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.

Best Nation of People (Ideal Society)

How many Iraqis must die until Muslims start condeming the violence in the name of their religion?

Imagine living in Baghdad, when your neighbour or family member has been kidnapped, beheaded, lost a limb, or if they are lucky have died. Now tell me is it ok for a Muslim to kill your family memeber? A loved one? Is it what the Quran tells you oh Muslim brother to do this?
I would like to know which Ayah actually allows for such behaviour.
Please leave this Muslim brother a comment to enlighten me.

Also what are we doing about the ayah which says "Kontom Khair Ummatin Okhrijat lil-nas, ta'moroon bil ma'roof wa tanhawn a'n il monkar" "You were the best nation of people, for you command everything good and condemn every evil deed. "

So when will you try to live up to your religion?

This Morning in Toronto

While the skeptic in me wonders if what we are told this morning in Toronto about a thwarted terrorist attack is true. I have no doubt that there are some people who are angry enough to want to commit such crimes. Especially young males.

People wake up. It is all too simple. Insight hatred between two rivals and you have a war. The role of the media and fundimentalist preaching or websites is one. One of which to insight hatred and blind zeal in order to prepare the minds of the weak to commit any act they are told to.

Muslims need to know once and for all:
Attacking innocent civilian targets serve no purpose practically and are forbidden by God. After all the biggest sins are well known, Al-Shirk (pageanism), Killing an innocent person ( katl -il Nafs illa bil 7aq), and Adultary (Zina). For all those Muslims who aren't sure what I am talking about, I urge you to read your Quran. I quote one Ayah in soorat Al-Forqaan 68-69 الفرقان

[68] Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred, except for just cause, nor commit fornication, and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. [69] (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,


With that said, I know that today's story has one purpose and one purpose only. It is the precurser for a war yet to come. Whereby when the Canadian Army is asked to kill innocent Iranians or Syrians, they will have full public support behind them,

Yet Another Earthquake

Another Earthquake of a magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale struck this Saturday. According to the BBC, almost 4,900 died.

Last year I was discussing with my friends how the earthquakes seem to occur more frequently nowadays. I have this belief that we are nearing the end of days. Of course I am not alone in this belief; however, most people still think that this some sort of zealous thinking. An old wives tale or something of that sort.

There are many theories about the sign of the end of days. All three major religions talk about such a period. They may disagree on the details and outcomes; however all three share the same general concept.

I shall not get into any of the details in this post; however, I will point out that Earthquakes and natural disasters are common amongst them all.

Last year I decided to track the number of earthquakes and their frequency. As soon as I embarked on that journey, I found out that it wasn't that simple. After all, technically many Earthquakes occurs everyday. However, their magnitude may be low that humans do not feel its occurence. Therefore, the question arose, how can one track the frequency? Should I track Earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 6? If that was the case, I needed historical data. That wasn't hard to find either. In fact with some research I was able to come across articles which discuss frequency. Some suggested that the 70's experienced an increase andd so on ... While the frequency declined in following decades. There was no silver bullet.

Of course I dropped the subject after that and admitted to my friends that I had nothing to go on but personal beliefs. However, the frequncy of news reports on earthquake fatalities certainly is more frequent at least during my lifetime. Surely, we have better news coverage nowadays. However, is it that much different than what we had in the 80's ? How about the 90's ?

Either way, it might not be crystal clear today, I believe it surely will be five years from now. We are living in interesting times.

النازعات

وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا (1) وَالنَّاشِطَاتِ نَشْطًا (2) وَالسَّابِحَاتِ سَبْحًا (3)
فَالسَّابِقَاتِ سَبْقًا (4) فَالْمُدَبِّرَاتِ أَمْرًا (5) يَوْمَ تَرْجُفُ الرَّاجِفَةُ (6) تَتْبَعُهَا الرَّادِفَة 7

سبق و قد نشرت هذا المقال في اللغة الإنجليزية قبل أشهر عدة ولكن حين قرأته لا يتضح معنى الأيات كما أقصدها, لذا قررت أن أنشره بالعربية كذلك. فيه أحاول شرح تفسير معنى النازعات في القران. ليس كما فسرت بكتب التفسير القديمة إنما كرؤية جديدة إتضح لي معناها مؤخراً . قبل شرح الأيات سوف أسرد معاني المفردات في الآيات التي قد تكهن غير واضحة المعنى. أما المفردات مثل سابحات من المصدر سبح فهي لا تحتاج لأي توضيح.

إذاً لو نظرنا إلى الآيات من الآية الأولى إلى الآية السابعة نجد هذه المفردات اللتي قد تحتاج إلى تفسير

1 نازعات
2 ناشطات
3 الرادفة

أما الغرق والسباحه والسبق والرجف فالمعنى واضح وهي كلمات تستخدم يومياً في اللهجات العربية العامّة

أمّا النزع والنازعات فهي كلمة مستعملة في اللهجة العراقية العامّة وتستخدم بمعنى خلع الملابس أي ن

نزع الرجل حذاءه, ونجد هذا المعنى وارد في القران أيضاً في عدة مواضع أذكر منها الآيتين

- " نَزَعَ يَدَهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ بَيْضَاءُ لِلنَّاظِرِينَ " في سورة الأعراف اية 108
يَا بَنِي آَدَمَ لَا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ كَمَا أَخْرَجَ أَبَوَيْكُمْ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ يَنْزِعُ عَنْهُمَا لِبَاسَهُمَا

في سورة الأعراف آية ٢٧"27"
- " نَزَّاعَةً لِلشَّوَى "في سورة المعارج اية 16


أما الاية الأولى فهي تخبرنا عن موسى في الوادي حين كلمه الله تعالى. فأمره الله أن يدخل يده في جيبه ثم يخرجها لتصبح بيضاء. و معنى النزع هنا هو الخلع أيضاً , لكن بدلاً من خلع الثوب من اليد خلعت اليد من الثوب. أو بدلاً من نزع الثوب عن اليد نزعت اليد من الثوب أو الجيب.و ذلك يأتي بمعنى خلع اليد من مكانها في الجيب. أما المعنى الثاني في المثال الثاني فهو كمعنى النزع العراقية العامّة وهو مختص باللباس. بينما المعنى الثالث فهو نزع النار للجلد دون العظام. هذا المعنى وارد في التفاسير القديمة للقران كتفسير إبن كثير وغيرها.


أما المفردة الثانية النشط, فمعناها في العامة الشىء الكثير الحركة أو المداومة كقولنا إنه طالب نشيط. ففي معنى كثرة المداومة و عدم التكاسل. أما المعاني الأُخرى لنشط فنجدها كلاتي


نَشَطَ - [ن ش ط]. (ف: ثلا. لازم، م. بحرف). نَشَطْتُ، أَنْشِطُ، اِنْشِطْ، مص. نَشْطٌ. 1."نَشَطَ مِنْ قَرْيَتِهِ" : خَرَجَ مِنْهَا، غَادَرَهَا. 2."يَنْشِطُ مِنْ بَلَدٍ إِلَى بَلَدٍ" : يَتَحَوَّلُ، يَنْتَقِلُ. 3."نَشَطَتْ بِهِ الْهُمُومُ" : أَزْعَجَتْهُ، أَرْهَقَتْهُ. 4."نَشَطَ الْمَسِيلُ" : خَرَجَ عَنِ الْجَادَّةِ وَتَفَرَّقَ يَمْنَةً وَيَسْرَةً

وأخيراً قبل أن أبدأ بشرح الايات لنذكر كلمة الرادفة ففي المعاجم

رَدَفَ - [ر د ف]. (ف: ثلا. متعد). رَدَفْتُ، أَرْدُفُ، اُرْدُفْ، مص. رَدْفٌ. 1."رَدَفَ خُطُوَاتِهِ" : تَبِعَهُ. 2."رَدَفَ صَاحِبَهُ" : رَكِبَ خَلْفَهُ.

أي الشيء اللذي يتبع.

إذاً لنبدأ بشرح الايات:

النازعات غرقا هي الموج المسمى بالتسونامي Tsunami فهذا الموج المائي ينزع ويخلع ويقلع كل ما على اليابسة من مكانه, فكيف يتم الخلع؟ يتم الخلع بالغرق وجعل الأشياء تحت الماء. و ما يثبت لنا هذا المعنى هي الايات الثانية والثالثة. فالاية الثانية تقول أن هذه النازعات ناشطة تخرج من مصدرها فتتحول و تتنقل من موضعها في البحار والمحيطات حتى تصطدم باليابسة. ففي العام 2004 خرجت الموجة من مصدرها قرب إندونيسيا حتى وصلت ساحل جنوب أفريقا. و هذا هو النشط الخروج من المصدر والتفرق في كل الإتجاهات حتى تصطدم باليابسة.أما كيفية التنقل فهو سبحاً بالماء كما تخبرنا الاية الثالثة.

في مقالاتٍ سبقت كََتبت عن التسونامي و تعريفه بعلم الأرض أو الجيولوجيا. إن شاء القارئ قرأ تلك المقالات أو بحث عن التعريف ومواصفات التسونامي بنفسه. في الصور والوصلة Link التالية يجد القارئ تدوين موجة المحيط الهندي المدمرة في عام2004 قبل و بعد الموجة.

وفي هذه الصورة نجد مدى تلك الموجة. و في الأسفل صورتان تصوران أثر النزع.

أمّا الاية الرابعة فتتكلم عن السابقات. والسابقات هي ليست وصف للنازعات. فحرف الفاء فيه تعقيب زمني. هنا أظن السابقات تعني مسبب التسونامي. فالتسونامي ممكن أن تنتج من الزلازل أو البراكين أو خسف في القشرة الأرضية. إذاً السابقات هي كل ما يسبق النازعات ويسببها كلمة سبق تثبت هذا المعنى. أما المدبرات أمراً فلست أعلم معناها لأن الله هو مدبّر الأُمور فأي شرح مني لهذه الاية هو تخمين. و أخيراً الايات السادسة والسابعة فهي تقع موقع الخبر فتخبرنا عن زمن وقووع النزع. ألا وهو يوم ترجف الراجفة , والراجفة هي الأرض يوم ترجف و تهتز كقوله تعالى "إذا زلزلت الأرض زلزالها" فبعد الرجف يأتي الردف أو الرادفة وهي تشير إلى النازعات هنا والله أعلم.

فيقول القرطبي عن الاية السادسة

وقيل : الجواب " يوم ترجف الراجفة " على تقدير ليوم ترجف , فحذف اللام . وقيل : فيه تقديم وتأخير , وتقديره يوم ترجف الراجفة وتتبعها الرادفة والنازعات غرقا .

إذاً بعد شرح الايات السابقة على حده نحاول تركيبها لنعلم معنى النازعات. تبدأ السورة بالنازعات و هي كلمة لم تستخدم من قبل كإسم لأي شيء في السابق حسب ما وصل إلينا من كتب. لذا فنجد المفسرون يخمنون انها الملائكة مستعنين بالأحاديث. لكن تلك الأحاديث أيضاً فيها إختلاف على معنى النازعات. فمنهم من يقول أنها النجوم, و منهم من يقول هي الموت, ومنهم من يقول هي الملائكة. كذلك نجد أن المفسرون يفسرون كل تلك الكلمات الغير وارده في المعاجم بالملائكة كالمرسلات والصافات ... الخ
إذاً لما لا نبحث عن معناها بالقرآن نفسه فنجد ذلك في تتمة الآيات. فهي تنزع بالغرق و هي ناشطه وهي سابحه فتسبقها سابقات ومدبرات تحدث هذه المدبرات يوم ترجف الأرض{تزلزل} فيتبع الرجف الرادفه {النازعات}. والنشط هو كثرة الحركة والطاقة والإنتشار في كل إتجاه والسفر من مكان إلى مكان وهي سابحة والسباحة تتم بالماء.

و الله أعلم ، فإن كان لدى القرّاء تعليق أرجو منهم التفضل بذلك والسلام.

الإسلام لم ينشر بالسيف ..........................ء

This is an article I wrote as a response to someone criticizing Islam and claiming that it was spread out by the edge of a sword. I wrote a response to her of why I think she was mistaken. Only the text is in Arabic, I shall translate it to English one day.

هذه رسالة كتبتها لأخت إنتقدت الإسلام على انه نشر بحد السيف. ستجدون ردي عليها في الأسفل. مع جزيل الشكر لعمي حسين على تصحيح أخطاءي النحويّه

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


الإسلام لم ينشر بالسيف




إلى الاخت مهى:

بعد التحية يؤسفني ان أقرأ رسالتك عن كيف ان الإسلام نشر بالسيف لأنك لم تقدمي أي دليل على ما تقولين إنما تكتبين ما تكتبين كأنَّه الواقع. هو ليس إلا ترديداً لما تسمعينه من أعداء الإسلام كدين أو فكر او من المسلمين مِمَّن يرفض التفكير و يأخذ ما وصل إليه من 14 قرناً كأن ما مسَّهُ تغيير أبداً.

تتكلمين عن شعوب العالم العريقه كأنك لا تعرفينها. فلو عرفتها ما تكلمت عنها بإعجاب. فتلك الشعووب التي تقصدينها {أعتذر إن أخطأ ظنّي} بدساتيرها تقتل أبناء بلدك و تلوث تربة وطنك بسم اليرانيوم المخصب فتقتل وتشوّه بها أبناء العراق حتى قبل أن يولدوا.

في رسالتك تتقبلين أن القوانين الدولية خالية من العيوب و أنه يجب علينا إتباع العالم و إن كان على خطأ. تتكلمين عن حقوق المرأة و العبودية و الديموقراطية كأن تلك المفاهيم كتبت للإنسان من خالقه او هي مفاهيم خاليه من العيوب . تلك يا أُختي مفاهيم من إستعمرنا و من وضع صدّامنا و من قتل اطفالنا. إن رسالتي هذه تطرح فكرة أن تلك المفاهيم هي ليست مثالاً عملياً للإنسان و لا للشعوب.

إسمحي لأن ارد على النقاط التي تذكرينها كالآتي:

لكي أشرح لك مفهومي يجب علينا أن نطلع على بعض حقائق العالم.


أولاً فإن التاريخ يكتبه القوي. وإن حاولنا أن نعرف من هو القوي أو من كان الأقوى في القرن الماضي كله لنجدنـّه الغرب بشتى ألوانه و على رأسه الدول الغربية المملكة المتحدة و الولايات المتحدة و فرنسا. كل من تلك الدول قد أمسك اليهود الصهاينة بزمام أمورها منذ نهاية القرن التاسع عشر أو حتى قبل ذلك. فهم امتلكوا الأموال والمناصب الحكومية المهمة ما وراء الرؤساء. كانوا و ما زالوا مستشارين و فنانين و أطباء و محامين وأساتذة جامعات إلخ. فهدفهم السيطرة من دون أن يعلم الناس أنهم مسيطرون. لدرجة أن الكثير من اعمدة المجتمع عندهم من غير اليهود كأمثال هنري فورد و جورج واشنطن و مفكرين في روسيا و هتلر في ألمانيا و غيرهم أرادوا أن ينبهوا مواطنيهم عن سيطرة اليهود والخطر الصهيوني. لذا يجب علينا أن نعلم أن التاريخ يمكن أن يكون قد زوِّر من قبل اليهود أو غيرهم. سوف أعطي مثلاً على ذلك لاحقاً.

الحقيقة الثانية هي أن عبر 1400 سنة تقريباً يجب أن يصلنا ما يصلنا من الإسلام مع بعض الزيادة اوالنقصان. فهو كأي مفهومٍ أو فكرة او حدث خاضع للتغير و التحريف لأغراضٍ سياسية أوشخصية أو عن طريق الخطأ عبر العصور.

ثالثاً: إننا نعيش في زمنٍ يختلف تماماً عن سائر الأزمان ناتجاً عن نضوج العالم وإنتشار العلم والمعلومات والأساليب التي تتيح للإنسان للسفر بسرعة ولأن ينشر المعلومات{الصادقة و الكاذبة} بسرعة فائقة بشتى طرق الإتصالات السلكية واللاسلكية. حتى أصبح العالم صغيراً جداً. فأصبح الإنسان يتكلم لغةً واحدة{الإنجليزية} لدرجة أن حدثاً واحداً مثل الحادي عشر من أيلول كان له تأثير على سائر بقاع الأرض.


رابعاً: يصعب على الإنسان الجزم بأي أمرِ من الأُمور ما لم يكن لديه كل الأدلّه تحت متناول يده. لذالك ما سأحاول إثباته هو الرأي الأرجح و ليست الحقيقة المطلقة.

و الحقيقة الأخيرة هي عن الإسلام: إن المصدر التشريعي الأول و الذي لا تختلف عليه الطوائف والفرق هو القرآن. فهو كتاب يسلم به من يؤمن به على أنه لم يتغير منذ نزوله.

إذاً بعد التسليم بالحقائق أعلاه سوف ارد على إعتقادك و إعتقاد الآخرين الخاطئ عن الإسلام.

الإسلام نشر بالسيف:


لو كان الإنسان نشر بالسيف حقاً لزهق منذ قرون.
فما ينشر بالسيف يزهق بالسيف أيضاً . فما أكثر السيوف والقنابل التي انهالت على دول المسلمين! ثم لو كان الإسلام انتشر بالسيف فآن الأوان له أن لا ينتشر بعد أن سلب السيف منه. فها هي تلك دول المسلمين تنهال عليها سيوف القرن الواحد و العشرين. لكن لو تسمعين ما يقوله أعداء الإسلام عن أي دين هو اسرع إنتشاراً بالعالم اليوم رغم كل ما يواجهه من متاعب.
أنا لا أقول أن المسلمين لم يحاربوا أحداً. لكن حروبهم في أيام محمد كانت رداً على إعتداءات الشعوب و القبائل. و كانوا دائماً هم أقل عدداً في حروبهم, فلِمَ يخوضون حروباً معتدينً وهم الأضعف؟

كان الإسلام قبل 1400 سنة يمثل الديمقراطية و الحرية التي يتراكض الجميع وراءها الآن {كما أظنك تفعلين}. كان الإسلام فكراً جديداً يحفظ حقوق الضعيف و القوي، الغني و الفقير، الحر و العبد، المرأة و الرجل. إن كان لديك شك في كلامي فأنظري من هم أول من أسلم في تاريخ هذا الدين و من هم الذين ذهبوا الى الحبشه. كانوا جميعا من النساء والعبيد والضعفاء. ثم أنظري كيف أنهى الرسول حربه مع أشد أعدائه الا وهم كفار قريش؟ فأنظري إلى وصف القرآن كفار قريش لتعلمي ما أقصد . لأجيب على سؤالي، فلقد تم فتح مكة سلمياً من دون إزهاق أرواح فدخلها محمدا الأقوى. فما حارب محمد الناس ظالماً جبّاراً.

ثم لننظر الى الدول التي ينتشر فيها الإسلام. لنجدها اكثر الدول تتعدد بها الأديان كالعراق مثلاً أو لبنان و فلسطين و مصرو الهند. بينما دول الغرب كانت كلها مسيحية و يهوديه قبل الهجرات المعاصرة. في حين لم يبقى مسلماً واحداً في إسبانيا بعد ان أخرجوا المسلمين منها.

ثم لننظر ما كتبه أعداء الإسلام عن عدوهم في الحروب الصليبية. مع إن ما كتبوه لا يطابق ما كتبه أجدادنا إلا أننا نجد في آدابهم كثيرا من المديح عن صلاح الدين.

لدي سببان آخران لتفكري بهما. الأول هو ان اكبر دول العالم الإسلامي سكاناً اليوم هي إندونيسيا. وهي دولة لم تقع بها أي معركة من معارك المسلمين. إنما أسلم اهلها عبر العصور عن طريق التجارة مع الهند. السبب الثاني هو ما حدث بعد الغزو المغولي. فقد انخرط الغزاة في دين المغزيين حتى أصبح الإسلام هو الدين الرسمي للدولة المغولية في أوائل القرن الرابع عشر.

لذا ما أرجوه منك يا مهى هو ان تكوني موضوعية في تحليلك و لا ترددين اقوال الغير بدون أن تفكري فيما يزعمون. الإسلام إنتشر لأنه قدم للإنسان قبل 1400 سنة فكراً عادلاً يخدم جميع أفراد المجتمع. و سوف يعلم العالم بانه ما زال فكراً صالحاً لعصرنا هذا.


الرجم للزانية والزاني:

ليس للرجم ذكر بالقرآن إلا بعشرة مواضع أغلبها وَصفِهِ تعالى للشيطان. أما الرجم للزاني فهو من صنع الإنسان. فكثير من التشريعات الإسلامية اليوم لاذكر لها بالقرآن . ففي سورة النور حكم الله في الزاني والزانية. الا وهو الجلد لكلاهما مئة جلدة. فليس هناك تفرقة بين الرجل والمرأة. رجم الزاني والزانية هو حكم جاء من التوراة {إبحثي عن تلك الحقيقة إن شئت}.

الجزية لأهل الكتاب:

بما ان موقفك هو موقف شخص ذي ميول غربية و ترين ان ما يطبقون من قوانين هي قوانين عدالة، إذاً لماذا لا تمانعين فرضهم الضرائب على مواطنيهم و على من هو ليس من سكان بلدهم؟
للجزية حكمة يا مهى. فعلى المسلم دفع الزكاة للفقراء والمحتاجين. إن اراد الكتابي ان يعيش بين المسلمين تحت دولة الإسلام فمن العدل أن يدفع الجزية كما يدفع أخوه المسلم زكاةً يحق لأيٍ منهما أن يستلمها إن كان محتاجا.

الديموقراطية:

غريبٌ المنطق الذي تتكلمين به. فأنت سرت في خطا أنصار الديموقراطية وانتخبت. إذاً الآن وجب عليك ان تتقبلي نتائجها ولو لم يعجبك المنتخب كما هو الحال في العراق المشؤوم. إعلمي ان الشورى هي فكرة جاء بها الإسلام منذ ظهر. وهي الديموقراطية التي تريدين. لعلمك عين أبو بكر خليفة على المسلمين إنتخاباً , قبل ان يخلق الغرب. ولا تنسي أنه حين كتب الغرب دستوره كان ما برح أن أباد الهنود الحمر و إستعبد الأفارقة . لن أدخل هنا في تفاصيل الخلاف بين أهل السنة والشيعة في من هو أحق بالخلافة. والمغزى هنا ليس للقول ان ولاية ابوبكر هي ولاية بالحق ام لا. إنما هذا مثال على ما تعلّمه المسلمون من رسولهم, الا وهو أهمية الشورى و وجودها قبل أن يختلط الإنسان العراقي بالغرب بأكثر من الف سنة.


الزواج:

للزواج من أربع أحكام و فوائد لن أدخل بها. إن اردت إبحثي عنها بنفسك ثم إسأليني لاحقاً.
أما عن منتقدي الزواج من أربعة, فلو ننظر إلى مجتمعهم لنجده أسوأ المجتمعات من ناحية الروابط الأُسرية. كيف لنا أن نأخذ المنطق ممن ليس لمنطقه أي منفعه عملية ؟ ففي الغرب ليس للزواج قيمة. والزواج هو أسمى إتفاقيَّة و عقد بين الناس. في دولهم الجميع ينكح الآخر دون أي عواقب. فتحمل النساء ويهرب الرجال وتخلق أسر من دون آباء. و تترك النساء من دون مساعد. فتعمل و تشقى و تركض بين الأطفال و عملها. فلا تستطيع بالتالي لا أن تربي أطفالها كما يجب ولا أن تتفوق في عملها إن شاءت. أما الآن فهم يتراكضون لتشريع زواج الرجال من بعضهم والنساء من بعضهن, و ما زالوا ينتقدون أخلاقنا وزواجاتنا. عجباً عجبا. اما أطفالهم دون سن السابعة عشرة فهم أيضاً ينكحون بعضهم البعض. لا يحفظ قانونهم حق الطفلة يوم تحمل وهي إبنة التاسعة ما دام من ينكحها دون سن السابعة عشرة{قاصراً} يا مهى. من ذا الذي يرعى المولود حينئذٍ يا مهى؟ على الأقل إ ن تزوجت إبنة التاسعة فان على زوجها واجبٌ تجاهها في الإسلام.

أنا لا أشجع زواج إبنة التاسعة, لكني أرى أن للحياة{لم أقل للخالق لعلي أخاطب العلمانيين} قوانين تفرضها علينا نحن البشر. كأن تلد المراة ولا يلد الرجل. كأن يأكل الأسد الغزال عوضاً عن الزرع. فإن تلك الحياة تفرض على المرأة أن تبلغ في سن التاسعة فالحياة تقول لنا أنّها قابلة للإنجاب والتكاثر. إن قبلت هي بالزواج وقبل أهلها {علمأً بأن قبولهم أحد شروط الزواج} كان كذلك.

حق المرأة:

حق المرأة كحق الرجل أما كيفيتها فغير كيفيته. فهي تلد وهو لايلد, وهي ترضع وهو لايرضع. هي تملك عواطف غير التي
يملكها الرجل من هذا المنطلق يقول القرآن:

. ‘"الرجال قوامون على النساء بما فضَّل الله بعضهم على بعض و بما انفقوا من اموالهم "‘.

فليس للرجال فضلٌ على النساء فقط كما يدعي علماء المسلمين. إنما لكلٍ فضل على الآخر . وإلا فيقول بما فضلهم عليهن. أمّا القيام فهو ليس الأمر والنهي بل هو كثرة القيام ودوامه والمثابرة والإقبال على فعل الشئ من ناحية. كأن يقول فإذا قمتم إلى الصلاة . ولنعلم معنى القيام ههنا يجب علينا ان نبحث في القرآن كل السور التي تذكر كلمة قوّامون و مشتقاتها. هنالك 133 موقعاً ذكرت به مشتقات قام. أغلبها كلمة القيامة. وهي كما جاء وصفها بالقرآن "‘يوم يقوم الحساب"‘ و "‘يوم تقوم الساعة"‘. و في مواضع أخرى القيام هو الإعتدال أي من إستقام والعدالة. كما في قوله الدين القيّم, هذا المعنى فيه تفضيل و تقديم. و كما في قوله كونوا قوّامين لله شهداء بالقسط. والقيام يأتي أيضاً بمعنى السهر وقلّة النوم على حاجتها. كذلك قول الشاعر "قم للمعلم وفِّه تبجيلا " ففيه إحترام. فإن فعل لها الرجل كل هذا وجب عليها تقدير فضله عليها. كما للوالدين فضل على أولادهما. انا استغرب من تفسير الشيوخ لهذه الآية خصوصاً مع قوله تعالى "‘يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ"‘
هذه الآية صريحة بوجوب العدل حتى ولو على نفسكم يا رجال التفسير. فهم تركوا مسؤوليتهم دون ذكر. لن أتعمق بهذا الموضوع أكثر. لكني سأشير إلى أن للمرأة أيضاً واجب تجاه الأسرة والأطفال وكل عاقل عادلٌ مع نفسه يعلم تلك الواجبات.


أخيراً سأنتهي بنقدي لأعداء الإسلام لأنهم ينتقدونه إنتقاداً غير عادلً. يعتمدون كثيراً على ترديد إنتقادات الغرب الواهية. فمن كان بيته من زجاج ....إلخ. هم و دساتيرهم أكثر الناس إجراماً في هذا القرن والقرن الماضي. ثانياً أن الإسلام هو غير المسلمين. فهو من غيرالمنصف أن تحكموا على فكر, مشوه وما طبق حق تطبيقه. أو أن تحكموا عليه لأنكم لا تريدون أن تمتنعوا عن شرب الخمرة أو الصلاة خمس مرات يومياً. فكرة الإسلام هو أنه دين من الله. فإن كان حقاً كذلك فمهما صعب و شقَّ علينا إتباع شرائعه فهو واجب. فإن اردتم ان تنتقدوا مصداقيّته فإنتقدوا وجود الله و قدسية القرآن.

فأرجو منك يا مهى أن تعاودي البحث والنظر في ما تقولين وإن أردت بعد ذلك النقاش فأنا حاضر. أنا لا أتوقع منك أن تقتنعي بكل ما أقول, لكن هدفي هو ان تبدئي البحث بنفسك و أن أجعلك تفكرين. فعراقنا لن ينجو من مشاكله قبل ان يعلم كل عراقي ما هي المشاكل و من وراءها و من وراء صدام؟ و من وراء الزرقاوي؟ و ما هو الإسلام حقاً؟ ولماذا يحدث لنا ما يحدث؟ الجواب هو لأننا نجهل. ولا خلاص لنا ما دمنا جاهلين. ولا خلاص لنا ما دمنا ننظر إلى الأمور من منظارٍ واحد. فما هي مصلحة العراقي في أن يفجر مركز الأمم المتحدة؟ إن العالم كله في جهل. فهناك من يخلق المشاكل والحروب ليزيد من سيطرته على العالم. وينال مبلغه من جميع الشعوب و الناس نيام.فأهم سؤال يسأله الباحت هو‘‘من هو أكبر مستفيد من أي حدث؟ من هو أكبر مستفيد من غزو الكويت؟‘‘ فإن بالحقيقة الخلاص.
“The truth shall set you free”
. مشكلة كل الشعوب هي أن المفكرين قلّة والمرددين كثيرون. فكفانا ترديداً و هلم بنا للتفكير بكل ما نردد. . لنخاطب المسلمين بالإسلام.

‘‘ إن الله لا يغير ما بقوم حتى يغيروا ما بأنفسهم‘‘
‘‘كنتم خير أمةٍ أخرجت للناس تأمرون بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر‘‘ لو كنا ننهى عن منكر صدام منذ بدء جرائمه لما حدث بنا ما حدث.

The Nation's situation "حال الأمة"

I was watching a movie the other day "Ghost and the Darkness" and a line in the movie caught my attention. Of course gaining wisdom from a Hollywood movie is not what this post is all about. Without allowing myself to get sidetracked from my intended topic I shall disclose the quotation from the movie:

Plot: Set in 1896, a bridge construction engineer of the British Army, John Patterson (Val Kilmer) is sent to build a railway bridge across Uganda's Tsavo River for the British East African Railway. He was given an aggressive schedule, in order to complete the bridge before the French or the Germans complete their railways first.
He was confident that he would be able to meet his deadline since through out his career he has demonstrated that in other continents.

John found out that his biggest obstacle was an unusual one. Two Lions unlike other normal beasts started attacking his workers. Killing up to 30 to 40 people. Despite all his attempts to kill those lions he fails. Prompting him to request for an infamous professional lion hunter Remmington (Michael Douglas). Both of them yet again struggle with their attempts to hunt those lions. Those lions unlike any of their species hunted in pairs. Which according to the movie that never happens. Furthermore, they weren't killing out of hunger, but rather for the hell of it.

At this stage of the movie, all the workers have fled, leaving only 3 people trying to hunt those lions. While the Engineer and the Hunter were going after the lions to hunt them, this dialouge occurs:

Remington: "When I was growing up there was a bully in my hometown he used to
terrorize everybody. He wasn't the problem. He had a brother worse than him, but he wasn't the problem either... One or the other was always in jail.

The problem was when they were together .. Alone they were just bullies but together ... Phew ... they were leathal ... they were real killers"

John: "What happened to them?"

Remington: "Well I got bigger" ... Then he walks away.

This of course applies to the real world oh so well. Many nations have bullied others in this world. The end result will always be the same. Just like everything else in this world, they have an end. Every nation in history has lost its power only to have a place in history books. The question to be asked here is this: When will this end be? When will the bullying of our nation stop? The answer is as per the quotes above. WHEN WE GET BIGGER.

Therefore, until this nation gets bigger and not in size, but in wisdom we will continue to be bullied around. Getting bigger of course is subject to many interpretations. I shall present mine in another post.

Tsunami in the Quran Naazi'aat "نازعات "

وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا (1) وَالنَّاشِطَاتِ نَشْطًا (2) وَالسَّابِحَاتِ سَبْحًا

(3) فَالسَّابِقَاتِ سَبْقًا (4) فَالْمُدَبِّرَاتِ أَمْرًا (5) يَوْمَ تَرْجُفُ الرَّاجِفَةُ

(6) تَتْبَعُهَا الرَّادِفَةُ

So here is what I believe to be reference to Tsunamis and a detailed explanation as well.

I will explain each word unless it is pretty obvious like in the third verse/ayah "سابحات سبحاٌٌ" "Saabihaat sabhaa" or "Saabi7aat Sab7aa" . Which means those which swim.

OK let me start with the first Ayah as in the picture on the left and the text above.

Al-Naazi3aat / Naazi'aat "نازعات" This comes from the root naza'a or naza3ah. Which means to rip off/peel/extract or take off something. It usually indicates that something is taken off/extracted while leaving another behind. So in Iraqi we would say "Inza3 thawbak" "Take of your shirt". That is also used in the Quran in other places I will name 3:
1- Soorat Al-A3raaf(7) ayah 108نَزَعَ يَدَهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ بَيْضَاءُ لِلنَّاظِرِينَ ":
2- Soorat Al-A3raaf(70 ayah 27: يَا بَنِي آَدَمَ لَا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ كَمَا أَخْرَجَ أَبَوَيْكُمْ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ يَنْزِعُ عَنْهُمَا لِبَاسَهُمَا
3- Soorat Al-Ma3arij(70) ayah 16: "نَزَّاعَةً لِلشَّوَى "

Nazza3ah lil shawa means it peals of the skin. Now since there is only mention of the skin here, one would conclude that it leaves the bones behind. This is according to old interpretations for those skeptical Muslims.

As for the first example, it is telling the story of Moses when he had an encounter with God and God was teaching him how to perform miracles. God in this verse tells us that he Naza3/Naza' his hand, as in slipped it out. Which is the inverse so to speak of the clothes being peeled off. It still however supports the meaning of leaving something behind. While the second example is used in common Arabic today especially Iraqi which is to take-off.

Now comes the second word of the first verse. Gharqaa "غرقا " which comes from the root Gharaq, which is to drown or to submerge under water. Feel free to research those words at Sakhr.

Therefore, by putting those two words together we can see that God is talking about Those things which: Peal off, extract or rip off through submergence under water. Nazi3aat being a name given to a thing which performs the nazi3. "إسم فاعل " Which is an accurate description of what a Tsunamis main impact is. As described in previous posts Tsunamis might go by unnoticed until they hit the shore. Of course relative to the people on the shores the destruction may not seem like peeling, but if you think of the destruction relative to the wave it is but clearing out a thin layer.Below are some pictures I found on the Web to help you make the correlation . These pictures were taken via satellite before and after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami hit.









Now comes the not so obvious part. I had a harder time understanding the second verse/ayah:
"والناشطات نشطا " since there is no other reference to it in the Quran. Naashitaat, comes from the root Nashata. Which has several meanings the most common usage is to be full of energy. Actually I can't think of an equivalent meaning in the English language. However, the Arabic Mo'jam has this to say


نَشَطَ - [ن ش ط]. (ف: ثلا. لازم، م. بحرف). نَشَطْتُ، أَنْشِطُ، اِنْشِطْ، مص. نَشْطٌ. 1."نَشَطَ مِنْ قَرْيَتِهِ" : خَرَجَ مِنْهَا، غَادَرَهَا. 2."يَنْشِطُ مِنْ بَلَدٍ إِلَى بَلَدٍ" : يَتَحَوَّلُ، يَنْتَقِلُ. 3."نَشَطَتْ بِهِ الْهُمُومُ" : أَزْعَجَتْهُ، أَرْهَقَتْهُ. 4."نَشَطَ الْمَسِيلُ" : خَرَجَ عَنِ الْجَادَّةِ وَتَفَرَّقَ يَمْنَةً وَيَسْرَةً.

Which I will try to translate to the best of my ability:
1- To leave and depart ones village
2- To travel from one country to another
3- To occupy ones mind
4- For liquid spill and/or depart in all directions.

As we can see this is an amazing accurate description of the ripple effect of a wave. We all know what happens when we throw a stone into water. We all know the ripple effect all too well. Water travels in all directions with little resistance to reach distant places. Please feel free to read about how far the 2004 Tsunami traveled from around Indonesia. The Indian Ocean Tsunami was said to have hit the Eastern Shores of South Africa. Here is a picture

The third ayah confirms that the traveling occurs in water. As Al-Saabi7aat Sab7aa suggests.

The fourth ayah I believe is where the description ends. This refers to the cause of a Tsunami rather than the description of it. Of course what could cause a Tsunami is anything from a landslide to an Earthquake or Volcano. Proof to my claim that this is not part of the description is the prefix "Fa" rather than "wa". Also the literal meaning Saabiqaat. That which precedes.

Now the fifth ayah I need help in understanding, but the literal meaning is "Those which make things happen". Which could support my claim that the Saabiqaat are nothing but which make the Tsunami happen. However, I am not certain.

The versus after that start talking about things that will happen at the end of times. We know from several other chapters in the Quran that at the end of days we will have unprecedented Earthquakes. Which would then mean that Al-Naazi3'aat are not one but many Tsunamis when the time comes for life to seize on earth.

In conclusion, I welcome any comments on this matter. I am but a man who I believe God has helped understand the Quran as the ayah suggests
"وَلَا تَعْجَلْ بِالْقُرْآنِ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ يُقْضَى إِلَيْكَ وَحْيُهُ وَقُلْ رَبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا"

Tsunami's: My own research.

A bit of research and here is a description of a Tsunami from Wikipedia:

Although often referred to as "tidal waves", a tsunami does not look like the popular impression of "a normal wave only much bigger". Instead it looks rather like an endlessly onrushing tide which forces its way around and through any obstacle. Most of the damage is caused by the huge mass of water behind the initial wave front, as the height of the sea keeps rising fast and floods powerfully into the coastal area. The sheer weight of water is enough to pulverise objects in its path, often reducing buildings to their foundations and scouring exposed ground to the bedrock.


According to PBS A Tsunami is describe as:

• A vast volume of seawater in motion
• They are creatures of the open ocean, trains of giant waves that can travel for thousands of miles across the sea and still pack enough energy to smash towns and drown the unwary

So why am I interested in Tsunamis and what is this post for? Well because I believe that the Quran talks about them. I shall give more details in my next post.

The First Sin

The first Sin recorded in the Quran to be that of Iblis (Satan) refusing to obey God's orders and bow down to Adam as God has ordered. In Surat Al-Baqara verse [aya 34]God says : "they all bowed except for Iblis, he denied and was haughty. "

When Satan was asked why he refused his answer was "You created me from Fire and created him from Clay".

Therefore it was obvious that the first recorded Sin was disobeying God due to racism. To judge someone by means other than what they have done. We often do that, we jump into conclusion about people because of nationality , religion, race, clothing style, etc ... Lesson to be learnt here is to judge people only by what they do.

How would one describe a Tsunami?

If someone would describe a Tsunami, how would you go about doing that using as little words as possible.

For example, to describe an earthquake one would say:
Vibration, pressure release, destruction ... and so on.

I would like to receive comments about this. Please feel free to write your responses.

John Hagee

I just finished watching a sermon by John Hagee, an evangalist pastor full of hateful sermons about Islam. What can I say? No wonder the US sends soldiers to kill heartlessly all over the planet. He has not let any nation escape his lies.

At the end of the sermon of course is his time to make money. The man of God sells those books to you. He also writes them pretty quickley it seems. The latest one has the Iranian president's face on it. Claiming "Iranian President vowed to have Israel Blown of the map". Now pastor Hagee , do you really have to lie? Isn't that a sin? Or do you speak Farsi while the rest of us don't?

Here is what BBC reported ....

Should I listen to my Sheikh/Imam or the Quran?

I don't know if this is the official website for Al-Azhar ? There are two websites, the other one is here. I can't tell which one is which. I sure hope its not the first though. Because they seem to teach "Mental Arts" and God help us for that.

Some readers may think I am mocking them. I am not ... I Just feel sad that we lack decent leadership. I feel sad since many people think that Al-Azhar is a source of religious knowledge. Islam is not what it should be, nor is it what it used to be. Muslims miss the point big time. They think that Islam is about not drinking Alcohol or eating pork. They think that Islam is about growing a beard, wearing a veil, or being forceful. Islam is none of that ... In fact only some of those things are mentioned in the Quran. Islam is simply about God. It is about worshiping and believing in God. This worship entails not to eat pork and to avoid Alcohol, but its not about doing those things. Many Muslims try to tell you that eating Pork is unhealthy and so on. Well, it may or it may not be. The point is that God has decreed it to be forbiden for Muslims. Therefore, it is part of your belief and duty towards him to avoid what is forbiden. I don't necessarly believe that Pork is bad for your health. It is sort of like avoiding fishing on a Saturday for the Children of Israel. It was but a test for them. It is about what you are willing to give up to show loyalty.



That is besides the point. The point I am trying to make is that through out the 14 centuries since Mohammaed peace be upon him delivered his message. It is only logical that religion has changed. Especially due to language issues. Arabic spoken today in the streets is not the same Arabic that was spoken in his time. Time and passing generations also play an important role. Moreover, many nations have come and gone. There were many conflicts, assassinations, a lot of politics etc. They all played a role in forming the Islam we have received. Only one thing remained unchanged through out this time however. It is the Quran.

God did not give us the Quran just because ... It is what made me believe. It is what Mohammad used as proof that he is a messenger of a divine being. It is what drew many of the early believers to Islam. It is what the prophet used to argue his message to Quraish and their mockery. It is what he used to convince the people of the book.

How come we don't use it anymore? The Prophet never used "Hadeeth" to convert people. The Quran is a great book. It is not for us to read in Ramadhan and collect hasanaat. That is but a misconception. I don't know where that came from!

Anyone can state an opinion of course, I will however try to prove mine. First of all, I need a starting point. I choose to state as a starting point that the Quran is the word of God. Of course not many people believe this. However, I am not preaching Islam here. My objective is an open dialogue with other Muslims.

Since the Quran is the word of God and no Muslim can by definition deny that. Then I will use verses from the Quran to make my point.

Therefore, let us look at the word "Quran" alone "قران" within the book itself. Not taking into account words like Forqan, Thikir and so on. Because there are other names for the Quran. We will find that it has 43 occurrences.


I will not list all of the 43 occurrences however I will point out 16 of those. Then categorize those occurrences based on the meaning of the ayah.
[note that this research is as accurate as the tools I used to conduct the search, in other words if the program that I searched with did not pick up certain occurrences then this search will be incomplete]

1. Four Occurrences state that the Quran contains "Amthaal" "أمثال" which would mean in English Analogy, Correlation, or metaphor. I will quote from soorat Al-Zomor [39] and verse [aya 27]: "و لقد ضربنا للناس في هذا القران من كل مثل لعلهم يتذكرون" "We have set forth for people, in this Quran every kind of Parable, in order that they may refer to it" Of course a lot can be lost upon translation. Therefore, please forgive me if I err. The other three are from soorat Al-Room, Al-Israa', and Al-Kahaf.
2. Four Occurrences state that God made the Quran easy to read, recite and refer to in soorat Al-Qamar [54] "ولقد يسرنا القران للذكر فهل من مدكر" "And we made the Quran easy for understanding/remembering/refrencing so are there any reciters?" . Two Occurrences also refer to the Quran as "Thikra" "ذكرى" as in a reminder; one of which is in soorat Al-Israa' [17] and verse [aya 41].
3. Three Occurrences state the this Quran is a source of guidance "Huda" "هدى" one of which is also the first occurrence in the Quran in soorat Al-Baqarah [2] verse [aya 185].
4. Two occurrences ask do they not contemplate "Tadabbor" "" the Quran? "Do they not contemplate the Quran or are their hearts sealed?" " أفلا يتدبرون القران أم على قلوبٍ أقفالها". Soorat Mohammad [47] verse [24].
5. In One occurrence the Prophet peace be upon him says to God: "And the messenger said Oh my Lord my people[clan] have disregarded the Quran" "وقال الرسول يا ربي إن قومي اتخذوا هذا القران مهجورا" in soorat Al-Forqaan [25] verse [aya 30].

Most of the remaining 43 occurrences refer to the Quran as being a "Hijja" "حِجَّه" Affirmation, proof, assertion, or evidence. Again there are many other names for the Quran that I could search for. That would require some research to list them all.

I am like every other human being, subject to making mistakes and misjudgment. Therefore, my goal is not to preach but to get people thinking.

To politicize or not to politicize

Even though this post is supposed to discuss theology rather than politics, I keep finding myself being urged to write about politics never the less. Which begs the question, can religion and politics be seperate?

The answer seems to be No. The reason for that is that religion is mainly a way of life. A way of life which instructs the believer to follow certain guidlines. Usually, they lead into the formation of a community and an institution. Therefore, the well being of that community as whole is what causes religious leaders to get involved in politics.

With that said, I will try to refrain as much as possible from getting too political in this Blog.

Freedom of speech (The solution to the clash of Civilizations)

Despite my condemnation of the riots and the way the reaction of Muslims was. I must express my disappointment with the way the Canadian Media has been handling this issue.

Not to be specific but I was just watching TVO's "Studio 2" with host Paula Todd this evening. Whereby she kept on pushing the argument that the Danish Papers had every right to publish those cartoons. Shortly after that I saw Steve Paikin so smoothly lay blame on Arab Media publishing hate filled cartoons.

I am certainly not pleased with my people. There is mention that Muslims are hypocrites and they allow cartoons to be published which demonize Israelis; yet they are offended by the Prophets Cartoons. Well Paula and Steve I have news for you. Israel doesn't necessarily publish love caricatures of Arabs either. Though it is funny I never seem to hear anything about that in the news. The problem with this world is its full of hypocrites. The West is full of it, so is the Islamic world. There is only one difference, the west meddled in the Middle East way before the first cartoon or bullet was fired. Since the start of the 20th century and Her Majesty's soldiers have stepped on many tombs. Well... it was his Majesty at the time ... Shortly there after it was the Zionists. Then shortly thereafter it was good Ole Uncle Sam.

So I hope you forgive us if we seem a little bitter [sarcasms] towards the west. Forgive us if we seem skeptical about your good democratic intentions and if we don't believe you when you declare it is Freedom of Speech.

Alas, I have a fail safe solution to this "Clash of Civilization", it even comes with two options:

A: To prove your true intentions that the west is FREE to speak. Then get those "Damn Muslims" to shut up ... Go ahead and insult the rest of the worlds nations. Practice what your preach. WAIT!!! I am not going to leave you with that ... I have figured it all out for you ....

• To offend the Catholics, lets have a cartoon of Pope John Paul II peaking in an all small boys school shower.
• To offend African Americans, lets have a cartoon of Martin Luther King Jr. wearing hip hop clothes while trying to break into a car ... Maybe even show some drugs in his pocket.
• To offend the Jews, lets have a cartoon of the Holocaust being fabricated in a Hollywood studio with Hitler as the main actor.
  
• To offend the Israelis lets have a cartoon of a Chassidic Rabbi in a synagogues firing range teaching his students how to aim at Palestinian children. Maybe even have a sign saying "Sniper riffle 101"
• To offend the evangelists, lets have a preacher "of your choice" sit in his back stage with a prostitutes legs in the air shouting "OH DEAR GOD I .... I ... I ... HAVE SINNNEEEEED!"

Then there is option B:

B: Just Apologize to the Muslims and outlaw Media outlets that incite hatred.


FINE PRINT: Of course I have utmost respect to Martin Luther King, and also Pope John Paul. I also sympathize with African Americans and their struggle with Racism, and I respect Jews and Christians as being "people of the book" and those who share the same main belief in the One God whom worshiping is what life is all about.

E-mail chain about the cartoons

Here is an e-mail I received that forwarded onto me through someone. Apparently it originated from Egypt. At the very bottom the writer says: " Note: This article has been verified and is authentic it appeared on Egyptian Sat (Nile Sat) channel X and on channel Y etc ...
Meanwhile, unfortunatly its full of fabircated information. Not to say that the gist of it is not true. However, what aggrivated me, is why would someone lie more to aggitate the situation?

This person added what we call "Salt and Pepper" to the article. Which is shameful to say the least. Ironically this person is supposed to be a Muslim. Well my friend, you are helping the Danes by your noble efforts.

When will we change?

>
>رسالة إلى من يهمه الأمر
>
>
>
>الى كل شاب وفتاة تحب الله ورسوله ... الى كل من عاهد الله  ان يسير على
خطى
>الحبيب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم
>>
>الى كل قلب مملؤ بحب رسول الله والشوق اليه ... الى كل من يغار على دينه
>ومقدساته .

>ابعث برسالتى هذه......فمنذ فترة قصيرة حوالى 3 اشهر نشرت جريدة دانمركية
>ذائعة الصيت وذات مصداقية كبيرة لدى الشعب
>الدانمركى
>
>
>
>نشرت هذه الصحيفه مسابقة لرسم احسن كاريكتير للرسول محمد عليه الصلاة 
>والسلام  و بالفعل ارسل القراء اكثر من 100 صورة تم نشر حوالى 12كاريكتير
منها
>تصور رسول الله وهو يلبس عمامه مليئة بالقنابل والصواريخ وتصوره وهو يصلى
فى
>اوضاع مهينه للغايه ولقد تم نشر هذه الصور علنا وعلى مدار عدة اسابيع
وبمعرفة
>وموافقة بل وتاييد من الحكومه وتفاعل الراى العام الدانمركى معها   ولقد
حاولت
>الجاليةالاسلامية هناك الدفاع عن الاسلام ومقدساته وذلك بوقف نشر هذه
الصور
>رفض رئيس التجرير مجرد  مقابلتهم وتضامنت كل الهيئات الحكومية مع الجريده
>ورفضت كل محاولات الجاليه الاسلاميه ......فقاموا بعمل بعثه اسلاميه لعمل
جوله
>فى العالم العربى للتضامن معهم عن طريق فرض حصاراقتصادى بمقاطعة كل
المنتجات
>الدانمركيه ومنع استيرادها .....وكل مارجوه من كل من يقرا هذه الرساله ان
>يقاطع كل المنتجات الدانمركيه من البان مجففه نيدو, انكور وغيرهااو زبدة
>لورباك او اى جبن  دانمركى او غيرها.
>
>
>
>وارجو من كل تاجر ان يوقف استيراد هذه البضائع ارجوكم يا جماعه فالامر
جدا
>خطير فلقد تجاوزت هذه الدوله كل الحدود ولا تنسوا انكم سوف تلقون رسول
الله
>يوم القيامة على نهر الكوثر فماذا ستقولون له  وقد علمتم
>ماعلمتم ؟ ارجوكم ياشباب لاتجعلوا الامر يمر عليكم مرور الكرام وتخيلوا
لو ان
>احدهم سب امك اواختك فماذا سيكون رد فعلك؟ وهل اهلك وذويك احب اليك من
رسول
>الله ؟
>
>
>
>طب اعمل ايه؟؟؟..... ارسل هذه الرساله الى كل من تعرف ... او ارسلها على
هيئة
> رسائل قصيرة ...بلغ اصحابك جيرانك  اطبع ورق ووزعه ا افعل كل ماهو ممكن
ومتاح
>فكر ولن تعجزك الوسيله   ولتكن قدوتك فى هذ الامر اصحاب رسول الله اللذين
>دافعوا عنه باموالهم ودمائهم وانفسهم واجعل شعارك وقدوتك قول ابا طلحه
حين قال
>وهو يدافع عن رسول الله يوم بدر "نحرى دون نحرك يارسول الله"
>
>
>وصدق حسان ابن ثابت حين قال فان ابي ووالدتى وعرضى لعرض محمد منكم فداء .
>
>
>
>ملحوظه: هذا الخبر موثوق منه وتمت مناقشته فى برنامج العاشرة مساء على
قناة
>دريم2 يوم8\12\2005 وكذلك برنامج البيت بيتك وتم التاكد من صحة هذه
المعلومات
>من قبل السفارة المصريه التى اتصلت بالسفارة  الدانمركيه فاكدوا لها
الخبر وتم
>نشر الصور الكاريكترية على التلفزيون المصرى
>
>
>
>انشرها على كل من تعرف
>

Controversial Cartoons

More than 3 months after the fact, people sharing my faith are expressing their anger in many forms some of which is violent. I Thought I'd express my feelings as a Muslim and someone who sees Mohammad as an idle.

Mohammad Peace be upon him was a great Man, despite what the enemies of Islam want people to think. For someone who doesn't believe that he had any connection with God should at least respect the message he brought to this earth. Unfortunately, the message is distorted 1400 years later.
He was the first man in History to promote democracy, and denounce racism and discrimination. Something the West sees as a foundation of their civilization. (I shall provide proof of that claim in a separate post). Amongst other things Mohammad was a great leader way ahead of his time. Personally I think that he was but a messenger from God and so did he. If he was alive and you would ask him , he would tell you that he nothing but a man with a message.

So how do I feel about all these protests and the "Cartoons" ?
Well I feel saddened by them and by the public reaction they caused. While I could condemn the Danish newspaper and the other 19 countries whom wanted to show "solidarity" , I am most disappointed by the Muslims and their reaction.

If it shows anything , it shows that they know nothing about their religion nor about Mohammad peace be upon him whom they claim to respect. Did those people find in their texts an incident where Mohammad burnt buildings? Did they read in their texts anywhere Mohammad encouraging riots? How about Anger? I am sure, somewhere in those texts Mohammad was angry or encouraged anger?!?! No?? Come on!!!

The answer is certainly not. On the contrary Mohammad was known to be Kind, Merciful, Soft Spoken amongst many other great qualities. None of which those people who profess their love have.

In fact Mohammad was insulted and harrased much more than what those cartoons have done. Yet, his reaction at the height of his power was forgiveness. I am referring to Fatih Makkah (Liberation of Makkah- فتح مكة). A historical incident whereby Mohammad after many years of persecution and struggle became powerful and at the right time marched towards his enemies after they broke a truce they had agreed upon with Mohammad. His reaction only spoke of God's will and his character. He marched towards the city not spilling a drop of blood.

I could go on and on about how the riots, violent reaction and protests are unmuslim like. However, this requires a book.

What else angers me about the riots? Well they are cowardly and hypocritical. Through out the past year while Muslims are being murdered and slain by Americans and other Muslims (in the name of Islam mind you) none of those hypocrites said a word. They sat down in their homes watching their pathetic TV programs and being lead like sheep. Meanwhile, since Denmark is a small country and boycotting its products only means not eating Danish Cheese. They still ride their Fords, Buick, GMs, and of course German cars. Mind you they can't afford to boycott those countries because they are cowards. You want to protest against the US, build your own computer manufacturing company. Better yet, build German quality cars. Hell at least build your own ..... anything ...
What about the Thousands of Iraqis who have died in the past 3 years? Have you nothing to protest there?

What will those riots achieve? Let me tell you ... Now that its all over the news, everyone who hasn't seen those Cartoons will want to see them. If nothing else they have created more publicity about that. Actually, probably the only people whom haven't seen those Cartoons are the people rioting. Hey, they have been TOLD that they were bad. That's what Muslims are good at ... Being told what to do and how to think. How can I not be saddened by such events?

Of course this post is not meant for the western reader but more for the Muslim who has some hope/desire for improvement.

Until we Muslims start to behave with intelligence and less anger, we will always be subject to oppression and will make Mohammad Peace be Upon Him subject to to insults if they see that the people who follow him behave this way. The answer to Islam's problems is found within the Quran:
"Kontom Khair Ummatin Okhrijat lilnaas, ta'moroon bil ma3roof wa tanhawn 3an ilmonkar" Soorat 3, ayah 110.

Until we know that the Monkar is killing innocent people we don't agree with, then we will always be subject to oppression and maybe God's anger.

As for those countries which published the cartoons in the name of "Freedom of speech". The only thing they are free to do is act as hypocrites. Something Muslims failed to act on properly is ask to have their portrayal of Israeli figures published in the news papers. Of course that would never happen as it will be dubbed Anti-Semitic. In fact Freedom of speech is only free as long as it doesn't criticize the Jews and the Jewish state. There are many such examples the last few I remember are the fuss made before the movie "Passion of the Christ" was aired. As well as Madonna's Video "American Life" which was withdrawn, as well as Dixie Chick's comments about George Bush that they were forced to apologize for. Really, now where was Germany, France, and the lot when the Dixie Chicks were not free to speak? The answer is simple, those who control the Media call the shots. Think about what things are impossible to publish and then you will understand the freedom to hypocrisy. One final thought about Freedom of speech, is Al-Jazeera and the Canadian Government imposed restrictions in 2004. The Canadian Government said it will allow Al-Jazeera to broadcast only that it won't be live and it will be subject to monitoring and editing 24 hours a day:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/WV-dyne/articles/-2004Jul25.html


If only Muslims had acted in a smart manner. The world would show more respect to them.