course). Because he (in such a case) is responsible for them (hence, he gets a part of the inheritance when his brother passes away for example). Per Islam she (the wife or aunt in this case) is not “obliged” to pay a nickel (except if there is a necessity and she is willing to do it! It’s her choice!).

3- Besides that, not always does a man get twice the inheritance as a woman. In some cases, they get the same ratio, for example:

· When the parents (man and woman) inherit one of their children :
(ولأبويه لكلِّ واحد منهُما السدُس ممَّا ترك إن كان له وَلد)،(النساء: 11)
· When brothers and sisters (of the same mother, yet no father) inherit their brother who had no off spring.
كما قال تعالى: (وإنْ كان رجلٌ يُورَث كلالةً أو امرأةٌ وله أخٌ أو أختٌ فلِكلِّ واحد منهما السدُس فإن كانوا أكثر من ذلك فهم شركاء في الثلُث) (النساء:12)

4- There are even cases where the woman gets more than the man’s inheritance ratio (woman gets twice as much as the man), for example:
· When a woman passes away, leaving a husband, a mother (her mother), 2 brothers and a sister for example. In this case, The sister gets twice as much as the brothers.

5- If the man does not do his responsibilities, he is to be punished and the wife\family compensated (given he has the money of course).

6- There is always the option that inheriters can distribute the inheritance in the way they want (given that all inheriters agree!).

To summarize the above,
The first point is that not in all cases does a man get twice as much as a woman.

The second point is that in Islam (compared to other ideologies) the structure of the family and the financial arrangements are not like others. The Muslim man has a lot of financial burdens. That is why inheritance for a muslim male is double a muslim female (in most cases).

To put the rule and reasoning in simpler words: “Whenever more responsibilities fall on the man, the inheritance for him is doubled compared to a woman” (i.e. when the father dies, the son gets double the daughter…etc.).

More responsibilities need more resources…that’s it.

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

Now, discussing the argument:
“A woman should inherit exactly like a man, she is no less than him. It is unfair and makes no sense.
There was a recent survey that mentions that %25 of Egyptian women are the only providers for their families. Giving them the same inheritance as men would help those women support their families.”

OK, think of it…
Whoever wants to change the inheritance rule in Islamic countries, wants to do that to empower women by making them get the same ratio as muslim men (in all inheritance cases).
For example, in the above argument they (whoever) want to empower %25 percent of women (in Egypt’s case for example) because they (the %25 of women) have a heavy burden.

The answer is obvious…
You want to empower %25 of women by screwing up %100 of struggling muslim men who are “obliged” to support their families per the Islamic family structure?!!!

Think of it…

If you want to empower women (who are struggling) by giving them the 1:1 ratio in all cases, what on earth will the %100 of men (struggling ones) do if their inheritance goes down by half. That same inheritance which they (the men) are supposed to use to support their families!

Do the math… you’ll get my point.

Giving women 1:1 ratio in all cases does NOT help our muslim society (per its structure).
What you are doing is solving a smaller problem (%25 women supporting their families and struggling for example), by creating a massive problem by taking out half of what %100 of men use to support their struggling muslim families.

7aram 3aleko… i32loha shwaya!

Ya reeet balash neraded kalam el 3’arb zay el ba3’ba3’anaat min 3’eer lama nefakar bel hadawa.

Resources:
· Yousef Al Qaradawi
· Islamonline
· Various Readings

Mood: The end is eminent… am I ready for the finale?

A Very Disturbing Discussion…

2008-08-17T07:54:00.004+03:00

Someone I know and I were sitting watching “Hellboy I” movie on TV.
At the end of the movie, Hellboy and his side-kicks were trying to kill all the monsters’ eggs before they hatch and turn into more monsters. At this point, a very disturbing conversation took place between us…

Him: “Why are they killing the eggs and little creatures do you think?”
Me: “Obviously to get rid of the creatures before they grow up and kill more people…etc.”
Him: “Do you think that’s right? Do you think if you were in their place you’d do the same?”
Me: “Of course I would! The creatures are dangerous, they will grow up and kill people. What else would one do?!”.

Silence for a while, then…

Him: “Then, maybe we shouldn’t blame terrorists for killing children using suicide-bombs, and maybe even we shouldn’t blame Israelis for shooting Palestinian children in the head!”.
Me: “What?!@!!@!#@$”.
Him: “If we as humans accept the notion of "killing small beings before they grow up (assuming they will be a threat), just to protect ourselves and\or our way of life" then, maybe terrorists and Israelis are not wrong when they kill other people’s children!!!!!”.

Me: “!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Mood: 1 to go, and the end seems eminent...

Why Prophet Mohammad had 9 Wives When the Rule Says 4 Only? Was He A Womanizer?

2008-08-11T16:40:00.016+03:00

People tend to ask these questions either because they just want to criticize and diminish our prophet or simply because they do not know the historical circumstances behind what really happened and why.

In this post I will try to answer the following questions:

Why did the prophet marry 9 at a certain point of time?
How come God gave muslims the option to marry up to 4, yet the prophet was married to 9 and kept them all?
Why didn’t the prophet divorce 5 and stay within the Islamic law limit of 4 (saving himself all the accusations that would come afterwards)?
Was the prophet a womanizer, hence marrying 9? (7asha lelAh)

First, of all let’s talk some facts and history about marrying more than one…

Before Islam (in many cultures and religions) it was normal for people to marry many women at the same time without any limitation whatsoever.

Marrying more than one isn’t an Islamic “invention”. For instance, Prophet David (PBUH) was said to have about 300 women (wives and all). And prophet Soliman (PBUH) was said to have about 700 women.

When Islam came, it put the limitation of 4 (with conditions).

{فَانْكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَى وَثُلاثَ وَرُبَاع} Al Nessa’a

When the above Quranic verse was revealed, all muslims (whom had more than 4 wives) had to limit themselves to 4 or less (depending on the case). And so they did.

Yet, at that time the prophet (PBUH) was married to 9 wives (before this order was revealed), and he didn’t divorce them.
Why? Here’s why…

Let it be know that in Islam, the Prophet’s wives are of special value and stance. They are not like any other women…

What a lot of people don’t know (I being one of them before I researched for answers), is that before the above verse (limiting to 4 wives) was revealed\descended to the prophet, another order (rule) was revealed\descended a while back…
That order was mentioned in this verse (from Al Ahzaab):

في قوله تعالى:{وَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تُؤْذُوا رَسُولَ اللهِ وَلا أَنْ تَنْكِحُوا أَزْواجَهُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ أَبَدًا}ا

God descended an order that “no one was to marry any of the women the Prophet married”.

Before applying that ruling on the wives, they were provided a choice…either to stay his wives and stick to the ruling (never to remarry again) or for them to get divorced at that time… they all preferred to stay with him!

The reasons for such a rule (his wives never to remarry)are obvious, it was to protect the prophet and his wives (whether while or after the prophet passed away) from any form of harm or mistreatment.

Imagine for example, after the prophet’s death any of his wives would remarry, and be mistreated in any way by a husband. Imagine (as a muslim) the impact of this on us!!

Or even if any of his wives would remarry, and be verbally mocked by atheists (who were ready to use anything just to demoralize or mock the prophet, his wives and muslims). You can imagine the type of low talk that can be used in such a situation, no need to mention it here.

This of course was important because the wives of the prophet have a very special stance in Islam (after all they are called “Mothers of all Muslims”).

So, here is the situation:
1- God said the prophet’s wives (9 of them at the time) are not to remarry after him.
2- God ordered muslims not to marry more than 4 at the same time.

In other words, the prophet will have to divorce 5 out of the 9 he had as wives at that point. Those 5 will neither be his wives nor any one else's (unlike all other women who when divorced can remarry).

Out of God’s mercy for the Prophet’s wives, He descended this verse:

يقول تعالى لنبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم:{لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ، وَلَا أَنْ تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ، وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ

It is an order from God directed to the prophet (specifically) never to marry anymore women at all (keeping the 9 he already has). And that he (the prophet) does not have the right to replace his wives (divorce one or more and marry new ones while keeping his limit of wives at 9).

And this rule (that applied to him only) was the answer for his situation (since he had 9 wives whom cannot remarry again).

So, from that point on... neither could the prophet remarry nor could his wives!

Special case, special reason and that was that.

---

As for being a womanizer or not,
fact was… the prophet only married once from the age of 25 till he was 50 (Khadija, PBUH).
He (as all prophets) never committed adultery.
He even didn’t marry before turning 25 (even though in his community and time… marrying early was a norm).
If he was a womanizer (7asha LelAh), what stopped him?

Even Khadija, the one he loved and married till he was 50.. was elder than him (15 years elder).
If he was after women, why didn’t he remarry when she (Khadija) was old (when he was in his 40s and she was in her 60s)?

Besides that, Khadija had children from a previous marriage.
What made the prophet marry an older woman with children if he was after women for the joy of them and that’s it?

And after Khadija (his first wife) passed away, when he decided to marry… he married Zeinab Bent Zam’aa who was neither young nor pretty.
Also, out of all the women he married, Aisha was the only one that wasn’t married before.
Not to forget that out of all the women he married, almost non of his wives (except maybe Aisha and Zeinab bent Jahsh, walAho a3alm) were known for their beauty.

I ask you…
if he was a womanizer (being the prophet and the most influential man of his time), wouldn’t he be able to marry any pretty and wealth woman in the whole of the Arabian peninsula?

Does that sound like a womanizer to you?

Obviously, lust wasn’t something on his mind!

Resources:

Islamonline.
Various readings.

Mood: 2 to go, and the end seems eminent...

Palestine vs. Israel (Who Has The Right For The Land?!)

2007-11-28T15:06:00.003+03:00

Although i am really busy today, but some things just get on my nerves...

This one is for all the Israelis, Pro-Israelis, or the ones who believe Israel has more right for the land of Palestine than Muslims or Arabs.

I wrote about this in different posts before , so i will copy and past some of the arguments used by Israelis and co. and the comments on them...

---

From the post "A Reading In The Judaism... ":

Palestine (Canaan):

Canaanites are mentioned in the Bible, Mesopotamian and Ancient Egyptian texts, and have always normally been considered an ethnic group radiating out of Lebanon; though some recent sources, without specifying any evidence, have asserted an origin on the Arabian Peninsula.

Comment: Whether from Arabia or Lebanon, this proves our right to the place before the Israelis, or what?!!!!

Canaan is mentioned in a document from the 18th century BC found in the ruins of Mari, a former Sumerian outpost in Syria. Apparently Canaan at this time existed as a distinct political entity.
During the 2nd millennium BC, Ancient Egyptian texts use the term Canaan to refer to an Egyptian province, whose boundaries generally corroborate the definition of Canaan found in the Hebrew Bible, bounded to the west by the Mediterranean Sea, to the north in the vicinity of Hamath in Syria, to the east by the Jordan Valley.

In the centuries preceding the appearance of the Biblical Hebrews, Canaan and Syria became tributary to the Egyptian Pharaohs.
Many earlier Egyptian sources also make mention of numerous campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na before Israelites were there.

Comment: Again, Egyptians were there before Biblical Hebrews, maybe we should be the ones to claim Palestine?? Yeah right!!
During the Canaanite Period of the Archaeology of Israel, the cities of Canaan were ruled by vassals of the Egyptian Empire.

The Canaanites are said to have been one of seven regional ethnic divisions or "nations" driven out before the Israelites, Israelis refer to their history like this..

1.1 Canaanite period
1.2 Israelite period (Iron age)
1.3 Persian period
1.4 Hellenistic period
1.5 Roman period
1.6 Byzantine period

Comment: Yet one more time...Canaanites were there first. Cannaites were from Lebanon or Arabia. Egyptians were there before Biblical Hebrews… what else can I say???!!!

From Torah, in "Genesis":

- God appears to Abram and says, "To your descendants I will give this land.

Comment: This means we Arabs and Muslims have the same right. Hagar (the mother of Ishmael) was from Egypt. Ishmael the son of Abraham was brought up among arabs. His decedents were Arabs. And not to forget that Mohammad the Muslim's Prophet was Ishmael's decedent...so we have the same right just like Jews!

- Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, but will make of Ishmael a great nation; "Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, ... And God was with the lad, and he grew up

Comment: Means that Muslims are the great ones mentioned, since they are the descendants of Ishmael (through their prophet and Ishmael's decedents).

From another post: "When Israel Says:" Ishrabo Min El Bahr"!" :

If that is what you believe (historical existence should be what gives someone the right to a place) than i you should go and tell the americans to get out of America, since it belongs HISTORICALLY to the red indians.
Of course you know that if you say that to any american, he'll say you are a complete maniac!

It is not our problem lived there for a while then left for any historical reason. Throughout our history there were jews living amongst us with no problem. that's a fact!

We have no problem with jews living anywhere, the problem is the land that is not theirs! and the humiliation of Palestinians.

About The Jewish temple and AL Aqsa Mosque being built on top of it as a spit against Jews (someone actually believes that!) , from the post "Web Stalked!! The Solution... ":

Al-Aqsa was built simply because this spot is\was a KIBLA (center or direction) for all prophet’s (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and their predecessors included). And since we Muslims are believers of all prophets and we follow Abraham father of all prophets, we simply have this place as a scared place too (3rd most sacred in Islam). It was not for that stupid reason you mentioned! Lol

---

To us Muslims and Arabs, the one who has the right for the land is obvious.
But, due to the world we currently live in...

Root analysis and solution:
Israelis to abide to UN and International Court rulings, give back the 1967 land, remove settlements, remove the UNJUST wall of separation around Palestinians, and never enter Palestinian land after that, hopefully then things will change.

Oh and if you want to rant about the Palestinian "terrorists" (as you like to call them) while never calling what the Israeli settlers or army do to Palestinians terrorism.... be my guest.

But remember this: "Never think that humiliating people, taking their land, caging them up behind your notorious wall, prisoning them in the thousands within your prisons, not respecting their sovereignty, killing them.....etc ... all this and they will not retaliate.
Thing is, when they do... we all know what you will call them :\"

So, don’t waste our breath or yours on trying to show us that Israelis are dandy, pinkie, peaceful, and just dudes who want to live in peace…If you are, then act as one!

Read "The Great War For Civilization" (Robert Fisk) and "Palestine, Peace NOT Apartheid" (Jimmy Carter)... maybe you'll get what i mean.

Convinced? made you re-think?

If Yes... good!
If No... I don't really care! spare me the Pro-Israeli comments...not interested!

Mood: 7atgeli galta 2orayeb!

My Wall Has Fallen :(

2008-05-29T11:12:00.003+03:00

Yes, my big, strong wall I always counted on and looked up to has fallen…my father.

Loosing him made me realize how much burdens our parents take off our backs.
Out of the blue, a whole load of responsibilities have landed on my shoulders. It feels like a mountain has fallen on me.

Many have always wondered why I “seem” to care more about my father than my mother. Explaining to them that it is not about loving him more, but what people don’t understand is that for men, the father is the benchmark!

He’s the benchmark of how a man should be, how he should act, and what he is made of.

We were very close to each other. He was a great man, father and friend.
It is hard looking around and not finding him with his cheerful “hello”s and big smile.

Over the past few years, it was hard seeing him getting weaker and getting emotionally soft.
For a man to see his benchmark (who was always strong and proud) get softer and weaker, it is a hard blow.
You sort of feel sorry for him and want to contain him as much as you can, yet he feels ashamed that he is getting soft.

I thank God that we talked before he left. It was as if he knew (Sob7an Allah).
He called the night before, said that he loved us… to me, my wife and even my elder son. I woke up in the morning on a phone call informing me that he is no longer amongst us.

Standing at his grave asking God to forgive and bless his soul really put this world in perspective…a totally different one.
The Prophet once said:” Live in this world as if you are a traveler”, as in you are here temporarily…so don’t get too comfortable, and remember it is just a phase till you reach your last destination.

This is exactly what I felt standing there at my father’s grave.

Trying to hold myself together and be “a man” during such a loss proves to be something not easy at all.
No matter how much psychological preparation you try to do for such a day…it will still hurt… a lot! Leaving you with this heavy, bitter, and sometimes stinging painful sorrow feeling.

My father has always been my refuge, safety, and wall of support.
Yet, God has willed that as I want to bend down and just feel broken for such a loss… I find two you young beings leaning on me seeking support in this life…
for life has done it’s cycle…
and now it is turn for me to be a “Wall” for my own children.

Sob7anak Ya Rab.

إن العين لتدمع و إن القلب ليحزن و لا نقول إلا ما يرضي الله
“Our eyes might shed tears, our hearts might feel grief… yet, we only say what God approves of”.

Mood: Feeling like the life I have known has changed forever

Islamic Philosophy: Material World Reluctance

2008-05-04T08:14:00.001+03:00

Al Hassan Al Basri (was a very famous and renowned scholar\Imam in the 700s) was once asked about the secret to his reluctance towards this materialistic world.

He answered (the meaning of):
“
Four things…
I learned that my responsibilities are non but my own, so I occupied my time taking care of them.
I learned that what is destined for me, will never go to anyone else.
I learned that God is aware of everything, so I never allowed myself to commit a sin.
I learned that death awaits me, so I have long prepared myself to meet my Lord.
“

Mood: Meditating…

A Department Full Of Women

2008-04-29T13:42:00.009+03:00

Females At Work...watch out boys!

Just before i start, i would like you to know that my company doesn't have a lot of women in it in the first place. This is why this incident was ... strange... sort of.

As i was walking into xxx department with my colleague, I held a paper in my hand which we were discussing. We entered the room and as we stepped a few steps we both stopped and went silent.

We looked slowly around and found ourselves in a room full of female colleagues working happily at their desks (all 8 of them!).
We looked at each other and our eyebrows went S shaped with astonishment.

I looked towards the corner where the manager always sat, and saw him there looking at us with a grin (ammot wafham bed7ak leeh…lol).

Note: The following is not %100 accurate.

Manager: “Come come… don’t be afraid”.
Me: ”Last time I was here this was not the working environment you were in”.
Manager: “Yes, I things have changed”.
Me: “What happened to the other people?".
Manager: “It is a new strategy”.
Me: “Excuse me?”.
Manger: “ I hired women as much as I could as a strategy to repel any aggressive customers”.
He continued: “Customers tend to be much more under control and more patient when they are dealing with women. More women, less tension, less fights, and I have less to worry about!”.
Me: “YABNEL ….. ;)”

Mood: tesada2 mal3ooba :)

To Copy Or Not To Copy?

2008-04-23T07:33:00.008+03:00

Smash them or leave them?

Although (for some) a silly question, i have somewhat difficulty answering it...

“When someone buys an original Software CD (i.e. MS Office 2007 or even a game), the software’s legal agreement mentions that you (the buyer) have no right to distribute\copy without approval from company …etc. And if you do, then you could be legally prosecuted.”

In the US, Europe and the Middle-East, there has been a crackdown on Software Piracy (not to forget the Napster closing).

.
The Question...

Ethically, is it right to take an original CD from a "friend" and copy it onto your PC? what about peer to peer sharing programs (i.e. e-mule, Bicommit, Kaza, imesh...etc.)?

The question is not related to buying from someone as much as it is "borrowing" from someone.

The arguments are:

1- No, ethically you can not take it or copy from anyone by any means. The agreement on the CD is clear. No one has the right to mass copy or distribute the Software... in any way!

2- Yes, you can. It is like borrowing something from a friend, using it and then returning it to him\her again. What’s the problem if my friend wants to lend me something?

If yes, then all the peer to peer sharing programs are ok, becuase we're lending and borrowing things from each other.

Hmmm… what do you think?

Mood: Wondering...

Obama: "I Will Do My Best To Help Israel"!!?!

2008-04-21T07:48:00.006+03:00

From BBC Arabia:

Obama said that if he wins the US presidency, he will do all he can to help Israel to defend itself. He also criticized Jimmy Carter (former US president) for wanting to hold talks with Hamas (Palestinian militia group).

He also said that going back to pre-1967 war status in Jerusalem (Al Quds) is not an acceptable solution (being half for Israel and half for Palestinians\Arabs).

It was mentioned that Obama does not approve Palestinian refugees going back to their land, because he beleives that Israel has to stay a Jewish conutry.

"

قال باراك اوباما احد المتنافسين على ترشيح الحزب الديمقراطي لخوض الانتخابات الرئاسية الامريكية إنه في حال فوزه في الانتخابات فإنه سيبذل كل ما لديه من جهد لمساعدة اسرائيل على "الدفاع عن نفسها ضد اي خطر اقليمي قد تتعرض له."
كما انتقد اوباما الرئيس الاسبق جيمي كارتر لقراره التحدث الى حركة حماس الفلسطينية.

وردا على سؤال من الحاضرين في الكنيس عن موقفه من مستقبل مدينة القدس، قال اوباما إنه في الوقت الذي يؤيد فيه توصل طرفي النزاع الى اتفاق حول مستقبل المدينة، فإن اعادتها الى الوضع الذي كانت عليه قبل احتلالها من جانب اسرائيل في عام 1967 يعتبر "خيارا غير مقبول."

وقال النائب الديمقراطي روبرت وكسلر للصحفيين عقب اللقاء إن اوباما يرفض بشكل قاطع حق عودة اللاجئين الفلسطينيين الى ديارهم لأنه يدرك ان اسرائيل يجب ان تبقى دولة يهودية.

"

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/world_news/newsid_7351000/7351764.stm

Besides the fact that most Arabs would prefer Obama over Clinton (me included), but can someone tell this guy: "YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME!?"

From being a candidate who wanted dialogue with all and promising taking a balanced approach to the Middle East peace process... to THIS?!!!!!!!?!!!!!

Trying to score points with the pro-Israeli lobby Mr. Obama, eh?! :\

Mood: I wonder who will help us for a change???? Allah Kareem!

The Egyptian State's Message To All

2008-04-20T07:48:00.007+03:00

On the same day, in the same newspaper, in the same page... 2 different law suits with two different outcomes.

Both summarize the message our so called authorities is sending to all.

1- Seven from the Muslim Brotherhood (Islamic opposition group, the strongest opposition group in Egypt) have been sentenced to prison by a military court.

2- Hani Sorour (a parliament representative from the ruling party NDP) has been acquitted and his name cleared from the scandalous case in which his company provided infected blood bags to government run hospitals .

Hey, the ruling party and authorities can not deliver a clearer message than that boys! COME ON!!?!

Resource:

Al Ahram Newspaper

Mood: 7'arbana wee 7atewla3 fee yom min el ayam :\

Mofeed Fawzy: The Open, Yet Closed Minded

2008-04-15T07:33:00.013+03:00

The Sometimes Not Very "Mofeed" Fawzy

Mofeed Fawzy is a very well known journalist and programme presenter in Egypt.
One of his most famous TV programmes was "Hadeeth Al Madena" (Talk of the City).

He usually talks about interesting things that affect our society or that are the "Talk of the City".

I admire the guy's research skills (from the days of "Hadeeth Al Madena"), Although he sometimes doesn't do that good (i guess we all do that at some point).

Just yesterday i was watching "Al Qahira Al Youm" (Cairo Today) TV show and saw him with the famous Amr Adeeb (Presenter of "Al Qahira Al Youm") interviewing Max Michel (Anba Maximous) who is said to have inaugurated a new Church in Mokattam Area in Cairo.

Max Michel (A.K.A Anba Maximous)

Anba Maximous has been viciously attacked and criticized by Egyptian Orthodox Christians and accused to be many things, of them:

An American agent that came back to Egypt after years in the USA to inaugurate a new Orthodox Church. This in turn harms the harmony of our society (per their view).

Defying The Egyptian Orthodox Pope (Baba Shenouda).

Permitting Divorce, this contradicts the Egyptian Orthodox faith (Per their view).

Anba Maximous has no right to inaugurate another Orthodox Church in Egypt.

The list goes one and one...

After watching most of the interview, I have a few things to say about Mofeed Fawzy...

He was totally biased against Anba Maximous. Mofeed Fawzy of course is a Orthodox Christian and yes, he will (like) many not agree with Maximous.

But, when you (Mofeed Fawzy in this case) are a program presenter interviewing someone, you shouldn't be so biased (7a'beyha shwaya ya 3am!).

He accused Anba Maximous with things without proof (Words like "They say... it is said").
He Dodged direct questions that Anba Maximous asked back.
He avoided admitting some very sound responses from the Anba.

What i found ridiculous was the last point.

The Anba said that he did not start a new church to defy the Orthodox Pope (Baba Shenoda). Among the things he said ...

"I follow another church that is from Greece and has branches all over the world"

"I represent one out of 37 orthodox churches worldwide... why are you people criticizing me and accusing me of dividing the Egyptian Church?"

"I have nothing against the Egyptian Orthodox Church, just leave me in peace".

To tell you the truth, as a bystander and per my not much knowledge about things in churches, the man made sense in those points.

His point is simpley,: "I am not part of your group, why are you judging me and accusing me of being an agent...etc".

Another thing came to my mind,
Isn't it strange that the Egyptian Orthodox Church would accuse him of being an American agent?

In other words, it is accusing America of harming or wanting to harm the Egyptian Church? while that same America is the one that keeps squeezing the Egyptian government (whenever convenient for the Americans of course) to give more rights to Christians in Egypt?

Another thing, how come Mofeed Fawzy and his likes who want Egypt to be Secular and act as if they are very open minded, yet they do not want to give someone the right to believe in what HE WANTS? especially that the man admitted to be part of another Church.

To me, Mofeed Fawzy "kaan metarbes" yesterday!

It is not like the guy is wanting something forbidden! or is he? (nefsy afham)!

A Question i'd like to hear someone answer... logically that is.

Note: I am not with or against anyone, i just want to understand and had a valid question :\

Mood: Wondering...

Lions For Lambs: A Movie To Listen To!

2008-04-13T10:08:00.007+03:00

Lions For Lambs starring my (and not to forget, my parents') favorite Robert Redford. Also, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep.

3 different occurrences with 3 sets of actor groups, an interwoven dialogue and you have this movie!

It is about seeing America's Political decisions and americans actions towards it (specifically Iraq, yet with more in between the lines) from different angles.

It is obvious what the outcome is... loss of life, need for change of path, and people doing something to change how America is proceeding.

This is one of those movies where you will have a mix of reviews, just check this:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lions_for_lambs/

From my point of view, this is a admirable movie to watch (that needs uninterrupted attention because it is built on intellectual dialogue).

Not to forget, I LOVE ROBERT REDFORD :)

Mood: ...

Illustrating Blogging...

2008-04-10T06:58:00.006+03:00

Whenever asked to illustrate what blogging reminds me of, this is the first answer that pops up in my head...

"Blogging is like living on the ground floor with your unprotected windows wide open. Anyone can come in spit on you, and leave just because they feel like doing so!".

Note: No one specific in mind. This is about the minority that like to insult or undermine bloggers just for the sake of it.

Mood: Sending my regards to decency and manners :\

Cheering For Deaths!

2008-04-07T09:49:00.008+03:00

On June the 5th 1967, the Israeli army started their offense on the Egyptian land (Sinai).

During that 6 day war, Egypt lost 15,000 soliders, thousands of casualties and thousands were POW (Prisoners Of War).

Robert McCloskey (official spokesman for the US State department) said a verbal testimony about those historical moments:

"
Some of us within the situation room were pleased, and were cheering every time we see the latest Egyptian army casualty figures on our monitors.

Eugene Rostow turned to us and said: "Gentlemen, please remember... we are non-biased by words, thoughts and actions".

...and then everyone in the room burst into laughter.
"

- The Explosion - M. Hassanein Hekal

!!!!!

Mood: Shocked by how irrelavent human life can sometimes be!

Famous Figures Quotes

2008-04-02T07:56:00.003+03:00

I always seem to be attracted to great military or political leaders...anyways, here goes:

“It is wrong to disturb your enemy while he is making a mistake” Napoleon Bonaparte (France)

“War is a series of catastrophes that end up in a victory” Georges Clemenceau

"The price of greatness is responsibility." - Winston Churchill (Britain)

“No one can guarantee success in war, except deserve it.” Winston Churchill (Britain)

“It is crazy to mourn the people who died at war. Instead, we should thank God that such men ever lived.” General Patton (USA)

“He who fears conquer, is for sure to have a defeat” Napoleon Bonaparte (France)

“Only the dead have seen the end of War” Plato

Mood: Eyes Burning!

Now I Know!

2008-03-27T07:35:00.006+03:00

The Frustration and Agony Of Wanting Out!

There is a very well known comment or statement that is said in the Football world that goes: “He has to stop thinking about the next move and concentrate on the field!”.

Usually, it is said by a match commentator about a player who is either due to be transferred to another team or a player that knows that there is an agent from another team watching him (to see if the player is good enough to buy).

I always thought it was an overrated statement.
I mean what does the potentiality of moving to another team have anything to do with playing football?!!
The player is due to move elsewhere, so why would that affect his performance on the field and make him play worse than usual?!

Strangely enough, I’ve been waiting for a job move for 9 months now, and I have to say things now have a different view.

My mind is set on knowing the new move. The "when"s and "where"s are on my mind all the time.

Not only that, now everything negative around me seems to be magnified.

I got disconnected from where I am now, either as a place or as what I do here.

All this grew on me over time. The frustration, irritation, boredom, and not being interested in anything around me here, i feel it all FULL BLAST!.

It just got to me, and it is a feeling one can not fight easily.

After all these years of following Football and listening to that famous comment, only now can I say: “Now I Know!”… it is soooo true!

Mood: Disconnected!

A Word From The Past: How Nations Fall...

2008-03-25T07:05:00.008+03:00

At the Might Of The Bani Ummaya Dynasty

It was said that after the fall of the Bani Ummaya dynasty, one of the heads of the dynasty said the following:
.
"
We got occupied with our lusts and pleasures, and we didn't get occupied with necessities.
We became unjust to our people, so they lost hope in our fairness and wished us to be gone.
We overburdened our people with taxes, so they abandoned us when we needed them.
We put our trust only in our Ministers, so they used that for their own benefit instead of the people's benefit. They did things behind our backs, and made sure we knew nothing of it.
We became mean to our soldiers, so we lost their obedience. And then, our enemies turned them against us.
When it was time to go against our enemies, we lacked the means because we had no supporters.

Without any doubt, us not knowing what was happening in our own country.... was the main reason why our rule has demolished!.
"
.
I personally think this is applicable at all times :\
.
Mood: On the virge of ...

Another Form Of The "So Called" Egyptian Intellectual Elite Hypocrisy!

2008-03-20T14:00:00.008+03:00

For a while now and i have been irritated by how people cherry-pick what to criticize, and turn their head around on other issues.

I came across an Article in Al Masry Al Youm newspaper which touches base with one of the things that irritate me (recently belzaat).

That thing is Hypocrisy and Double standards of the "so called" intellectual elite.

Everyone got so heated up about the actress Hanan Turk and her beauty parlor, yet non of the so called "Intellectual Elite" or "Free Minds" (or whatever they call themselves) said: "Bim" (anything) when the two events mentioned in the middle of the article happened!

What can we call that? hmm?!

Since my fingers are hurting me because of the previous post's debate (thanks Shaima :P), i'll just place the Arabic and English (Google translated) links for the article (kasola ba2a!):

Arabic (recommended):
http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=98017

English (Google) Translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.almasry-alyoum.com%2Farticle.aspx%3FArticleID%3D98017&langpair=ar%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

"Sa7e7, fy naas keteer 3andohom 7'eyar wee fa2oos!".

Mood: Met7asar :\

Ever Argued With A Sufi? #1

2007-11-14T08:06:00.001+03:00

The Sufi ritual of dance and praising of God

This turned out to be very long. So, I will split into two posts.
I will mention the intro and the major points of argument in this post. In the following post, I’ll mention the rest.

Introduction:

A few years ago I was invited with my family to my university friend’s farm house with her husband and kid. With us was another university friend and his family.

We spent a pleasant time till it was time to pray. Her husband whom we (my other friend and I) barely knew at the time, was going to be the Imam for us (Lead the prayer).

Just before we stood up and started gathering to pray together, we were talking about how weak Muslim nations have become and how we became so spineless in politics…etc.

As her husband was aligning himself towards the Qibla (direction where Mecca city is which has the holy Mosque), he said: ”You know why we are in such a bad state as a nation?”
We said:” The reasons are obvious.”
He said:” It is because there are no more “Awleya Allah AL Saleheen” (Wali: friend of God, to be explained later) in these times. So, no one can plead God for us anymore.”.
And then he turned towards the Qibla and started the prayers.

My friend and I looked at each other with a “HUH?! What did he say?” look on our faces, and then started praying.

After the prayer was finished and we sat down again, the guy just fired off with Sufi arguments, why people should be Sufis and follow the Sufi way.
At the start (not wanting to turn the outing into a heated argument) we were very passive and just nodding (only mentioning that what he is saying might not be very true).

Obviously, the guy was ready for this and planned for it. He used many arguments.

I got to know after the outing from my hosting friend that he always does that with people.
I guess he’s trying to make people change their thought into Sufi thought or something.

Anyway back to what happened…
After he started getting obnoxious with some of what he said, both my friend and I started arguing back.
The bad thing is we got the guy cornered more than once and that caused him to get quite aggressive and in sometimes insulting (at one point I was thinking of leaving but I didn’t want to make a scene. So, I just thanked him for one of the insults).

Although we did quite well answering back, but not being in such an argument before made me go back and do some research.

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

Before I start mentioning some of the Sufis arguments and what they try to convince people of (muslims), i have to define what a Sufi is and what a Wali is.

Sufism is a mystic tradition within Islam that encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices dedicated to Divine love and the cultivation of the elements of the Divine within the individual human being. Practitioners of this tradition are known as "Sufis" generally, though some senior members of the tradition reserve this term for those who have attained the goals of the tradition.

Wali is a Waliullah or friend of God. Here Wali means friend. Usually these people are members of Sufi (mystic) communities who are considered to have a special relationship with Allah.

Just to clarify a point, there is nothing wrong with Sufism except with a few weird things they say and do.

To make it more understandable, I hereby mention what Sheikh Hamza Yousef (renowned American "Converted to Islam" Preacher whom I find to have excellent Islamic thought):

“The means and goals of Sufism is something any Muslim would agree with (dedicated to Divine love and the cultivation of the elements of the Divine), but some of the ways they use (i.e. pleading the dead for things, wiping themselves against graves for blessings, …etc) that has nothing to do with Islam. I stand away from that.”

…and that exactly was our problem with my host's husband argument.

Points of Argument:

Per Some Sufis, we can plead and ask Walis (dead or alive) to do things for us or make things happen. It is also ok to go to Mosques which have dead Walis buried in them, and ask those dead Walis to do things for us.

Answer:

We as Muslims take our orders\rulings from 2 sources, Quran and Suna (sayings and doings of the prophet).
We as Muslims are ordered only (and I repeat only) to plead God and no one but Him.

Proofs:
إذا سألك عبادي عني فإني قريب أجيب دعوة الدعي إذا دعاني))

Meaning of the Quran verse (loosely speaking): “Whenever my worshipers ask you (O Prophet) about me, I am close… they should plead me and I will fulfill”.

The verse is very clear, when it comes to pleading for things, God said “I am close”. He did not say: ”Tell them that I am close”. This is a clear message to people that when it comes for asking for things, people should go directly to God and forget any intermediates, just like God answered directly in the verse and said: ”I am close”, He didn’t say” tell them….”.

Another verse from Quran:
(و أن المساجد لله فلا تدعو مع الله أحدا)

The meaning of: “Mosques belong only to God (to worship\plead Him), do not plead anyone but HIM”.

This is too clear to explain!

Also in Suna, the prophet once said:

“إذا سالت فسال الله و إذا إستعنت فستعن بالله"

Meaning of: “If you are to ask for something (plead), ask God. And If you need help \assistance, ask God”.

Enough said.

There is nothing wrong if people to go to the graves of Walis (built in some Mosques) and wipe their bodies against the tombs for blessings (or their hands and then rub their hands against themselves).

Answer:

The prophet and his followers never did that, where did Sufis get such acts from?
Sufis might argue that people in the time of the prophet used to take blessings by touching him. The answer is easy: “First, he was then alive. Second, he is not a grave!”.

They say it is ok for people to go to the Prophet’s grave to ask him to ask God to forgive them. Their argument is built on the fact that when the prophet was alive, Muslims used to ask him to plead forgiveness for them from God (also mentioned in Quran). They say that since prophets and Martyrs never die (per a narration by the prophet and Quran), then he is alive. In other words, people can go ask him for stuff. To prove their point more, some of them say that in the time of Abu Bakr Al Siddik leadership of the Islamic world (the leader after the prophet’s death), the Muslims had a very dry year… the Muslims (with Abu Bakr leading them) went to the prophet’s grave, opened it (ya walad! wa7ayt 7’aletko!?!), and pleaded him to ask God for help (this was used by my host's husband by the way maybe not all Sufis use that).

Answer:

If Sufis say that “Muslims used to ask him to plead forgiveness for them from God”, the answer is that they did that when the Prophet was alive!! Not dead!

Think of it like asking a fellow Muslim to wish the best for you and plead God to bring the best for you (a father asking the best for his kids ring a bell?). So, imagine having the chance the prophet would plead for you. No wonder when he was alive they asked him to do so.

Sufis will say that the prophet is not dead, prophets don’t die. The prophets are alive with God.
The answer is, you are correct but they are in a life called “Al Barzakh”.

Defining Barzakh:
In Islamic eschatology, Barzakh (Arabic: برزخ) is the intermediate state in which the soul of the deceased is transferred across the boundaries of the mortal realm into the spirit world and into a kind of "cold sleep" where the soul will rest until the Qiyamah (Judgement Day). The term appears in the Qur'an.

Barzakh is a sequence that happens after death, in which the Angel of Death or his helper angels will separate the soul from the body, either harshfully or painlessly depending on how righteous the person was before his death.

So, the prophet (and all whom have passed away) are in al Barzakh. God said in Quran (Mumeneen Sura, verse 2) about the Barzakh:

كَلا إِنَّهَا كَلِمَةٌ هُوَ قَائِلُهَا وَمِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ بَرْزَخٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ

تفسير ابن كثير
وَمِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ بَرْزَخ إِلَى يَوْم يُبْعَثُونَ " . وَقَالَ أَبُو صَالِح وَغَيْره فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى " وَمِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ " يَعْنِي أَمَامهمْ . وَقَالَ مُجَاهِد : الْبَرْزَخ الْحَاجِز مَا بَيْن الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَة . وَقَالَ مُحَمَّد بْن كَعْب : الْبَرْزَخ مَا بَيْن الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَة لَيْسُوا مَعَ أَهْل الدُّنْيَا يَأْكُلُونَ وَيَشْرَبُونَ وَلَا مَعَ أَهْل الْآخِرَة يُجَاوِزُونَ بِأَعْمَالِهِمْ . وَقَالَ أَبُو صَخْر : الْبَرْزَخ الْمَقَابِر لَا هُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَا هُمْ فِي الْآخِرَة فَهُمْ مُقِيمُونَ إِلَى يَوْم يُبْعَثُونَ .

From the meaning of the barzakh and the verse above it shows that people who pass away are in an intermediate state, they have nothing to do with this life.

How come Sufis think anyone in Barzakh can help, although the Quran was very clear about it?

As for the argument that the prophet does not die,
The prophet does die (as in dies from this world and moves on to the Barzakh life till Judgment day).

God said in Quran:

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَنْ يَنْقَلِبْ عَلَى عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَنْ يَضُرَّ اللَّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللَّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ

Meaning of (loosely): “Mohammad is a prophet like all the prophets that have passed, If he (the prophet) dies or was\gets murdered\killed you will revert?”

و قول سيدنا أبو كبر بعد وفاة الرسول: "من كان يعبد محمدا فإن محمدا قد مات، و من كان يعبد الله فإن الله حي لا يموت) أو كما قال

Meaning: when the Prophet passed away, Abu Bakr Al Siddik (ruler of Islamic state after the prophet and the prophet’s best friend):

“Those of you who worshiped Mohammad, Mohammad has passed away. Those of you whom worship God, God is alive and never dies” (as in: “remember O people…we only worship God and God was\is\will always be there). Even Abu Bakr mentioned that the prophet has passed away and he will no more be available, yet God is always available.

So, yes. Prophets do pass away, from this life.

As for the part about the Muslims opening up the Prophet’s grave and pleading him to ask God for rain…
It was never narrated that the prophet or his followers had ever went to a grave to ask the dead to plead God on their behalf.

I checked Saheh Al Bokhari (one of the main Suna narration books) which my host’s husband said the story was in, and it mentioned that the Muslims on that specific event went to the Prophet’s Uncle and asked him to plead God with them.
Nothing about going to the prophet’s tomb\grave and all that ever happened.

For heaven’s sake, the dead have their sacred stance in Islam, we are ordered to bury them as soon as possible, we are ordered not to harm corps…etc, all that and someone would actually imagine that muslims would open the prophet’s grave (even a little hole)?!!!!!!!!

Wait till you see the next post, there is more bizarre stuff.

Update: Continued at Ever Argued With A Sufi? #2

Mood: To be continued…

An Islamic Economic Rule Proven Over The Years

2008-03-17T07:42:00.012+03:00

An Interesting finding....

In Islam, one of the things that are prohibited is Riba .

The general meaning of Riba is:

"The literal meaning of interest or Al-RIBA as it is used in the Arabic language means to excess or increase.
In the Islamic terminology interest means effortless profit or that profit which comes free from compensation or that extra earning obtained that is free of exchange.

"Riba` is a loan with the condition that the borrower will return to the lender more than and better than the quantity borrowed."

Nowadays, some muslims might argue that bank interests (i.e. saving accounts) are not prohibited (especially in some cases where people have no other option to live on), which is understandable in some specific (no other option) cases.

Putting that aside, here's the interesting finding...

An economic methodology and finding:

The lower the interest rates Banks give, the more flourishing the economy will get. Because, everyone instead of saving money in banks, they'll invest in the market.

Hence in the USA, interest rates are extremely low.

Equation: Little (or no) interest = better economy.

In other words, 1400 years ago a ruling came out (as part of Islam) that prohibited interest rates (from loans for instance), and only recently economists found out that it is actually better for the economy to have little (or even no) interest rates!!

Sob7an Allah! Islam is GREAT!

Mood: mmm...

Islam Forces People To Embrace It - Truth Or Fiction

2008-03-12T10:07:00.009+03:00

A question asked by some (mostly non-Muslims):
"How come Quran says there is to be no forcing people into Islam, and at the same time the prophet says that he will fight against people till they believe in God or embrace Islam?"

There is a verse in Quran (Al Bakara verse 256) that goes:

الآية الكريمة {لا إكراه في الدين، قد تبيّن الرشد من الغي. فمن يكفر بالطاغوت ويؤمن بالله فقد استمسك بالعروة الوثقى، لا انفصام لها والله سميع عليم} [سورة البقرة، الآية 256].

What is says is that “there will be no forcing in religion”, as in no one is to be forced to embrace Islam.

At the same time there is a Hadeeth Saheeh (a narration by the prophet which was scientifically proven by research to be true) that goes:

حديث (أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتّى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلاّ الله وأنّ محمداً رسول الله، ويقيموا الصلاة ويؤتوا الزكاة، فإذا فعلوا ذلك عصموا منّي دماءهم وأموالهم إلاّ بحقّ الإسلام، وحسابهم على الله) رواه البخاري

Meaning of: “I was ordered to fight against the people till they testify that there is no God except Allah and that Mohammad is God’s Prophet, pray, and do Zakaah….”.

Some people misuse this in two ways:

· Islam forces people to embrace it.
· Islamic Quran and Suna (sayings and doings of the Prophet) are contradictory.

Fact is, they are neither contradicting each other, nor is Islam forcing people to embrace it, how? This is how…

Almost all Islamic scholars have confirmed that Islam is not to be forced on anyone (Ibn Katheer, Al Tabari, Ibn Taymeya…etc.).

The proof is by the actions of the prophet during his life.

For example, the prophet used to release many prisoners of war. And in some cases make the other army pay release money to set them free (depending on case and people…etc.).

Even when the Muslims marched into Makkah (Mecca), after all what the people of Makkah did to muslims and the prophet over the previous 17 plus years, the prophet set them all free with his famous words: “Go… you are all free!”.

He never forced anyone in the cases above to embrace religion before he did what he did. And he never killed anyone before they said they believed in God (or embraced Islam).

Even the prophet’s followers and Islamic rulers that came after him (fast majority), all left people alone to believe and follow their own religion without forcing them into Islam.

A still live example of that is all the Churches and temples that fill the Islamic world (regardless of a few rulers who have done actions contrary to what I mentioned before).

Did you know for example that for a few years after Muslims came into Egypt, no one embraced Islam?
Do you think if Islams order to muslims was to kill anyone till they embrace ... would those (then all Christians and jews) be alive???!

Actually, Islam is so against forcing people into Islam… that some people of the Shafe’ee school of thought have prohibited muslim husbands from asking their non-Muslim wives (if married to a Christian or jewish wife) to embrace islam!

They have actually said: "he…has… no …right …to ..do… so!" (he can act as an idol and show how good islam is, but never to force her to embrace it…it is her call!).

As for the Hadeeth I mentioned before (“I was ordered to fight against the people till they testify that there is no God except Allah and that Mohammad is God’s Prophet”)…

Yes, the superficial meaning for those who don’t know or research or use there minds is… Islam FORCES people to embrace it (or believe in God) or they loose their heads…etc.

First,
There are many verses in Quran and Suna instances which prove that People of the Book (Christians, and Jews) and others are to be left alone.
It is even agreed (per Suna…etc) that women, elderly people and children are to be left alone (during and after wars)…etc.
Besides that, Islam approved that Muslim men can marry non-muslim women.

Second,
The Quran verse “there will be no forcing in religion” is the general rule, while the prophet’s hadeeth (“I was ordered to fight against the people till they testify…etc) is for certain people at certain times.

The word “Fight THE PEOPLE” does not mean ALL PEOPLE! It is talking about a specific category of people he meant.

Using the words “THE PEOPLE” to identify a certain group of people is an Arabic language thing.

To prove it…f or example, the verse in Quran:

: {الذين قال لهم الناس إنّ الناس قد جمعوا لكم فاخشوهم فزادهم إيماناً، وقالوا حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل} [سورة آل عمران، الآية 173].

Meaning of the verse: “Those who were told by the people, THE PEOPLE have gathered against you, so beware and fear them”.

The word “THE PEOPLE” in this example is obviously talking about “a certain group of people whom have gathered to harm someone”. It does not mean “ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH”!

Bottom line is, the word “THE PEOPLE” talks about a certain group…not ALL PEOPLE!

Third,
The hadeeth (“I was ordered to fight against the people till they testify…etc), the Prophet said “TO FIGHT” (Okatel), not “TO KILL” (AKTOL)!

People might ask: “Oh really Mr. wise betengana! What’s the difference?!”
Again , this is a thing in Arabic… words that might look similar are totally different in meaning.

Let me explain…
Al Sahfe’ee (Imam of one of the four major schools of thought in Islam) said: “It might be permitted in some cases to “FIGHT against” people, but it is prohibited to “KILL” people”.

What he was talking about was… it is permitted to fight “THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST US”, but not “GO OFF KILLING PEOPLE just like that! ”.

Even in Quran, it is mentioned that when at war, one can end war by the other side providing "JIZYA" (money to end war and be left alone to live in peace), make peace treaties, making truce…etc.

Finally, I ask you (regardless of what some people have done wrongfully over a history of 1428 years)…
If Quran, Suna, Arabic language and common sense mean and say all that… do you honestly think that Islam ordered us to go off killing people just like that to get them to embrace Islam?!

Do you think that this would be an order sent to the prophet who was "A Mercy To All Mankind" as God described him in Quran?

“People should stop cherry picking rules to follow. They should understand the general picture and put things into perspective”.

- Fadfadation

Walaho a3lam…

Sources:

"Faisal Mawlawi" Fatwa
Islamonline

Mood: Sabarny ya Rab :)

Jokes and Truth Within

2008-03-12T07:31:00.005+03:00

"When someone jokes with you, it is not only a joke! There is truth within the lines. There is a hidden message... there is always truth in a joke!".

Although i never %100 agreed with this, but sometimes i can not stop analyzing what people joke with me about!

Mood: 7atgenen min el analyzing...lol

Nostalgia And Sadness

2008-03-11T08:22:00.002+03:00

It is strange how time flies by so quickly.
It sometimes feels like trying to hold water with your hand.

Just yesterday, my wife was showing me old photos and videos of our elder son (now 3 years). He was about 1 year old in the photos.

I felt this strange bitter nostalgic, sad feeling when i saw his photos. I just wanted time to go back for me to hold him close and try to cherish every moment with him.

Going into bed i realized that this is a feeling i always get when i am nostalgic.

Whenever i look at old photos of me or my family or even my deceased brother, i get overwhelmed by this sad nostalgic feeling.

I remember talking to one of my primary school friends whom i got in contact with after 18 years (thanks to Facebook), and we were discussing our old school days. We had this photo with all of us posing in our school uniforms.

I asked her what feeling did she have whenever she looked at that photo over the past 18 years. She answered: "I felt happy".
Strange thing is, my answer was:" I feel sad, i feel i want to go back to those days and be a child again.".

Thing is, the sweet sadness feeling is very intense whenever i remember the primary school days specifically.

I do not know if it is the Egyptian in me, with his love of history and nostalgia.
Or is it because in the past things seemed easier, and there was less to worry about.
Or becuase i was with my father, mother, brother and Grand-mother as a whole family.
Or maybe because my brother passed away back then in a car accident and that affected all of us back then very much.... i do not know....

All i know is, i miss anything that has to do with the past. It is a lovely, yet bitterly sad feeling.

Mood: Take a wild guess....