Hijab - revisted

It had come to my attention after reading verse 59 of chapter 33 (Al-Ahzaab) yet once more, that God told to the prophet Mohammed Peace Upon Him to instruct his wives, daughters and the women of the believers to cover up with their garments SUCH THAT they are "known" or can be identified and thus not become subject to harassment nor harm. Which is contrary to a previous post I have written about this subject. While the reason is still the same, however the conditions are slightly different.

My previous understanding has always puzzled me. By thinking Muslims in Madina have become somewhat more comfortable and less susceptible to harassment by the non-believers or at least unlike the suffering they endured in Makkah. So why should the Muslim women blend in? Re-visiting the verse sheds some more light on the matter.

For God is saying let them be known as Muslim women , for that should serve as a reason for protection from harm. So how would their identity as Muslim women serve as a deterrent for those whom have ill intentions?

The answer can be deduced from the next verse and from out historical accounts. That protection is provided through the pact (Madina charter) the Muslims have signed with all the inhabitants of Madina at the time. Therefore, by law of the pact all members of the communities that signed the pact are protected by it. This provides the cover for the Muslim women which the Ayah or verse suggests. It is also worth reading the subsequent Ayah(60) to further solidify the meaning previously mentioned. According to "Dar-us-salam.com" , the translation of Ayah 60 is as follows:

60. If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al'Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while

From the Arabic text the word "feeha - فيها" and English "in it" highlighted in red above , refers to the Madina. In verse 60 God tells his prophet to warn those who wish to harm the believer women if they do not cease their harassment, of the consequences. They shall not stay in the Medina after that for long for not adhering to the agreement signed with the prophet and the believers.

This is my opinion and God knows best.

Dr. Waffa Sultan (A critic of Islam) making weak arguments as usual

Well its been a while since I have written anything. Due to relocation and other personal reasons I haven't been looking after this Blog. Hopefully this post will put me back on track.

Below is a response I wrote to an e-mail I received by an Atheist American Doctor of Syrian Origin criticizing Islam. Of course I must add her criticism is very biased. But aren't most
criticisms originating from a negative reaction ? Also attached below my response is the original article/interview I received as an e-mail. Both the response and e-mail are in Arabic. I shall translate what I can maybe sometime in the future.

أعتقد أني استلمت ما يكفيني من الe-mails عن (الدكتورة) وفاء سلطان. فمجرد كونها دكتورة تسكن في الولايات الأمريكية لا يعطيها مصداقية أبداً. بل العكس ذلك يدعونا للتشكيك في نواياها و انتماءاتها. فلا تعطي الشهادة ولا الألقاب موضوعية للإنسان ولا مصداقية.

في رأيي انه لا فرق بينها و بين المتشددين الإسلاميين أو مدعي الإسلام. فكلاً منهما متعصب لفكره و يغالي في مهاجمة الآخر. فوفاء دكتورة في علم النفس. لذا وجب عليها قبل مهاجمة محمد صلى الله عليه و سلم بأنه إنسان بذيء الخلق يحب الشهوات والحكم السيطرة والقتل و إلى آخره من الصفات , أن تبني له ما يسمى بال Psychological Profile . ستجد نفسها تناقض نفسها حيث لا يعقل أن يكون محمداً بذيء الخلق في يوم و حسن الخلق في اليوم التالي. أو بذيء الخلق في سنه و حسنها السنة الأخرى. كيف له أن يكون قاتلاً مجرماً في شهر رؤوفاً في عدوه شهرٍ آخر. كيف يكون لمحمد ان يكون رجلاً مخلصاً لامرأة تكبره بخمسة عشر سنه في شبابه و رجل يهوي الشهوات و النساء في شيخوخته ؟ كيف تعقل وفاء أن تصدق أن محمد يحب البنات الصغار و في نفس الوقت يتزوج من أرمله عمرها 80 سنه ؟

يا وفاء قبل مهاجمتك شخصية محمد صلوات الله عليه فكري فيما تدعين. فحين ترددين قول أعداء الإسلام في الغرب, فأنك تظهرين للناس حقداً يفقدك عقلانيتك و مصداقية رسالتك. فلا تحكمي على الإسلام بمجرد كرهك لجماعة مسلمه كالإخوان و ما إلى ذلك. ما رأيك بأن يحكم العرب على الديمقراطية و حقوق الإنسان بما تفعله الحكومة الأمريكية بشعوبهم ؟ هل تمثلا هيروشيما و ناجازاكي الحرية وحقوق الإنسان؟ هل تمثل حرب فيتنام و ضحايا Agent Orange الديمقراطية ؟ و هذا للأسف هو منهاج كل من يعادي الإسلام. فالمسلمين لا يمثلون الإسلام ولا أفعالهم إسلاميه. و اللوم لا يقع على أمثال وفاء. بل على المسلمين أنفسهم. فهم من يعطون أمثال وفاء الأسباب والحجج لمهاجمة دينهم.

يا وفاء إن التاريخ يشهد لمحمد و هو ليس بحاجة لشهادتك. فحين تموتين و ينسوكِ الناس و لا يبقى أي ذكر لكي. سيبقى التاريخ شاهداً على خُلق محمد صلى الله عليه و سلم و إنجازاته. وكفي بالله شهيدا.

أما الآن فسأعلق على بعض الإجابات التي جاءت بها وفاء في المقابلة.

أولا:ً

من حق وفاء طبعاً رفض تعاليم الإسلام. حتى أني لا أختلف معها في أن الكثير من التعاليم سيئة.بل كما يقول المثل أيضاً:" خذ الشور من راس الثور" . أما اتهامها أن القران سيء يدعوا للنقاش, فإليكم تلك الأسئلة:

تقول الدكتورة (أقولها ساخراً) أن رسالة الله تعالى أي القرآن رسالة معقدة و كل كلمه منها تحتاج للتفسير. فإذا أقرت وفاء أنها لا تفقه القرآن و أنه معقد, فبأي حق هي تحكم عليه بالسيئ ؟ أما كلامها عن مصداقية المفسرين فلا أختلف معها على ذلك. إن الإسلام جاء ليلغي الوساطة بين الإنسان و ربه. و للأسف فإن المسلمون اليوم يتناسون هذه النقطة. فهم يتجهون إلى شيوخهم و أئمتهم ليقودوهم في هذا الطريق أو ذاك. متناسين آيات الله تعالى الكثيرة القائلة أن يوم الحساب لن يحمل الذين إتُّبعوا وزر الذين اتَّبعوا شيئاً بل كلا سيجزى حسب عمله.

أما إدعاء أن الإسلام مسئول عن انحطاط الخلق والفكر, كيف تجاهلت وفاء قرابة الألف سنه من التاريخ؟ كيف تجاهلت وفاء ما جاء به الإسلام من شورى و المساواة أمام الله والإحسان للمرأة نعم المرأة.وإلغاء القبلية والعنصرية و ..و .. و كل ذلك قبل 1400 سنه. لن أدخل في الكلام أكثر من هذا. سبق و أن تكلمت عن كل هذا في المقال الآتي

http://knowyourislam.blogspot.com/2006/03/blog-post.html

بل أن كاتب يهودي أيضاً كتب عن كيفيه انتشار الإسلام في المقال التالي بالإنجليزية

http://knowyourislam.blogspot.com/2006/09/popes-comments-islam-and-its.html

ختاماً أرجوا من الذين يستمتعون بقراءة أقوال أمثال وفاء أن لا يعيدوا نفس الكلام الخالي من المنطق و يأتوا بحجج جديدة تمثل لنا تحدي نفكر فيه و يصعب علينا مناقشته.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

تقرير واشنطن – فدوى مساط ولدت الدكتورة وفاء سلطان سنة 1958 في بانياس في سوريا وهي طبيبة نفسية حاصلة على الجنسية الأمريكية وتقيم في ولاية كاليفورنيا. تحولت الدكتورة وفاء سلطان إلى نجمة داخل الولايات المتحدة وبعض الدول العربية منذ ظهورها الثاني على قناة الجزيرة متحدثة عن صراع الحضارات في برنامج الاتجاه المعاكس شهر فبراير من السنة الماضية، وهو الظهور الذي دفع عددا من وسائل الإعلام الدولية لتسليط الضوء على تلك "المرأة العربية" التي تحدّت شيخا من شيوخ الأزهر وناظرته بصلابة غير معهودة في العالم الإسلامي. ومنذ ذلك الوقت انقسم المهتمون بالحوار بين الحضارات بين معارض ومؤيد لكلام وفاء سلطان لكن القاسم المشترك بينهم جميعا كان التطرف في تبرير الموقف. فالمناصرون لكلام الدكتورة السورية يدافعون عنها بشدة وينتظرون مقالاتها التي تنشر بعدد من المواقع الإلكترونية بشغف كبير، فيما يرفض المُعادون لها حتى مناقشة أفكارها ويختصرونها في كلمة "ملحدة" و"مخربة لجهود التقريب بين الحضارات" بل هناك من أفتى بإباحة دمها. تقرير واشنطن جمع قائمة الاتهامات التي توجه للدكتورة سلطان وحاورها عبر البريد الإلكتروني، وهي ردت مشكورة على كل أسئلتنا. * شاركتِ في مؤتمر فلوريدا عن الإسلام العلماني، هل تعتبرين نفسك مسلمة علمانية؟ - أنا امرأة علمانية الفكر والهدف، مسلمة التربية والنشأة. لقد قضيت أكثر من ثلثي عمري كمسلمة، وليس خياري أن أكون أو لا أكون. الإسلام تاريخي ولهذا التاريخ دور في أن أكون من أنا اليوم. * هل درست علوم التفسير من قبل؟ - طبعا درست كتب التفسير من ألفها إلى يائها، وزاد هذا الأمر من رفضي للتعاليم الإسلامية وكرّس قناعاتي حيالها. أعتقد أن كتب التفسير قد زادت من سوء تلك التعاليم على حدّ مثل إفريقي: من يحاول أن يفسر شيئا سيـّئا يزيده سوءا. دعيني أضرب لك مثلا الآية التي تقول: ولا تأتوا السفهاء أموالكم ...". أجمعت معظم كتب التفسير، إن لم يكن كلّها، على أن المقصود بالسفهاء هم النساء والصبيان، وأجمعت تلك الكتب على أن النساء أسفه السفهاء! ماذا تريدينني أن أفعل حيال هذا التفسير يا ـ رعاك الله ـ؟ ! هل تريدينني أن أحني رأسي من شدّة إعجابي؟ هذا من ناحية ومن ناحية أخرى، أية قيمة لرسالة تحتاج كلّ كلمة فيها إلى تفسير؟ وما الحكمة من أن تكون "رسالة الله" معقدة وغير مفهومة وتحتاج إلى من يفسرها لأتباعها. جاء في القرآن قوله " وقرآن مبين"، فأين البيان والوضوح في كتاب كل حرف فيه يحتاج إلى تفسير؟ ما هي مصداقية من قام بتفسيره، ومن أين استمدوا مصداقيتهم تلك؟ * ما هي مشكلتكِ بالضبط مع الإسلام؟ - الإسلام جهاز عقائدي مسئول أولا وأخيرا عن انحطاط الإنسان المسلم فكريا وأخلاقيا. لقد شوه الإسلام المفاهيم وسمّى الأشياء بغير مسمياتها. دعيني أضرب مثلا: في أكثر الكتب الإسلامية توثيقا واعتمادا نقرأ بأن النبي محمد كان يفاخذ عائشة وهي في السادسة من عمرها وهو فوق الخمسين، ثم نقرأ بعد ذلك قول القرآن: "وإنك لعلى خلق عظيم". أليس هذا قلبا وتشويها لمفهوم الأخلاق؟ كيف سيتصرف الرجل المسلم عندما يعتبر مفاخذة الأطفال ضربا من الأخلاق؟ تروي لنا تلك الكتب وبالتفصيل كيف قتل النبي محمد زوج السيدة صفية بنت حيي ابن أخطب وأخيها وأبيها، وفي طريقه من الغزوة مر بالنساء المسبيات ثم ألقى ردائه على صفية فعرف الجمع أنه اصطفاها لنفسه. نام معها في نفس اليوم وهو في طريقه إلى مضربه يقرأ الإنسان المسلم تلك القصة من كتبه ثم يقرأ قول محمد: "إنما بعثت لأتمم مكارم الأخلاق"، فيختلط عليه الأمر ويصبح القتل والاغتصاب أيضا ضربا من الأخلاق. أهكذا تتمم الأخلاق؟!! * ما هي الخطوط العريضة لما تقولين بأنه مشروعك لإصلاح الإسلام؟ - أسعى جاهدة كي أعيد المفاهيم إلى مناصبها وأسمي الأشياء بأسمائها. أؤمن إيمانا مطلقا بأن الواقع المأساوي الذي وصلنا إليه يتطلب إعادة تأهيل الإنسان المسلم عقليا وفكريا وتربويا وأخلاقيا، وتلك هي رسالتي ومشروعي. هذه العقلية التي تبلورت خلال أربعة عشر قرنا من الزمن لن تتغير بين ليلة وضحاها. عملية إعادة التأهيل ستكون طويلة وشاقة لكنها واقعة لا محالة. نحن نعيش في عصر الإنترنيت ولا يمكن سد منافذ المعرفة بعد اليوم. عملية التأهيل بدأت وهي، وإن تبدو بطيئة، مستمرة وستسمر يوما عن خلق إنسان جديد. * منذ ظهورك، تبنتك جهات مسيحية بعضها متشدّد مثل موقع الناقد الذي أطلقكِ وبعضها معتدل مثل منظمات الأقباط المصرية، ألم تخشي على مصداقية رسالتك خصوصا وأنك تتناولين فيها دين منافس وبين الدينـَيـْن قرون من الصراع؟ - لا أعرف ماذا تقصدين بكلمة "تبنتك" وإن كنت أشم منها رائحة كريهة. موقع الناقد هو موقع أنشأه صديق سوري مسيحي متعمق في دراسته للإسلام يصرف على الموقع من ماله وجهده الشخصي. نعم هذا الموقع هو الذي قدمني مشكورا للعالم العربي وأنا مدينة للسيد بسّام درويش بذلك، ولكنه قدم في الوقت نفسه جميع كتابه وأغلبهم مسلمون، منهم المفكر والمؤرخ السيد مالك مسلماني والكاتب السيّد محمود كرم والكاتب السيد خالد السعيد والكاتب السيد حسين ديبان وغيرهم، فلماذا لا أسمع بأن الناقد كجهة مسيحية "متشددة" قد تبنت هؤلاء الكتاب؟ ولماذا أنا الوحيدة التي أتهم بعملية "التبني" تلك؟ ونفس التساؤلات تطرح حيال "تبني" منظمة الأقباط متحدون لي, السيد الدكتور شاكر النابلسي والسيد الدكتور سعد الدين إبراهيم أقوى في علاقتهما مع تلك المنظمة من علاقتي بها وأكثر حضورا وتفاعلا، فلماذا لا توجه إليهما نفس التهمة؟ يا سيدتي، أنا التي تبنيت قضية الأقباط وليس العكس. تبنيتها لأنها قضية شعب مضطهد ومظلوم وأنا مع كل مضطهد على سطح الأرض وصوتي هو صوت من ليس لهم صوت وأهم المواقع التي تنشر كتاباتي اليوم موقع "الحوار المتمدن" والكل يعرف بأن هذا الموقع ملكا لحركة يسارية ماركسية فلماذا لا أتهم بكوني يسارية ماركسية؟ هم يحاولون باتهامي بالعمل لصالح اليمين المسيحي تجريد رسالتي من مصداقيتها، وهذا أقل ما يمكن أن يثير قلقي. مصداقيتي، يا سيدتي، تأتي من مصداقية فكري والطريقة التي أوصل بها هذا الفكر لقرائي. الإسلام في صراع، وليس في تنافس كما تقولين، مع كل الأديان والديانات وليس مع المسيحية فقط، ونبي الإسلام افتعل ذلك الصراع. من الناحية الغيبية أنا لا أؤمن بأي دين. ولا أدافع عن المسيحية من تلك الناحية، ولكن من حقي أن أقارن بين السيرة الذاتية لمحمد والسيرة الذاتية للمسيح، معتمدة على المصادر الإسلامية نفسها، لأنني أجد في تلك المقارنة فروقا تستحق الوقوف عندها. * لماذا توقف القائمون على موقع الناقد عن نشر مقالاتك وحذف تلك التي سبق ونشرتها هناك من قبل؟ - لم أختلف مع السيد بسام درويش على المبدأ، فنحن صديقان وما زلنا. يؤمن كل منّا بما يطرحه الآخر ويكمله. الخلاف بيننا شخصيّ، وله علاقة بطريقة نشر مقالاتي في المواقع الأخرى. وضع شروطا لم أقبلها. أحترم حقه في أن يضع شروطه، كما يحترم حقي في أرفضها. الكثير من المواقع تنشر اليوم كتاباتي وموقع "الحوار المتمدن" الأكثر انتشارا. تصلني من قرائه مئات الرسائل يوميا وأنا سعيدة جدا بالأثر الذي تتركه كتاباتي. * أفكارك وجدت صدى كبيرا لدى وسائل الإعلام الأمريكية واليهودية، هل وجدت صدى مماثلا في الدول الإسلامية؟ - هذا السؤال يسعى لذرّ الغبار في العيون وصرف النظر عن الحقيقة. لقد وصلت إلى وسائل الإعلام الأمريكية واليهودية عن طريق تلفزيون الجزيرة. لو لم تلاقي أفكاري أولا صدى في الدول الإسلامية لما اختارتني الجزيرة. طبعا لم تأتي عملية الاختيار من فراغ ولا عن طريق الصدفة أو القرعة. اختاروني بعد أن لمسوا أهمية الأفكار التي أطرحها وخطورتها على القالب الفكري الحديدي الذي قولب به الإسلام أتباعه. بدأت بنشر أفكاري منذ الأسبوع الأول الذي وطأت به قدمي أرض أمريكا، واستمريت بنشرها حتى تاريخ ظهوري الأول على قناة الجزيرة. الجالية العربية والإسلامية في لوس انجلوس تعرف تماما قصة كفاحي وصراعي مع الصحف العربية هنا، عندما كانت تطردني الواحدة تلو الأخرى. خلال تلك المدة لم يسمع بي جاري الأمريكي الذي يسكن البيت المجاور لبيتي. أما اليوم فلقد أصبحت حديث الشارع العربي والخبز الذي تتشاطره العائلة العربية على مائدة العشاء. هناك الكثير من الجمعيات التي تشكلت وتتشكل سريّة على امتداد العالم العربي التي تتبنى أفكاري وتقوم بطبع مقالاتي وتوزيعها. واحدة منها تضم أكثر من خمسة آلاف عضو وتطلق على نفسها "جميعه أصدقاء وفاء سلطان ". إخفاء الحقيقة، يا سيدتي، لا يلغيها! ومهما تجاهلتني وسائل الإعلام العربية، يعلم القائمون عليها بأنني لا أحتاج إلى اعترافهم بي. كتاباتي تثبت وجودي وأهمية هذا الوجود، وشكرا لعصر الإنترنيت الذي لم يحجني إلى تقبيل أياديهم. * في مقابلة لك مع مذيع قناة سي إن إن Glenn Beck قلت بأن الإسلام دين غير صالح للإصلاح وأنه إذا ما أصلح فلن يبقى منه شيء، ثم بعد ذلك قلت بأنك ترغبين في مواجهة المتطرفين الإسلاميين يعني تعترفين ضمنا بأن هناك مسلمين معتدلين؟ - يتوقف الأمر على تعريفنا لكلمة " اعتدال". إذا قصدنا بالاعتدال رفض التورط في الإرهاب والتطرف، فالشريحة المعتدلة من المسلمين كبيرة جدا. أما إذا وسعنا المعنى ليشمل من يرفض التورط ومن يشجب الإرهاب، فستتقلص تلك الشريحة. ثمّ إذا انتقلنا إلى معنى أوسع فشملنا من يرفض ومن يشجب ومن يعترف بالتعاليم التي تحرض عليه، عندها ستخسر تلك الشريحة القسط الأكبر منها. لكن عندما ننتقل إلى التعريف الأوسع و الأشمل وهو من يرفض التورط في الإرهاب ومن يشجبه ومن يشجب التعاليم التي تحرض عليه ومن يسعى لإيقافه ولو بلسانه، سنحتاج إلى مجهر إلكتروني كي نستطيع أن نرى ما تبقى من تلك الشريحة. ويبقى السؤال: أين هم المعتدلون، ولماذا لا نسمع احتجاجهم على ما يجري باسم الإسلام؟!! * هل تعتقدين بأن أكثر من مليار شخص يعتنق الإسلام حول العالم مُغرر بهم؟ - عندما يتعلق الأمر بالعلاقة الغيبية بين الدين والخالق أعتبر أتباع كل الأديان والديانات مغرر بهم وليس المسلمون فقط. لا أؤمن بتلك العلاقة ولا يهمنى البحث كثيرا عن مصداقيتها. يهمني ما جاء في تعاليم الدين، أي دين، وهنا تكمن خطورة التغرير بمليار إنسان. قلت مرارا: آمن بالحجر ولكن لا تضربني بها. نعم أعتبر من يؤمن بالحجر مغرر به، ولكن ليس في الأمر خطورة ما لم يضربني بحجره! عدد المعتنقين لفكرة ما لا يبرهن على مصداقية تلك الفكرة، ولو آمن العلماء بذلك لما استطاعوا أن يقودوا البشرية إلى تلك المرحلة من العلم والتقدم. غاليلو أثبت خطأ ما كان يؤمن به العالم كله، وهو خير دليل وأكبر برهان. هذا من ناحية ومن ناحية أخرى، إذا كان عدد المسلمين يثبت صحة معتقدهم، لماذا لا نعترف بأن المسيحية هي الأصّح مادام عدد الذين يؤمنون بها أكثر بكثير من عدد المسلمين؟ عدد المؤمنين بعقيدة لا علاقة له بقيمة تلك العقيدة ومدى صحّتها! عندما أكون أنا وكل الأمة الإسلامية على طرفيّ نقيض، أمتلك الحق بأن أدافع عن نفسي بنفس المقدار الذي تمتلك به الحق أن تدافع تلك الأمة عن نفسها. البقاء هنا للأصلح، ولا أعتقد بأن أمة تؤمن بالغزو والغنائم وسبي النساء أصلح من امرأة ترفض أن تؤمن بتلك التعاليم، وبالتالي سيكون البقاء حكما لي! * مادام الإسلام دين غير قابل للإصلاح بنظرك، كيف يجب على المجتمع الدولي التعامل مع المسلمين؟ - يجب أن يميّز العالم بين الإسلام والمسلمين. الإسلام جهاز عقائدي والمسلمين بشر ككل البشر فيهم الصالح وفيهم الطالح وعملية تأهيلهم ممكنة. أعتقد أن الحل الوحيد لأزمة اليوم هي في ضمان حرية العقيدة في العالم الإسلامي وفتح ذلك العالم لكل العقائد والأفكار. في تلك الحالة ستتنافس الفلسفات والعقائد والأفكار الأخرى مع الإسلام، وسيفقد عندها الكثير من عنفه وقوته وجبروته. استطاع الإسلام أن يحافظ على نفسه بقوة السيف ومتى نرفع السيف عن رقاب البشر ستخسر تلك العقيدة قدرتها على العنف وبالتالي ستقل خطورتها. إن ضمان حرية العقيدة والاختيار في العالم الإسلامي هو الحل الرئيسي، إن لم يكن الوحيد. كما وأنصح العالم كله بوضع تعريف محدد لمعنى كلمة "دين"، لأن أي تعريف لن ينطبق على الإٍسلام. فالإسلام ليس دينا محض، وإنما دين ودولة، دولة تفرض وجودها بالعنف. ومتى خسر الإسلام الشق الثاني من تركيبته ستقل خطورته. * تقولين بأن موقفك من الإسلام تغير منذ تعرض أستاذك للاغتيال على يد جماعة إسلامية متطرفة عندما كنت طالبة في سوريا، لكن الكثير من الكتاب السوريين نفوا حصول مثل ذلك الحادث واتهموك بتزوير التاريخ، بماذا تردين؟ - ما شاء الله.. ماشاء الله كم هم حريصون على سلامة التاريخ، وكم هو تاريخنا العربي والإسلامي موثق وبريء من التزوير!. من هم هؤلاء الكتاب ولماذا لا نعرف أسمائهم؟ ما الغاية من تكذيبي، هل لتجريد رسالتي من مصداقيتها أم لتبرئة تاريخ الإخوان المسلمين في سورية؟ الدكتور يوسف اليوسف الذي كان طبيب الأمراض العينية في جامعة حلب في أواخر الثمانينيات قتل على يد عصابة الإخوان المسلمين المجرمة ولقد شهدت عملية القتل. الحادثة واقعة تاريخية لا أحد يستطيع إنكارها. رسالتي أقوى من أن تكذب وتاريخ الإخوان المسلمين أجرم من أن يبرّأ. عندما ذكرت تلك الحادثة في أول مقابلة لي، ذكرتها على سبيل المثال وليس الحصر. لم يقتلوا أستاذا واحدا من أساتذتي وإنما قتلوا اثنين آخرين. لقد خسرت في نفس الوقت الدكتور علي العلي الذي اغتالته أياديهم الآثمة وكان قد درّسني مادة علم الحيوان في السنة الثانية في كلية الطب، والدكتور عبد الرحمن هلال وكنت قد تدربت على يديه كطبيب الأمراض العصبية في السنة السادسة في المشفى العسكري في مدينة اللاذقية. لقد أثر فيّ اغتيالهما كما أثر اغتيال الدكتور يوسف اليوسف، ذكرت اغتيال الدكتور يوسف اليوسف فقط لأنني شهدت عملية القتل الوحشية التي تبرهن على دونيتهم العقلية والأخلاقية والإنسانية. لو عرفت بأن ذكر تلك الحادثة سيأخذ تلك الأهمية في الصحافة الأمريكية لكنت قد أسهبت في شرح جرائمهم التي لعبت دورا كبيرا في تغييري وفي موقفي لاحقا من الإسلام كتعاليم إرهابية. لكنني سأتعرض لجرائمهم في سورية بالتفصيل في كتابي الذي سيصدر قريبا وهو بعنوان: السجين الهارب...عندما يكون الله غولا!

The Pope's comments, Islam and its propagation

Below is an article written by a secular Jew. I received via e-mail. It was written as a response to the Pope's comments about Islam and Prophet Mohammad. I think it was wonderfully written very objective and to the point.

Before I get to the article, I have a few comments to make. I have written a response to a secular Iraqi regarding this accusation about Islam before. I posted my response in this blog on March 26th . Please note though that the post is in Arabic.

I think this article is more comprehensive, better written and coming from a Jewish person has a lot more impact and provides more objectivity.

Another comment I would like to make is again shamefully Muslims instead of doing anything remotely as good they resorted to their usual nonsense of condemnation.


Finally, to the Secular Arabs and other people who have leased their brains to the enemies of Islam and allowed them to fill those brains with false facts. Especially those who keep on uttering that Islam was a religion forced by the edge of the sword I say this:

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Only fools have opinions unverified, unthought of, and bised.


Now here is the article ... Enjoy:

Muhammad's Sword

by Uri Avnery

Saturday September 23 2006

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

"The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions."

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

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".

In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

When Manuel II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

Is there any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Religion

I just finished watching a show on the CBC called The Big Picture. It was very interesting to say the least. The guests panel consistent of many people with diverse views or as the Host put it "I think it will be electrifying to see what a big crowd of people – spanning the spectrum from atheists to moderates to people of intense religious faith". The program started of with one topic and quickly jumped to another and then another and so on. Two points are of interest to me namely: Religious faith, and the Existance of God versus Evolution. Since it is late at night and I am tired I will just say a few comments about some memberes of the panel and then give my two cents on it. I shall leave the other topic for another post and possibly more.

Special Guests to the program were:

Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University and Author of The God Delusion
Ronald de Sousa, Emeritus Professor, University of Toronto, Philosophy Department, Atheist extraordinaire
Cheri DiNovo, Reverend, Emmanuel-Howard Park United Church
Charles McVety, President, Canada Christian College
Imam Aly Hindy, Salaheddin Islamic Centre
Alia Hogben, Executive Director, Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Led the fight against bringing Sharia Law to Ontario
Joseph Ben-Ami, Executive Director, Institute for Canadian Values (faith based public policy think tank)
Anver Emon, Islamic law historian, University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, Specializes in Religious Fundamentalism

Out of which Three stood out to be the most ignorent and least tolerant. One of which was smart enough not to say much "Ben-Ami" ; while Aly Hindy luckily doesn't speak English well and thank God for that. Otherwise he would have made a complete fool of himself and put a silver bullet right through the heart of Islam in case people like Bin Laden haven't done so already. Last but definitly not least was McVety, and Evangelical Christian with a mouth acting as his worst enemy. Why are people of faith so closed minded? So intolerant and illogical?

I know for sure the Quran doesn't condone that! One need only count how many times God questions us "Do you not think? Do you not comprehend?"

Most religious people are their own worst enemies. I know that most Muslims are my owm worst enemies and my worst fear. It is worth noting that since the war in Iraq ended and Bush declared victory it was Muslims (or people who call themselves as such) have killed more Iraqis that Americans have.

Afala ta'qiloon? "Do you not dare think?"

Al-Hijab (The head scarf in Quran)

Note: This post has been revised in a later post here. To get the bigger pictures one might want to read this one first, and then the revision.

I think the most common error people make when interpreting the Quran is not paying attention to context. Taking one ayah out of context could easily render the interpretation false. The most obvious example for this is in soorat al-ma'oon (107)
Ayah number 4 God says" Fa Waylon lil mossaleen" "فويل للمصلين " [ Woe to those who worship/pray ] . This ayah taken out of context simply means be careful not to pray. One would think that God doesn't like those who pray. Which we know contradicts many other versus in the Quran stressing the importance of praying. But if we put this back in context the meaning becomes more sensible and in accordance with the rest of the book. I will talk more about context in another post.

Let us get back to the topic at hand. The Hijab or head scarf in particular. As I know there are three main verses which traditional Muslim scholars use to argue that Hijab is obligated by God. One is in soorat al Noor (24) Ayah/verse 31. The other two are in Soorat Al-Ahzaab. The first one is Ayah/verse 33 which specifically talks to the Prophets wives, and the second one is Ayah/verse 59.

I shall discuss Ayah 31 of soorat Al-Noor first and quickly. The English translation according to www.al-islam.com is :

[31] And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands.

For this arguments purpose I shall not get into details about the English translation, but the text in question is highlighted above. God only commands women to hide their bosom or Chest area. The word in Arabic used was Jaib. Jaib is commonly referred to nowadays as the pocket. Which I believe was still the name for pockets back in the old days. Only pockets were commonly placed in the chest area versus the pants or jacket for example. The argument to support this claim is the Quran itself uses the word Jaib in two other versus. Both referring to Moses (PBUH) and one of the Miracles God taught him when he was sent to the pharaoh. God asked Moses (PBUH) to insert his hand into his pocket (which the Bible refers to as the chest area as well) and then take it out to perform the Miracle.

Therefore this Ayah (31:24) clearly is asking Muslim women to cover their bosoms and not referring to covering the hair.

Now as to Ayah 33 in Soorat/Chapter Al-Ahzaab clearly is referring to the Prophets wives only. Proof of that is stated in the verse just before it when God says: " يانساء النبي لستن كأحدٍ من النساء" "Oh women of the prophet , ye are not like any other women." Therefore, these versus clearly cannot be used as an argument to tell other women what they should or should not do.

Finally Ayah 59 of soorat Al-Ahzaab, which probably both traditional scholars and I both agree to be the Ayah were Hijab is most clearly stated in. However, below you will find a point of view not many people talk about. It had occurred to me while reading the Quran and trying to understand it. I think most Muslims have a bad habit with reading the Quran in passing. Not really trying to figure out the message. They simply rely on what old school of thought (or ignorance) tells them.

Little do they know that when God is judging us, they will bare responsibility for their actions and not the scholars. As the Quran clearly states in so many places.

Back to the point of view I mentioned. Let us look at the context of this Ayah and in fact the whole Soorah. This Soorah is clearly Madaniyah ( Revealed in Madinah). The title means the parties or Allies. This is a well known battle that Muslims were attacked by Quraish and other Allies in Madinah. It also talks about the Jews of Banu- Qaynuqaa and their betrayal of the treaty. It talks about the Monafiqoon (hypocrites) whom were hiding their disbelief. It also talks about some social aspects in Madinah. Moreover, there are some versus specifically talking to the Prophet PBUH.

Then we come to the versus in question. Namely, 57, 58, 59, and 60. All are displayed in the figure on the right of this text.

We begin with Ayah 57 which serves as a transition between talking about the Prophet PBUH to talking about those who hurt the believers. Which brings us to ayah 58 loosely translates into : "And those who hurt the believers unjustly will bear responsibility for their actions and sins" " ".
Finally Ayah 59
" يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا " "Oh Prophet instruct your wives, daughters and women believers to cover themselves up with their outer garments so that they shall not be known and thus hurt, and God is Forgiving and Merciful" . Here we note the words so that they shall not be known (identified) and thus hurt. Therefore, God has stated a reason for the cover. Further investigation and pondering of this Ayah reveals the meaning well. I was puzzled when I read this Ayah at first. I thought: OK if all women covered up they will not be identifiable however, won't those who wish to hurt them still know that they are Muslims? It then becomes apparent that for the Muslim women not to be harassed they need to blend in. They need to dress up like other women and therefore not be subject to harassment. How was that possible? It is simple, they would dress like other women in Madinah namely like Jewish women. If one examines the Jewish women's dress code historically and in modern times. It is easy to see that specifically from portraits of Mary the mother of Jesus and other women from her time. Therefore, wearing like other Jewish women in Madinah would help Muslim women blend in and therefore not be subject to harassment.

In conclusion, this means that once Muslim women live in their own society where Muslims are the majority there will no longer be a need for them to cover up their hair. It is a practice that God commanded and has given us the reason. Now that the reason has passed I see no point in covering the hair. Of course if women wish to cover up let them feel free to do so. It is their prerogative. However, this comes to the matter where Muslim women live in the west. Especially in the post 9/11 world. If a Muslim woman feels threat or harassment for wearing a veil and being a Muslim then this is going against the logic behind Ayah 59. God clearly makes protecting women from harm the priority. Therefore, in my opinion women should try to blend in. Of course not bearing skin, showing their bosoms and wearing provocative clothes. As long as it doesn't go against the other commands from God in other versus.

This of course is my humble opinion and I would love to hear some comments.

I had to be a Witness ...

I had to be a Witness to see it so clearly. The title may not suggest what I intend to discuss; however,I am trying to capture the readers attention by it.

While I was attending a Sales and Communication course this morning, I had an epiphany. It made me visualize first hand how the Ahadith (Plural Hadith) have little credibility.


Our instructor was trying to emphasize the importance of taking notes and listening. So he made the group do the following exercise:

He asked 7 people to leave the room first, and then explained the exercise. He was going to read the remaining group (I was one of them) a short story which had a few details. Then he would ask one person to come back into the room. After that he would read the story to the first person alone while asking him not to talk, take notes, nor ask questions; but rather just listen.

Once he finished telling the story to the first person, he asked the second person to walk in the room and asked him again to listen. Only this time, he asked the first person to tell the story as he remembers it. Then asked the third person to walk in and so on ....

As one can imagine, this story went from someone's ear to his tongue and then to another's ear ... By the time the last person restated the story as he remembered, it was a lot shorter, had erroneous details, and even the main message was lost.

Now all of this happened within 20 minutes to half an hour, if not less. I urge whomever is reading this to experiment with this if they can find a willing group of people (9 or more).

Of course after witnessing this, it dawned on me ... Isn't this how the Hadeeth is supposed to have been passed along?

Now is it possible to assume that the Hadeeth is not prone to errors knowing what we know now? After all it was narrated by at least 5 different people over almost 220 years and not 20 minutes.

Therefore, Muslims should not base their lives on Ahadith, nor let it be the base of their religion.

NOTE: To be fair most Ahadith are probably a bit shorter than the story we were told. However, the exercise is still very much valid.


Of course most Muslims reading this will quickly go into denial, start throwing accusations at me and so on. After all how can something they have believed in for so long could be prone to error? How can something their fathers and their great grand fathers have believed in for so long be wrong? How?

The Quran scorns people who have that kind of attitude and gives examples about them. I shall talk about that in a future post.

Now with what I said so far, many people would give me excuses about how Arabs had great memory back then, etc ...

Fine, that's not the only argument I have to state to support my claim. The next argument is, why didn't the Prophet Peace be upon Him order "Katabat il Wahi" his literate loyal followers to write his Ahadeeth (traditions) down? In fact Muslim scholars tell you that he deliberately asked them to refrain from that - then they go on explaining the reason as to not have that mixed with the Quran. The question the becomes: Why do Muslims choose to ignore such an order; while they are so adamant on growing their beards because the Prophet pbuh "commanded them" for example?

My third argument would be to take the Ahadeeth themselves and scrutinize them. One would easily find many contradictions amongst the ahadeeth. I will list some as proof later on.

My fourth argument is that although not many, but some Ahadeeth even contradict the Quran. Ironically some Muslims would rather listen to the Hadeeth than the Quran. Thinking that the Hadeeth is more clear and easier to understand.

My fifth argument is that Muslims believe Christianity and Judaism to be God's religions. We also believe that the Old Testament,and New Testament were God sent in the past; however Muslims say that they have been tampered with or forged if you will ... Either through error or deliberate manipulation. My question is this then. If the Torah was a God sent holy book which lost its purity and was forged, by what logic do you think that Hadeeth is immune to such possibilities?

Finally the last argument is, that Sunna and Shiia both have Haeeth which each group believes in. Neither of the two recognize the others ahadeeth and in fact they don't recognize most of the narrators or Sahaba the followers of The Prophet. Regardless of which group you sympathize with or belong to. Either they are both wrong, or one of them is wrong while the other is right. Regardless of who is right if any, the point is that one of the Ahadeeth collection is error prone and politically motivated. Therefore, has no credibility.

I don't like to go into the Shiia/Sunna debate here. This is not the post for it. I just would like to say that I believe in Islam and only Islam prior to the death of Mohammad pbuh.


I shall leave you with my humble opinion:

I believe the Quran to be the basis for Islam and for it to be your Guide. I do find Ahadith interesting to read specifically those ones that predict the end of time.

Wa Alsalamo Alaikom ...

They conspire and plot , then God plots - يمكرون و يمكر الله -

I am a firm believer in the Quran as a divine book. During the next few posts I shall try to discuss a few ideas about a perfect society if you will or necessary behavior for a people to achieve prosperity.

Of course to achieve the ultimate goal of defeating your enemies and securing your existence, you need to have support from the Most Powerful, the Greatest and the Most Capable God. To achieve that support is what should be your first priority.

Through out history many people have claimed God's favor. Often those claiming his favor are on opposite sides of a battle. Which makes you ask the question, is God really on your side?
The answer is logical, God does not love you because you belong to a group. God does not love you because you belong to a certain race, and believe it or not God does not love you if you follow a certain religion. God will love you based on your actions. God judges you based on your actions, therefore God loves those who please him with their deeds.

I shall discuss this matter in coming posts maybe with references from the Quran. But for now I have this to say:

In Ayah 30 of the Anfal verse:

Which is translated by al-islam.com as:

"Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and Allah too plans, but the best of planners is Allah."

I just remembered how Israel planned and plotted to target Sayid Abbas Al-Mosawi and killed him. I saw the remains of the car he was killed on the news back in 1992. Like most people I didn't know much about Hezbollah back then. Like most people I was weary of them, since I assumed that they want to turn this whole world into a Muslim nation. However, unlike most people I was open minded enough to allow myself to learn the truth and not be blinded by assumptions or mass media influence.

Israel killed Abbas Al-Mousawi to cripple Hezbollah, only God knew what they had planned and he had a better plan as it turns out today. God had Sayid Nasrallah prepared for his duty to lead Hezbollah as a successor of Sayid Abbas may God have mercy on him.

Surely Israel today wishes it had never killed Sayyid Abbas and everyday wishes to kill Sayid Hasan. They will not be able to kill him until God wishes for his death.