fatwas « WordPress.com Tag Feed

The Facebook Fatwa...

Rick O'Shea — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:10:21 +0000

This is a new Irish short a mate of mine has put together - be careful about your social networking...

Poetic Justice - Yasmin Amin

temporal3 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:01:51 +0000

This is an article written by my friend Yasmin Amin. She is from Cairo, Egypt, a mother of two sons who has resumed studies and is pursuing M.A. in Islamic Studies. She blogs infrequently at Bannos.

When Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab first started his movement, one of the main ideas he espoused was to purify Islam once again and bring it back to the way it was practiced during the time of the Prophet. He was very adamant about vehemently cleaning up Islam and removing what he perceived as bad innovations (bid’a) which resemble t he Jahiliya times. One of his first actions was to level the the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, a companion of the Prophet and brother of the second Caliph, on the grounds that Islamic teachings forbid grave worship.

Many recent Saudi fatwas by various Wahhabi sheikhs have echoed the same belief and have gone down the same route calling for the destruction of shrines, even outside of the borders of the Kingdom. Maybe there are none left there to destroy? A fatwa called for the destruction of the Shia shrines in Iraq on the grounds that "they are symbols of shirk and worship of idols". Amongst the "scholars" who have issued such fatwas are: Sheikh Abdel- Rahman al-Barak, Sheikh Mamdooh al-Harbi, Dr Nasser al-Omar, Sheikh bin Jibreen, Dr Safar al-Hawali, Shaikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz and Hamed al-Ali.

Another article mentions that Saudi religious "scholars" have been issuing fatwas calling for the destruction of the great Shi’ite shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, some of which have already been bombed like Samarra's Askariya shrine, also known as the Golden Mosque, which holds the tombs of two revered 9th-century Shia imams Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hassan al-Askari, father of the "hidden imam," al-Mahdi.

According to BBC Monitoring Middle East on Jul 23, 2007, other shrines have also been listed and urged to be destroyed "in order to save the Muslims from falling into polytheism". Mentioned were the shrines of Sayyida Zaynab, in Syria, and the shrines of Al-Sayyida Zaynab and that of Al-Sayyid al-Badawi in Egypt. Apparently this has already happened once in 1802, when the Wahhabis assaulted the city of Karbala where more than 9,000 men, women and children were killed and the shrines in Karbala were first desecrated and then set alight.

The ironical thing is that Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab, brother of Muhammad Ibn Abdel Wahab, was rather distressed by his brother’s extreme opinions regarding who is or is not a believer. So Sulayman wrote a book "Al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya" ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School") that rejects Wahhabism and criticises those extreme views. He wrote : “Intercession occurred during the time of the companions when one dreamed that he had complained to the Prophet about drought. The Prophet ordered him to seek the help of Umar. In this case, neither Umar nor the companions denied intercession, yet you Wahabis claim those who ask for intercession are unbelievers." He continued: "Similar actions occurred at the time of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Although some scholars might have had reservations, none ever accused anyone of being a kafir, labelled them apostate or permitted them being killed as mushriks.”

Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab even managed to find a Hadith (prophetic tradition) to argue that intercession was not prohibited anywhere: "In one hadith a blind man came to the Prophet to asked him to pray for the return of his eyesight. The Prophet replied, ‘If you wish, I will pray for that, but you must be patient.’ ‘Please,’ the man asked, ‘Do pray for me’. The Prophet ordered he perform Wudu, pray two Rakaats and then ask, ‘O Allah, I ask and beseech you in the name of Muhammad Messenger of Mercy, O Muhammad, I beg you to intercede for my request to be fulfilled, O Allah, please accept his intercession’. Uthman bin Hanif, the narrator of this report said, ‘We did not separate from our meeting until the blind man returned to us with his sight fully restored.’ " (As found in Sunan ibn Majah Vol. 1 p. 441, Mustradak al-Hakim Vol.1 p. 313 and Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Vol.4 p.138)

Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab argues that this Hadith not only provides clear evidence that the Prophet not only accepted the concept of intercession, but that he himself complied with a request to intercede, giving instruction on how Allah should be asked so that his intercession can be accepted.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz’s opinion about Ibn Abdel Wahab’s the demolition of shrines equates it to removing polytheism. He writes: “One day, the Shaikh said to the governor, 'Let us demolish the dome at the grave of Zaid Ibn al-Khatab (Zaid Ibn al-Khatab was the brother of Umar Ibn al-Khattab t and a martyr, who died in the fighting against Musailimah Khaddhab in 12 A.H, he was buried and later on people built a dome on his grave). It is erected on deviation and the Prophet has forbidden building domes or mosques on graves. Moreover, this dome has destroyed the people's belief with polytheism. So, it must be demolished.' Then the Shaikh took the action of demolishing and removing the dome. Allah removed it by his hands and Al-hamdulillah, none of its traces remains now. Similarly, there were other domes, caves, trees, etc. that were also destroyed and removed.”

That much for demolishing shrines and purifying Islam. Now the other day I was watching a program on Al Jazeera, which can be viewed here

I couldn’t help it but burst out laughing watching this program. So after all this destruction, demolition and ruin and the deep-seated aversion to any kind of shrine, what happens to the Wahhabi Mujahideen? They get their own shrines, without even an intercession with Allah. Their graves have alleged baraka and karamat, which make barren women have children, heal the sick and generate special visits to ask for special favours because of the purported miracles as the bbc has reported last month.

Now that’s what I call poetic justice!

Locking the Pre-Medieval Mind

athinkingman — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:07:51 +0000

I was initially amused and then slightly concerned to read about what a team artificial intelligence (AI) scientists based in France are doing in support of Islam. If successful, the work could freeze the religion and make development within it even more difficult than it is at the present.

According to an article in by Mona Madkour in the Arabic Daily Asharq Al-Awsat, the team are developing a controversial new electronic device that could revolutionize the field of Islamic jurisprudence and allegedly issue more accurate Shariah fatwas [religious edicts]. The device, currently in production in France, will be known as the 'Electronic Mufti' .

If it is successful, the Electronic Mufti could help end what Egypt’s official news agency, MENA, has described as 'fatwa chaos'.

A fatwa is a pronouncement by Islamic religious leaders intended to shape the actions of the faithful on everything from sex to politics. Clerics are supposed to have religious and legal training on which to base their authority. The problem is that more and more clerics are issuing fatwas. Dissident clerics argue that establishment leaders are out of touch and issue abtruse rulings, and even trained scholars are issuing contradictory ones (over whether suicide bombings and attacks on civilians are justified, for example).

Fatwas came to the attention of non-Muslims in the West in 1989 when the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini put a death sentence on the author Salman Rushdie for supposed blasphemy in the novel “Satanic Verses”. Other more recent fatwas have banned sculpture, authorized female circumcision, and urged women who meet alone with men to breast-feed them in an attempt to establish a maternal bond with them and therefore prevent them from having sex with the women. Cairo’s Al-Azhar University’s fatwa department (which now turns out around 1000 rulings a day) currently has fatwas on keeping dogs indoors (no, because ‘dogs are filth’) and on using stolen credit cards to strike back at the US and Israel (no, because it does not conform to the teachings of Islam). Other fatwas urge women to cover their bodies from head to foot and to travel in taxis only in the company of a male relative.

Two forces in particular are driving this proliferation and confusion forward. The first factor is the rivalry between revered leaders. Not a week goes by without a fatwa that is issued in one country being ‘out-done’ or contradicted by a fatwa in another country. And there is also the rivalry between the traditional leaders and the new television clerics. The second factor is that Muslims can now seek rulings from a multitude of sources relatively easily. Muslims are able to use the internet and television to seek guidance from clerics from around the world - unless they follow the fatwa issued in 2004 by the Dar ul-Ulum Islamic seminary in India, ruling that the faithful should not watch TV.

The Electronic Mufti may help to bring unity and end confusion and contradictions. According to Dr. Anas Fawzi, a communications expert who is part of the team based in France, the device is "a very large capacity computer on which all the information that is relevant to a given [historical] figure is uploaded; everything that has been mentioned in history books or chronicled documents that indicate his/her responses and attitudes towards all positions adopted in his/her life. The device deduces the expected response through consulting thousands of examples that have been uploaded on to the machine, pertaining to that person whilst taking into account their reactions so that it may relate the expected response in accordance with their personality as created by the Artificial Intelligence apparatus."

Although not an expert in this field, if it ever did get beyond the this-sounded-like-a-good-idea-when-we-were-sitting-in-the-University-seminar stage, I can foresee some problems associated with it.

First, there would be practical problems. Although there would probably be many, the one that springs immediately to mind is to do with communication. How would the millions of Muslims access it. Presumably eventually it would be online or at the end of a telephone, but what about the millions of Muslims without easy access to either. For them, there are always going to be local clergy issuing their own rulings which may be at variance with the Electronic Mufti. And if the two were in dispute, would it be fair to always say that the electronic ruling is superior?

Secondly, at what point is it necessary for humans to intervene, and if they have to intervene, is there any point in having an Electronic Mufti? Remember that with computers, the quality of the garbage you get out is only proportional to the quality of garbage that you put in and the quality of the people writing the programs to process the garbage. Muslims may regard their texts as inspired, but I doubt that that inspiration carries over to the AI programmers. The Electronic Mufti is bound to produce rulings that are controversial. If this is the case, is it the program which is wrong, or the ruling which is just difficult? Human beings would still be needed to interpret the results. Having humans involved may lead to a situation which is similar to the present, where mistaken and/or contradictory judgements will be made.

Thirdly, if it is moderately successful and brings about a greater degree of uniformity, it is likely to freeze the development of the religion. Its rulings will reflect a very ancient mindset. I accept that for Muslim fundamentalists, this would be nirvana (oops, sorry about the metaphor), but it is bound to lead to increasing conflict with the developing world as even bigger gaps between the two broad cultures emerge. Although there are pockets of Christian fundamentalism which are still clinging to a lot of pre-Medieval literalism, some Christians have found ways of accommodating their scriptures to the reality of modern life. Most would accept that the church got it wrong in the sixteenth century about astronomy, and in the nineteenth century about biology. Increasing numbers are accepting that the church has got it wrong in the twentieth and twenty-first century about psychology and sexuality. Many mainline Christians today would have been burned in the fifteenth century by fellow Christians for the beliefs that they now genuinely and routinely hold. I am sure, that in Islam, there is also those who allow themselves a similar degree of flexibility when it comes to interpreting their scriptures. However, I feel reasonably confident that the Electronic Mufti would not encourage or promote such flexibility.

Fourthly, in the light of recent history, it feels almost inevitable that it sadly may lead to innocent death. Although the research team have consulted Muslim leaders who have given the project their approval, their are bound to be those who feel that attempting to simulate the Prophet Mohammad is fundamentally insulting and justifies murder. How is guessing what the Prophet may have looked like, and drawing that, any worse than guessing what the Prophet may say about whether a Muslim should watch television or drive a car with a member of the opposite sex in the back?

It will be interesting to see if the Electronic Mufti is ever allowed to leave the womb of the French research laboratory. Personally, I hope not.

Islam und Integration

deislam — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:48:30 +0000

An was kann man erkennen, wie groß die Integrationsbereitschaft einer Mehrheit von Immigranten islamischen Glaubens wirklich ist? Antwort: Am besten an der Friedhofsdiskussion. Mohammedaner wollen ja auf keinen Fall in der gleichen Erde ruhen, wo vorher ein Christ ruhte. Wenn schon den toten, in Frieden ruhenden Christen, mit Abneigung begegnet wird, wie will man uns denn glauben machen, dass man gerne mit uns zusammen leben möchte?

Alfred Dirwanger, Basel
(Quelle: Schweizerzeit)

Dazu auch diese Fatwa zur Kenntnis nehmen!

The Dislike of the Salaf with Regards to Giving Religious Verdicts

siraajunmuneer — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:44:01 +0000

The Dislike of the Salaf with Regards to Giving Religious Verdicts

By al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali رحمه الله

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم

الحمد الله

This is similar to the hatred of the Salafus-Saalih (the Pious Predecessors) that a person should put himself forward to give religious verdicts (fataawaa) and to crave them, and to hasten to it, and to do it in excess. Ibn Lahee`ah reports from `Ubaydullaah ibn Abee Ja`far in mursal form from the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam that he said, "He who is boldest from you in giving religious verdicts, will be the boldest in proceeding to the Fire" [It is reported by ad-Daarimee 1/57 and its chain of narration is weak since it is mursal (i.e. there is a missing link or links between the last narrator and the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam)]. `Alqamah said, "They used to say, 'The boldest of you in giving religious verdicts is the one having the least knowledge.'"

Al-Baraa' said, "I met a hundred and twenty of the Ansaar from the Companions of Allaah's Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam and when one of them was asked about a matter there was not a single man amongst them except that he wished that his brother would suffice him (by answering)." [This saying is reported by ad-Daarimee (1/53) and Ibn `Abdul-Barr in Jaami` (2/163). However it is the saying of `Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Abee Laylaa and not the saying of al-Baraa`, and its chain of narration is saheeh. As for the saying of al-Baraa`, then it is, "I saw three hundred of the people of Badr, there was not a single one of them except that he loved that someone else should take his place in answering." It is reported by Ibnul-Mubaarak in az-Zuhd (no. 58), ibn Sa`d (6/11) and others and its isnaad contains Aboo Ishaaq as-Sabee`ee who is acceptable (sadooq) except that he was mudallis and reports it without stating that he heard it directly.]In a narration there occurs the addition, "…so this one would refer it to another, and he would refer it to someone else until it would eventually return to the first one." From Ibn Mas`ood, radiyallaahu `anhu, who said, "The one who gives a religious verdict to the people about everything that he is asked is indeed insane." [Reported by Ibn `Abdul-Barr (2/164-165), al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/197-198) and Aboo Khaithamah in al-`Ilm (no. 10) and its chain of narration is saheeh.]

`Umar ibn `Abdul-`Azeez was asked about a question and replied, "I am not one who is bold about giving religious verdicts." He also wrote to one of his governors, "By Allaah I am not one who craves after giving religious verdicts, as long as I can find a way to avoid it."

Ibn Yameenah said, "This affair is not for those who love that the people should have need of them, rather this affair is only for those who love that someone can be found to take their place." It is also reported from him that he said, "The most knowledgeable of people concerning religious verdicts is the one who is most often silent, and the most ignorant of people about them is the one who speaks the most with regard to them." [Reported by al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/166) and its isnaad is weak.]

Sufyaan ath-Thawree said, "We reached the scholars and they used to hate answering questions and giving religious verdicts until they could find no way out except to give a verdict, but if they were relieved of having to do so then that was more beloved to them."

Imaam Ahmad said, "He who puts himself forward to give religious verdicts has put himself forward to something very serious, unless he is forced through necessity." It was said to him, "Then which is better: for him to speak or to remain silent?" He said, "It is more beloved to us that he should withhold." It was said, "But if there is a necessity?" So he started saying, "Necessity! Necessity!" And he said, "It is safer for him to withhold."

So those who give religious verdicts should realise that they are transmitting Allaah's orders and prohibitions and that he will be made to stand to account and be questioned about it. Ar-Rabee` ibn Khaitham said, "O giver of religious verdicts! Look and see how you are giving verdicts." `Amr ibn Deenaar said to Qataadah when he sat to give religious verdicts, "Do you realise the affair that you have fallen into? You have come between Allaah and His worshippers and say, 'This is correct and this is not correct.'" [Reported by al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/168)]From Ibnul-Munkadir who said, "The scholar enters between Allaah and His creation, so let him look and see how he enters between them." [Reported with variations in wording by ad-Daarimee (1/53), and al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/168) and its isnaad is saheeh.]

When Ibn Seereen was asked about anything pertaining to the permissible and forbidden his colour would change and he would alter so that he would not seem to be the same person. [Reported by ibn Sa`d (7/195), al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/167) and its isnaad is saheeh]. When an-Nakhaa`ee was asked about something then hatred would be seen upon his face and he would say, "Could you not find someone else to ask other than me?" He also said, "I spoke and if I had found any way out I would not have spoken, and indeed a time when I am the scholar of Koofah is an evil time." [Reported in meaning by Aboo Khaithamah in al-`Ilm (no. 131).]

It is related that Ibn `Umar, radiyAllaahu `anhumaa, said, "You ask us for religious verdicts in such a manner that it is as if we are people who are not going to be questioned about the verdicts that we give you." [Reported by al-Fasawee (1/490) and al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/168) and its isnaad is weak.] Also from Muhammad ibn Waasi` who said, "The first of those who will be called to account are the scholars." It is reported about Maalik, radiyAllaahu `anhu, that when he was asked about a matter it was as if he were standing between the Paradise and the Hell-Fire. [Reported by al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/167) and its isnaad is weak.]

One of the scholars also said to a person who used to give religious verdicts, "When you are asked about a matter then do not let your concern be to release and find a way out for the questioner, but rather to release and save your own self." [The one who said this was `Umar ibn Khaldah az-Zurqee and he was speaking to Rabee`ah ibn Abee `Abdir-Rahmaan. This narration is reported with very close wordings by al-Fasawee (1/556-557), Aboo Nu`aym in al-Hilyah (3/260-261) and al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wal-Mutafaqqih (2/169) and its isnaad is saheeh.]Another said, "If you are asked about a matter then consider - if you find a way out of it then speak, otherwise remain silent." The sayings of the Salaf about this are too many to quote and gather.

Forum: SalafiTalk.net

topmuslimforums — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:27:26 +0000

Selected Topic: The Ruling Regarding Islamic Nasheeds

The Ruling Regarding Islamic Nasheeds By The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Ahl-Shaykh.

Don’t comment here. To participate to this Forum, click on its banner or on the Selected Topic link.

New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

zaynabnour — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:00:15 +0000

By Basil Adas

05/06/08 "Gulf News" -- 03/06/08 -- Baghdad: A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.

Unfinished Business [Sat. May 17th]

tarbiyahyouthcenter — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:01:14 +0000

In our "unfinished business" posts, the teachers will further explore the side topics that came up during class that weren't fully explored due to time constraints. Insha'Allah, this additional information will answer your remaining questions.

DISCUSSION POINTS

1) PICTURES

Ruling on Taking Photographs
Hanging Pictures in the House

Let us not forget that the shirk committed by the people of Nooh (peace be upon him) started because they set up pictures and images of some righteous people who had lived among them. So be very careful.

2) FRIENDSHIP: Taking Non-Muslims as Close Friends

3) FOOD & NOURISHMENT: Can Muslims be Vegans?

4) YOUR DEVILISH COMPANION: Every Person Has a Qareen

Eine Fatwa von Scheich Saleh Al-Fawzan betreffend den "Liberalismus" im Islam

deislam — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:19:20 +0000

Wir übernehmen aus dem Blog "Eindrücke aus Arabien":

Eine Fatwa des Mitglieds des Rats der Großrechtsgelehrten und der Kommission der islamischen Studien und Fatwas in Saudi-Arabien, Scheich Saleh Al-Fawzan, hat für eine heftige Debatte innerhalb den intellektuellen Kreisen in Saudi-Arabien gesorgt.

Die Fatwa

Frage: Geehrter Scheich Saleh ibn Fawzan Al-Fawzan, was sagen Sie über die Aufforderung zum Liberalismus in den islamischen Ländern? Diese Ideologie ruft zu einer Freiheit auf, die nur von den weltlichen Gesetzen eingeschränkt werden kann. Es setzt aufgrund von Pluralismus Muslime und Kuffar (Ungläubige) gleich. Es gibt dem Individuum seine persönliche Freiheit, die der Scharia nicht unterliegt, wie sie (die Liberalen) glauben. Dieses Denken widerspricht (bewusst) der Scharia in manchen Punkten, zum Beispiel bei den Frau-Gesetzen , bei den Regeln der Beziehungen mit den Kuffar, bei der Bekämpfung des Verwerflichen oder bei den Jihad-Regeln. Darf ein Muslim sagen: “Ich bin ein liberaler Muslim“? Was ist ihr Ratschlag (Nasiha) zu solchen Menschen?

Antwort:
Der Muslim ist jemand, der sich durch den Tauhid (Glaube an die Einheit Gottes) Allah unterwirft, der Allah durch seinen Gehorsam folgt, und nichts mit dem Schirk (Polytheismus inkl. Atheismus) und seinen Leuten zu tun hat. Jemand, der eine Freiheit auffordert, die nur durch weltliche Gesetze kontrolliert wird, rebelliert gegen das Gesetz Allahs. Wer sich die Entscheidungsweise des Heidentums und der Götzen wünscht, solch ein Mensch ist kein Muslim. Wer die allgemein bekannten Gesetze und Regel des Islam ablehnt, die jedem bekannt sind, wie der Unterschied zwischen dem Muslim und dem Kafir und eine, der Scharia nicht untergeordneten, Freiheit anstrebt, und wer die Regeln der Scharia ablehnt, wie die Regeln für Frauen, die Regeln des “gebieten, was recht ist, und verbieten, was verwerflich ist“, und die Legalität des Jihads auf dem Weg Allahs; der hat mehreren Islam-Widersprechungen begangen (Dinge, die den Islam ungültig machen). Wir bitten Allah um Heilung (von diesen Ideen). Wer sagt „ich bin ein liberaler Muslim“ widerspricht sich, wenn er mit dem Liberalismus das Obige meint. Er muss gegenüber Allah Reue zeigen (Tauba) und sich von dieser Ideologie distanzieren, damit er wirklich ein Muslim sein kann.

Unser Kommentar folgt!

Dokumentations-Links:

«Tötet sie!»

deislam2 — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:30:40 +0000

Aus: Weltwoche.ch, Ausgabe 14/08 | Magazin | Fitna «Tötet sie!»
Von René Marcus

Der Film «Fitna» von Geert Wilders wurde im Westen heftigst kritisiert. Der Streifen des niederländischen Politikers stachle zu Hass auf, indem er den Islam fälschlicherweise mit Gewalt gleichsetze. Diese Vorwürfe sind falsch, wie ein Studium des Korans zeigt.

Selten war die Empörung der Gutmeinenden so einhellig. Und selten war sie so unreflektiert. Schon lange bevor irgendjemand den angekündigten islamkritischen Film gesehen hatte, wurde er heftig abgelehnt und der Name seines Autors, Geert Wilders, nicht ohne das diffamierende Beiwort «Rechtspopulist» ausgesprochen. Als der 16-minütige Streifen mit dem Titel «Fitna» – fitna bedeutet Verwirrung, Zwietracht, Bürgerkrieg, auch Verführung zum Abfall vom rechten Glauben – schliesslich im Internet gezeigt wurde, beeilten sich sämtliche Aussenminister der EU, sich von ihm zu distanzieren: Er diene zu nichts anderem, als «zum Hass aufzustacheln». Und der Generalsekretär der Uno, Ban Ki Moon, schwang sich zum obersten Filmkritiker der Welt auf und geisselte das Wilders-Elaborat «in schärfster Form». Dass der britische Provider wegen ernsthafter Morddrohungen gegen seine Mitarbeiter «Fitna» nach kurzer Zeit wieder vom Netz nehmen musste, war den besorgten Hütern von friedlichem Dialog und gegenseitigem Respekt allerdings keinen Protest mehr wert.

Und was zeigt der Film des niederländischen «Rechtspopulisten Wilders»? «Fitna» wendet sich mit Leidenschaft gegen jene Muslime, die einen totalitären Gottesstaat errichten wollen, die Ehebruch mit Steinigungen verfolgen und denen zur Homosexualität nichts anderes einfällt als die Todesstrafe. Der Film prangert jene an, die mit Plakaten gegen die Freiheit und für die Tötung von Ungläubigen demonstrieren, er macht mobil gegen Menschen, die Adolf Hitler verehren und den Judenhass predigen. Und er belegt mit Zitaten, dass sich die Fanatiker bei ihren Handlungen auf den Koran berufen können.

Anders als die Politiker und Journalisten, die ihn lauthals kritisieren, geht der liberale Abgeordnete Wilders mit seinem Engagement ein tödliches Risiko ein. Ohne Leibwächter kann er sich schon lange nicht mehr bewegen. Er sei selber schuld, ist die unterschwellige Botschaft derjenigen, die wie beispielsweise das Magazin Spiegel ihm vorwerfen, mit seiner «wüsten Collage von Horror- und Zerrbildern des Islam» die Gefühle der Muslime mutwillig zu verletzen. Doch auch wenn Wilders seine Botschaft plakativ verkürzt kundtut, weist sie auf ein Problem hin, das in unseren Demokratien kaum jemandem bewusst ist: die theologischen Zusammenhänge des Mordens im Namen des Islam.

All die plötzlichen Islamkenner, die Wilders’ «Machwerk» verurteilen und die zu wissen meinen, dass der wirkliche Islam Frieden predigt, lade ich ein, den Koran zu lesen. Der Koran, das heilige Buch der Muslime, ist ein Buch, in dem die Verbalwurzel qtl, «töten», 187-mal vorkommt, davon 25-mal im Imperativ (z.B. Sure 4, 89 und 91; Sure 9, 4 und 14 und 29). Das Zitat «Tötet sie, wo ihr sie findet!» ist einem Zusammenhang entnommen, in den es bestens hineinpasst. Im Koran wird allen Ungläubigen immer und immer wieder «schreckliche Strafe» im Diesseits wie im Jenseits angedroht; die Wurzel ’db, «strafen/Strafe», ist im Koran über 400-mal belegt.

Wilders zitiert Sure 4,?56, wo es heisst: «Siehe, diejenigen, die nicht an unsere Zeichen glauben, di e werden wir mit Feuer rösten. Jedes Mal, wenn ihre Häute gar gebraten sind, tauschen wir sie gegen andere Häute aus, damit sie die Strafe auskosten. Siehe, Gott ist allmächtig, allweise.» Aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen? Obsessiv hämmert der Koran dem Leser ein, wie schrecklich die Strafen sind, welche die Ungläubigen in der Hölle erdulden müssen. Mit sadistischer Genauigkeit werden immer neue Foltern beschrieben. Die auswechselbaren Häute in dem angeführten Zitat sind nur ein Beispiel. Der Leser kann sich auch über die faulen Früchte des Zaqqûm-Baumes, das flüssige Erz und die glühenden Schürhaken informieren, die ihn in der Hölle erwarten (Sure 4, 51 ff.; 22, 19 ff.; 37, 64 ff.; 44, 43 ff.; 56, 55). Bitte, ich frage die Muslime: «Wie geht ihr damit um? Was geschieht mit den Seelen der Kinder, die in Koranschulen überall in der Welt dieses Buch auswendig lernen?»

Militanter Ur-Islam

Religion, Gewalt und Politik: Wir hatten es im ehemals christlichen Abendland schon längst verlernt, zwischen diesen Bereichen noch einen Zusammenhang zu sehen. Aber das Wiedererstarken eines militanten Ur-Islam hat uns mit brutaler Deutlichkeit vor Augen geführt, dass dieser Zusammenhang immer noch besteht, wie seit Jahrtausenden. Dass er bei uns nicht mehr als solcher empfunden wird, liegt daran, dass es den Verfechtern von Freiheit und Aufklärung in Jahrhunderten des Kampfes mit kirchlichen Autoritäten gelungen ist, der Religion den Giftstachel zu ziehen. Von den christlichen Kirchen droht schon lange keine Gefahr mehr. Wir meinen, das müsse in jeder Religion so sein, denn Religion sei, so denken wir, etwas grundsätzlich Gutes. Ist das so?

Der Islam treibt den im Judentum und im Christentum angelegten Absolutheitsanspruch auf die Spitze. Vom «Siegel der Propheten» (so Mohammed über sich selbst) wird der Anspruch, Verkünder der endgültigen Wahrheit zu sein, so absolut und unwiderruflich erhoben wie von keinem anderen Religionsstifter. Dass er zum bewaffneten Kampf, zum Töten der Ungläubigen aufruft, ist nur folgerichtig, zumal bei einem Araber jener Zeit, als Krieg zwischen verfeindeten Stämmen so selbstverständlich zum Leben gehörte wie das tägliche Brot. Im Gegensatz zu Jesus, Buddha usw. war Mohammed ein General, der seine Truppen in den Krieg führte. «Tötet sie, wo ihr sie findet!» – ein solcher Aufruf hatte für einen Araber, der in der Wüste täglich um sein Überleben zu ringen hatte, nichts Schockierendes.

Die Sache hat nur einen entscheidenden Haken: Der Koran ist im muslimischen Selbstverständnis nicht irgendein Buch, nicht ein Geschichtswerk von allenfalls musealem Interesse, sondern unmittelbare Inkarnation Gottes. Die Urschrift des heiligen Buches liegt seit Anbeginn der Zeit im Schosse Gottes. Kein Buchstabe kann an dem heiligen Text geändert werden, keine Silbe ausgelassen, kein Wort eliminiert werden, bis zum Jüngsten Gericht. Die Christen unter uns glauben daran, dass sich Gott in einem Menschen inkarniert hat; die Muslime glauben an seine Inkarnation in einem Buch. Es ist «eine Herabsendung vom Herrn der Welten» (Sure 32, 2), «das Buch, in dem kein Zweifel ist» (Sure 2, 2). Was also tun, wenn in diesem Buch verkündet wird: «Tötet sie!» Natürlich bezieht sich Mohammed damit auf die Ungläubigen, die zu seiner Zeit der jungen Religion das Leben schwergemacht haben. Aber bezieht er sich damit auch auf die Ungläubigen aller Zeiten und Räume? In diesem Buch, das für alle Zeiten und Räume gilt?

Man kann es so verstehen. Es bedarf keiner Verbiegung, um es so zu verstehen. Ganz gleich, was Mohammed wirklich gepredigt und getan hat, ganz gleich, ob er überhaupt gelebt hat, ob historisch der Koran von ihm stammt oder – wie heute manche Forscher im Westen meinen – von einem genialen Nachfolger, dieses Gotteswort steht da, für alle Zeiten. Der Koran in seiner kanonischen Form, unveränderlich, unbezweifelbar, unantastbar. Er wird auswendig gelernt von der ersten bis zur letzten Zeile, mit einer Inbrunst, die für uns hierzulande unvorstellbar ist. Und da steht es viele Male: «Tötet sie! Tötet sie! Tötet sie!» Jesus sagte: «Stecke das Schwert in die Scheide! Liebet eure Feinde!» Das muss man verdrängen, wenn man zum Kreuzzug aufruft. Mohammed sagt: «Tötet die Ungläubigen!» Das bedarf keiner Verdrängung. Was hier gepredigt wird, ist Krieg und Gewalt.

Natürlich kann man, muss man sagen: Das war zeitbedingt, die Bedingungen sind heute ganz andere als zur Zeit des Propheten. Jeder vernünftige Mensch tut dies, jeder normale Muslim denkt so. Aber darf man so denken? Darf man Gottes Wort relativieren? Immer wieder bricht aus der Tiefe der Zeit die kriegerische, die gewalttätige Botschaft des Ur-Islam hervor. Die intelligenten und aufgeklärten unter den islamischen Theologen der Gegenwart wissen natürlich, dass man sich nicht auf die Zeiten des Propheten berufen kann, um heutige Gräueltaten zu rechtfertigen. Aber diese Theologen sind nicht sichtbar. Kritische Geister werden in der islamischen Welt eingeschüchtert durch die Androhung physischer Gewalt, angegriffen oder gar getötet.

Ein Mufti ist jemand, der eine Fatwa erlässt. Wo ist der Mufti, der weithin hörbar eine Fatwa gegen das Morden im Namen des Islam erlässt? Bei Salman Rushdie war die Fatwa rasch zur Hand. Der Autor musste wegen ein paar Stellen in seinem Roman jahrelang in den Untergrund gehen und unter Polizeischutz leben, weil er von einflussreichen Geistlichen für vogelfrei erklärt worden war. Wenn es tatsächlich so ist, dass al-Qaida den Koran verfälscht und den Islam verrät, warum erhebt sich kein Mufti, der eine Fatwa gegen Osama Bin Laden erlässt? Warum werden die Bombenwerfer nicht «zu Ungläubigen erklärt» (arabisch takfîr)? Ist Osama Bin Laden ein frommer Muslim? Oder pervertiert er die Botschaft des Propheten? Wenn er sie pervertiert, muss er per Fatwa aus der Gemeinschaft der Gläubigen ausgestossen werden. Wenn nicht, ist dann an der Botschaft etwas grundlegend falsch?

«Im Namen Gottes, des Gnädigen»

Wir erwarten zunächst und vor allem von den muslimischen Geistlichen klare, deutliche, öffentliche Antworten auf solche Fragen. Die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Islam ist nicht in erster Linie ein soziales, ethnisches oder kulturelles (und schon gar kein militärisches) Problem; es geht um Theologie, denn von den geistigen und geistlichen Grundlagen hängt das Denken und Verhalten der Menschen ab. Geert Wilders ruft am Ende seines Filmes die Muslime dazu auf, die anstössigen Seiten aus dem Koran herauszureissen. Vielleicht müssen sie diese Seiten gar nicht herausreissen, es genügt schon, sie konsequent historisch zu relativieren. Die Muslime können mit ihrem Buch nicht unreflektiert weiterleben und seine gefährlichen Seiten einfach ignorieren. Von jeder Kanzel, in jeder Koranschule müssen die Geistlichen verkünden, dass die prophetische Offenbarung zeitbedingt ist, denn sonst werden immer wieder junge, verführbare Menschen die blutigen Tötungsaufrufe wörtlich nehmen.

«Im Namen Gottes, des Gnädigen und Barmherzigen» – das ist der Leitspruch des Islam; es sind die Worte, die 113 der 114 Suren einleiten und die jeder Muslim zeit seines Lebens auf den Lippen und im Herzen führt. Auf dieser Grundlage ist eine islamische Theologie des Friedens möglich. Nicht Menschen, die eine Diskussion anstossen, sind das Problem, sondern Menschen, die wahllos töten oder zum Töten aufhetzen. Nicht Geert Wilders, sondern Osama Bin Laden.

Der Autor ist Professor an einer renommierten europäischen Universität. Aus Sicherheitsgründen schreibt er unter einem Pseudonym.

◊

Unser Kommentar:

Ganz einverstanden mit dieser sehr guten und unverblümten Zusammenfassung des "militanten Islam", bis auf den Schluss, ab: "Im Namen Gottes, des Gnädigen".

Ja, "es geht tatsächlich um Theologie; denn von den geistigen und geistlichen Grundlagen hängt das Denken und Verhalten der Menschen ab"! "Von jeder Kanzel, in jeder Koranschule müssen die Geistlichen verkünden, dass die prophetische Offenbarung zeitbedingt ist, denn sonst werden immer wieder junge, verführbare Menschen die blutigen Tötungsaufrufe wörtlich nehmen", meint Prof. René Marcus. Erstens ist der Koran keine prophetische Offenbarung, sondern will er eine solche (nur) sein, kann er aber im Lichte der christlichen Offenbarung gar nicht sein, ist er also eine pseudo-prophetische "Offenbarung", und zweitens sind echte prophetische Offenbarungen nie (nur) "zeitbedingt", sondern gelten sie - da sie ja Offenbarungen GOTTES sind - für alle Zeiten, jedoch so, dass sie im richtigen Sinne des Offenbarenden zur Anwendung, zur Umsetzung gelangen. Nur GOTT selbst kann deshalb Seine Offenbarungen durch die Geschichte hindurch zeit- und umstände-gemäß oder zeit- und umstände-gerecht auslegen, und dazu hat ER den gläubigen Christen den HEILIGEN GEIST verheißen und auch gesandt und als dauernden Beistand gegeben.

Osama Bin Laden ist ein frommer (korantreuer) Muslim! Er pervertiert die Botschaft des Propheten nicht! Er wird deshalb auch nicht per Fatwa aus der Gemeinschaft der Gläubigen ausgestossen werden. Es kann deshalb auch keine islamische "Theologie des Friedens" geben. Es ist eben an der Botschaft etwas grundlegend falsch: Die ganze Botschaft ist falsch! Sie ist eine teuflische Fälschung der wahren, echten, einzig heilbringenden Botschaft GOTTES! Sie gehört bekämpft; aber natürlich nicht mit dem Schwert der physischen Gewalt oder mit Zwang, sondern mit dem Schwert des Geistes, des Heiligen Geistes! Und dazu müßte tatsächlich jeder Geistliche von der Kanzel herab verkünden, dass die wahre prophetische Offenbarung des Christentums NICHT zeitbedingt ist, sondern auch heute, und erst recht heute, bis in alle Details gilt; denn sonst werden vor allem die jungen, verführbaren Menschen sich einbilden, der Islam sei im Grunde gar nicht schlecht. Er könne friedlich neben dem Christentum existieren, und überhaupt sei es ja gar nicht so wichtig, welchen Gottesglauben man hat, Hauptsache, man lebt "im Frieden"!

Siehe auch:

«Tötet sie!»

deislam — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:30:40 +0000

Aus: Weltwoche.ch, Ausgabe 14/08 | Magazin | Fitna «Tötet sie!»
Von René Marcus

Militanter Ur-Islam

«Im Namen Gottes, des Gnädigen»

Der Autor ist Professor an einer renommierten europäischen Universität. Aus Sicherheitsgründen schreibt er unter einem Pseudonym.

◊

Unser Kommentar:

Ganz einverstanden mit dieser sehr guten und unverblümten Zusammenfassung des "militanten Islam", bis auf den Schluss, ab: "Im Namen Gottes, des Gnädigen".

Siehe auch:

What Can You Do In One Minute?

Umm Yusuf — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:54:58 +0000

Question:
In our offices and workplaces we can hardly find time to do acts of worship and righteous deeds. What can we do in the short time that we can find in our day? How can we make use of it?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Time is of the essence, it is too precious to be wasted or neglected. The wise person is the one who pays attention to his time and does not treat it as a vessel to be filled with cheap things and vain talk. Instead, he limits it to worthy efforts and righteous deeds that please Allaah and benefit other people. Every minute of a person’s life carries the potential to raise his own status and to make his people happier, little by little.

If you are keen to attain the highest position, and bring the most happiness to your people, then forget about relaxing and keep away from empty amusement.

In one minute you can do a lot of good and earn much reward. In just one minute, by giving in charity, studying, memorizing, or striving to do good deeds, you can make sure that this minute of your life is not wasted. One minute may be recorded in your book of good deeds if you know how to make the most of it and take care of it:

Strive to make the most of each minute… If you forget it, you forget the most important thing, the truth.

There follows a list of things that can be done in one minute, by the permission of Allaah:

1. In one minute you can recite Soorat al-Faatihah 3 times, reciting rapidly and silently. Some scholars said that the reward for reading al-Faatihah is more than 600 hasanahs, so if you read it 3 times you will, by the permission of Allaah, gain more than 1800 hasanahs – all of that in one minute.

2. In one minute you can recite Soorat al-Ikhlaas (Qul Huwa Allaahu Ahad) 20 times, reciting rapidly and silently. Reciting it once is equivalent to one-third of the Qur’aan. If you read it 20 times it is equivalent to reading the Qur’aan 7 times. If you read it 20 times in one minute each day, you will have read it 600 times in one month, and 7200 times in one year, which will be equal in reward to reading the Qur’aan 2400 times.

3. You can read one page of the Book of Allaah in one minute.

4. You can memorize a short aayah of the Book of Allaah in one minute.

5. In one minute you can say Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah wahdahu laa shareeka lah, lahu’l-mulk wa lahu’l-hamd wa huwa ‘ala kulli shay’in qadeer (There is no god except Allaah alone with no partner; to Him be dominion and praise, and He is Able to do all things) – 20 times. The reward for saying this is like freeing 8 slaves for the sake of Allaah from among the sons of Ismaa’eel.

6. In one minute you can say Subhaan Allaahi wa bi hamdihi (Glory and praise be to Allaah) 100 times. Whoever says that in one day will be forgiven for his sins even if they are like the foam of the sea.

7. In one minute you can say Subhaan Allaahi wa bi hamdihi Subhaan Allaah il-’Azeem (Glory and praise be to Allaah, glory be to Allaah the Almighty) 50 times. These are two phrases which are light on the lips, heavy in the balance and beloved to the Most Merciful, as was narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

8. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When I say ‘Subhaan Allaah, wa’l-hamdu Lillah, wa laa ilaah ill-Allaah, wa Allaahu akbar (Glory be to Allaah, praise be to Allaah, there is no god except Allaah, and Allaah is Most Great)’, this is more beloved to me than all that the sun rises upon.” (Narrated by Muslim). In one minute, you can say all of these words more than 18 times. These words are the most beloved words to Allaah, the best of words, and they weigh heavily in the balance of good deeds, as was narrated in the saheeh ahaadeeth.

9. In one minute you can say, Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illa Billaah (there is no strength and no power except with Allaah) more than 40 times. This is one of the treasures of Paradise, as was narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim. They are a means of putting up with difficulties and of aiming to achieve great things.

10. In one minute you can say Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah approximately 50 times. This is the greatest word, for it is the word of Tawheed, the good word, the word that stands firm. If these are the last words of a person, he will enter Paradise, and there are other reports which indicate how great these words are.

11. In one minute you can say Subhaan Allaah wa bi hamdih, ‘adada khalqihi, wa ridaa nafsihi, wazinata ‘arshihi, wa midaada kalimaatihi (Glory and praise be to Allaah, as much as the number of His creation, as much as pleases Him, as much as the weight of His Throne and as much as the ink of His words) more than 15 times. This words bring many more times the reward for other forms of tasbeeh and dhikr, as was reported in saheeh ahaadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

12. In one minute you can seek the forgiveness of Allaah more than 100 times by saying “Astaghfir-Allaah (I seek the forgiveness of Allaah). The virtues of seeking forgiveness are no secret, for it is the means of attaining forgiveness and entering Paradise, and it is the means of being granted a good life, increasing one’s strength, warding off disasters, making things easier, bringing rain and increasing one’s wealth and children.

13. You can say a few brief and concise words in one minute, and Allaah may bring about some good through them that you could never imagine.

14. In one minute you can send blessings on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) 50 times by saying Sall-Allaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (May Allaah bless him and grant him peace). In return Allaah will send blessings upon you 500 hundred times because one blessing brings ten like it.

15. In one minute you can motivate your heart to give thanks to Allaah, to love Him, to fear Him, to put hope in Him, to long for Him, and thus travel through the stages of ‘uboodiyyah (total enslavement to Allaah). You could do this when you are lying on your bed or walking in the street.

16. In one minute you can read more than two pages of a useful book that is easy to understand.

17. In one minute you can uphold the ties of kinship by calling a relative on the phone.

18. You can raise your hands and recite any du’aa’ you wish from the books of du’aa’, in one minute.

19. You can say salaams to and shake hands with a number of people in one minute.

20. You can forbid an evil action in one minute.

21. You can enjoin something good in one minute.

22. You can offer sincere advice to a brother in one minute.

23. You can console someone who is depressed in one minute.

24. You can remove something harmful from the road in one minute.

25. Making the most of one minute motivates you to make the most of other periods that would otherwise be wasted.

Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: When people go to sleep, I let my tears flow, and I recite a verse of the most eloquent poetry. Is it not a waste that nights go by and I do not increase in knowledge, yet this time is counted as part of my life?

Finally, the more sincere you are towards Allaah and the more aware you are of Him, the greater will be your reward and the more your hasanaat will increase.

Note that most of these actions will not cost you anything; they do not require tahaarah (purity) and they will not tire you out or take much effort. On the contrary, you can do them whilst you are walking, or in your car, or lying down, or standing, or sitting, or waiting for somebody.

These actions are also among the greatest means of attaining happiness, expanding the chest (i.e., bringing relief and joy) and removing stress and anxiety. May Allaah help us and you to do that which He loves and which pleases Him. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Islamic Rulings and Views on Solar/Lunar Eclipses

Umm Yusuf — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:09:41 +0000

So, tonight (February 20, 2008) a total lunar eclipse has been forecast. Allahu Alim (Allah knows best). You can read the article here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080220-eclipse-news.html

When I saw this on the local news, I thought that it would be nice to post the Islamic rulings and views on solar/lunar eclipses. Insh'Allah this will be benefitial if any of us ever find ourselves in this situation. However, note, that we do not have to do anything unless we actually see an eclipse with our own eyes or if reliable witnesses have seen it. We do not do the eclipse prayer,etc just because an eclipse has been forecast by astronomers. You can read more on that here: http://www.islam-qa.com/special/index.php?ref=20368&subsite=14&ln=eng

Ok, so on to the rulings:

Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“It is He Who made the sun a shining thing and the moon as a light and measured out for it stages that you might know the number of years and the reckoning. Allaah did not create this but in truth. He explains the Ayaat in detail for people who have knowledge.” [Yoonus 10:5]

“And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun” nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allaah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him” (Fussilat 41:37)

Salaat al-Kusoof is Sunnah mu’akkadah (a confirmed Sunnah) according to the consensus of the scholars. The daleel (evidence) for this is the Sunnah reported from the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

Eclipses are signs from Allaah by means of which Allaah makes His slaves afraid. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And We sent not the signs except to warn, and to make them afraid (of destruction)” [al-Israa’ 17:39]

When the sun was eclipsed at the time of the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he went out rushing nervously to the mosque, dragging his cloak behind him, and led the people in prayer. He told them that the eclipse was one of the signs of Allaah, with which Allaah makes His slaves afraid, and that it may be the cause of punishment coming upon the people. He commanded them to do that which could prevent the punishment, so he commanded them to pray when an eclipse happens, and to make du’aa’, seek His forgiveness, give charity, free slaves and do other righteous deeds so that the punishment would go away and not befall the people. So the eclipse is a reminder to people, making them afraid so that they will turn back to Allaah and pay attention to Him.

During the Jaahiliyyah, people used to believe that eclipses happened to mark the birth or death of a great person, but the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) declared this belief to be false and explained the divine wisdom behind the occurrence of eclipses:

Imaam al-Bukhaari and Muslim narrated that Ibn Mas’ood al-Ansaari said: “the sun was eclipsed the day Ibraaheem the son of the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, and the people said, ‘The sun is eclipsed because of the death of Ibraaheem.’ The Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The sun and the moon are two signs from Allaah, and they do not become eclipsed for the death or the birth of anyone. If you see that, hasten to remember Allaah and to pray.’”

According to another hadeeth in al-Saheehayn: “Call on Allaah and pray until [the eclipse] is over.”

It is reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari that Abu Moosa said: “These signs that Allaah sends are not for the death or life of anyone, but Allaah makes His slaves afraid through them, so if you see anything of that [eclipses], then hasten to remember Allaah and call on Him and seek His forgiveness.”

Allaah causes eclipses to happen to these two mighty signs, the sun and the moon, to teach His slaves and show them that these things are created and are subject to imperfections and changes just like any other created entities. Thus He shows them His perfect ability and that He alone is deserving of worship, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate yourselves not to the sun” nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allaah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him” (Fussilat 41:37)

The time for Salaat al-Kusoof lasts from the beginning of the eclipse until it is over, because the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When you see that, then pray.” (Agreed upon). According to another hadeeth, “If you see anything of that, then pray until it is over.” (Reported by Muslim).

Salaat al-Kusoof should not be done once the eclipse is over, because the time has gone. If an eclipse ends before one knows about it, one does not have to pray, because the reason for this prayer is no longer there.

The way in which Salaat al-Kusoof is done is to pray two Rak’ahs in which Qur’aan is recited aloud, according to the correct one out of the two scholarly opinions. In the first Rak’ah, one should recite al-Faatihah and a long soorah such as Soorat al-Baqarah or the equivalent, then do a long rukoo’, then raise one’s head and say, “Sami’a Allaahu liman hamidah, Rabbanaa wa laka’l-hamd (Allaah listens to the one who praises Him; our Lord to You be praise)” after standing upright, as in other prayers. Then one should then recite al-Faatihah and another long soorah, shorter than in the first recitation, equivalent in length to Soorat Aal ‘Imraan. Then one should do another long rukoo’ shorter than the first, and when raising one’s head, say, “Sami’a Allaahu liman hamidah, Rabbanaa wa laka’l-hamd hamdan katheeran tayyiban mubaarakan fih, mal’ al-samawaati wa mal’ al-ard wa mal’ ma shi’ta min shay’in ba’d (Allaah listens to the one who praises Him; our Lord to You be praise, much good and blessed praise, filling heaven and earth and whatever You will besides that).” Then he should do two lengthy sujoods, without making the sitting between them too long. Then one should pray the second rak’ah like the first, with two long rukoo’s and two long sujoods, as he did in the first rak’ah. Then he should recite the Tashahhud and say the salaam.

This is the description of Salaat al-Kusoof as prayed by the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as was reported with a number of isnaads. Some of these reports are in al-Saheehayn, including the hadeeth narrated by ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her): “The sun was eclipsed at the time of the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out, stood up and said Takbeer (‘Allaahu akbar’), and the people formed rows behind him. The Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recited a lengthy recitation and did a lengthy rukoo’, then he raised his head and said, ‘Sami’a Allaahu liman hamidah, Rabbanaa wa laka’l-hamd.’ Then he stood upright and recited another lengthy recitation, shorter than the first. Then he said ‘Allaahu akbar’ and did another lengthy rukoo’, shorter than the first. Then he said, ‘Sami’a Allaahu liman hamidah, Rabbanaa wa laka’l-hamd.’ Then he did sujood. Then in the second rak’ah he did likewise, until he had completed four rukoo’s and four sujoods, and the eclipse was over before he had finished.” (Agreed upon).

It is sunnah to pray Salaat al-Kusoof in jamaa’ah (congregation), because this is what the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did, but it is permissible to pray it individually, as with all other naafil prayers. However, praying it in congregation is better.

It is sunnah for the imaam to address the people after the prayer, and to warn them against negligence and being led astray, and to tell them to make lots of du’aa’ and ask for forgiveness. In al-Saheeh it is narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) finished his prayer then addressed the people and started by praising Allaah then he said, “The sun and the moon are two of the signs of Allaah, and they do not become eclipsed for the death or the birth of anyone. If you see that, then call on Allaah, perform salaah, give charity…”

If the prayer ends before the eclipse does, then remember Allaah (dhikr) and call on Him (du’aa’) until the eclipse ends. The prayer should not be repeated. If the eclipse ends before the prayer, then the prayer should be completed quickly, but it should not be stopped or cut off abruptly, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “and render not vain your deeds” [Muhammad 47:33]. The prayer should be at the time of the eclipse, because the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “… until it (the eclipse) is over…” and he also said, “… until what you are going through is over …”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “Sometimes eclipses last for a long time, and sometimes for a short time, depending on how much of the sun or moon is eclipsed. The entire sun or moon may be eclipsed, or only half of it, or one-third. If it is a total eclipse, then the prayer should last long enough for all of al-Baqarah or something of similar length to be recited in the first rak’ah, and in the next rak’ah a shorter recitation is made. There are saheeh ahaadeeth narrated from the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as we have mentioned, and it is prescribed to shorten the prayer if the reason for it [i.e., the eclipse] is no longer there. So if it is known that the eclipse will not last for long, or if it started to get less, one should still pray, but the prayer should be shortened. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, because this prayer is prescribed for a specific reason, and if the reason is no longer there and the eclipse is over, one should not pray.”

(source: www.islamqa.com Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid)

The moderate elements online

speekout — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:51:00 +0000

As a policy of encouraging debate on religion and debate against fundamentalism FACT (Foundation against continuing terrorism) has started the project DARA SHIKOH. Dara the prince royale that would have changed the way India is , is a role model for most fundamentalists.

Online on the web despite more venom and slit the throat, Jehad and Holy wars here is one blog that lists the FATWAS against the Terrorists and I would make it a point to list more such debates on this blog. The blog claims in its own words

We're not getting all the news from the media, and we're sure not hearing it
from the plethora of Islamophobic sites online. Talk radio suppresses this news,
too. There are Islamic sites and Islamic associations, religious and political
leaders that strongly condemn terrorism and violence, that are strongly allied
with the US in the war on terror, but not enough people know this. This site
will bring you that news.

http://www.altmuslim.com/
This is one site that hosts discussions on various topics and the ins and outs of ISLAM.
The site claims

Scharia

alime — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:31:13 +0000

[...] Die Scharia ist ein wenig einheitliches Rechtssystem.
Sie will dem Gläubigen Orientierung bieten;
das Wort bedeutet „der breite Weg“, der in der Wüste
zur Wasserstelle führt. Sie regelt das Zivil-, Erb- und
Strafrecht, aber auch Fragen des Ritus, beschreibt
Pflichten und Rechte des Einzelnen und der Gemeinschaft;
sie ist die Gesamtheit der auf die Handlungen
des Menschen bezogenen Vorschriften Allahs. Die
Scharia schöpft aus drei Quellen: dem Koran, der beispielhaften
Praxis des Propheten (Sunna) und dem
Konsens der Gemeinde über die Deutung [...].

Im Unterschied zum westlichen Recht ist das islamische
ursprünglich nicht kodifiziert, es liefert verschiedene
Argumente, die sich widersprechen können.
Es ist die Aufgabe des Juristen, eine eigene
Interpretation vorzulegen, Fatwas sind demnach keine
Urteile, die von einem Justizapparat in die Praxis
umgesetzt werden müssen, sondern Stellungnahmen
zu religiösen und rechtlichen Fragen.
Seit dem 19. Jh. verstärkt sich jedoch der Einfluss
derer, die auf eine staatliche Kodifizierung des Rechts
drängen gegen jeden Pluralismus. [...]