The uneducated masses and those who have never read the scriptures believe what the fanatics and the religious leaders tell them. Such lies propagated often enough soon come to be believed as truth. Our politicians too lend a helping hand in spreading such misinformation either because of their ignorance of the scriptures or simply because of the compulsions of their profession - politics - which impels them to ignore the facts deliberately and obliterate history shamelessly.

I am a Hindu, but being a rationalist Hindu, I have no qualms in admitting the existence of some unpalatable passages in some of the Hindu scriptures (and especially in one particular nonscripture, the Manu Smriti). Indeed, I have written articles and letters in the print media exposing such texts. Muslims, however, seem to regard themselves as the sole custodians of the honour of that ONE God even though they accept that he is the God of the entire humanity. This well-known fact got especially highlighted after the Islamic terrorists blasted the WTC towers in New York on 11th Sept 2001 killing thousands of innocent men and women of twenty different nationalities within a couple of minutes giving rise to a surfeit of letters and articles in the media through which the Muslims writers were at pains to announce to the world the non-violent, peaceful, tolerant and perfect nature of their religion.

They had to, for, how could have they challenged the text of this late-Madina Surah (5:3) in their scripture, through which God told Muhammad: "This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed my favour unto you and chosen for you as religion, Al-Islam".

There is a profusion of verses in the Quran on the subject of idols, idolaters, unbelievers and the holy war (Jihad) which will help any rational reader of that scripture to judge for himself the extent to which Islam can claim to be a tolerant, peaceful, non-violent and perfect religion. For brevity, I shall quote only a few samples which speak of gruesome slaughter of the idolaters and unbelievers, and intolerance of other faiths.

Undeniably, there are many praiseworthy aspects of Islam but they are not exclusive to that faith alone; almost all the other religions have them. That is why I have not quoted them. In any case, I have made it quite clear at the outset that my aim in writing this article is to tell the ignorant people that the claim about tolerance, peacefulness and non-violence attributed to Islam is not true.

Madina surahs: Death to the idolaters and unbelievers

The following samples are from the surahs received by Muhammad at Madina where he had to migrate from his native Mecca:

Through this mid-Madina surah (61:9), God tells Muhammad: "He (i.e., God) has sent His messenger with guidance and religion of Truth, that he may make it conqueror of all religions, however much the idolaters may be averse".

Here is another mid-Madina surah (3:85) which is clearly indicative of intolerance of other faiths: "Who seeks as religion other than AI-Islam, he will be a loser in the Hereafter".

This late - Madina surah (9:3) declares: "And a proclamation from Allah and his messenger to all men that Allah is free from obligation to. idolaters and so is his messenger. So, if you do not repent, then know that you cannot escape Allah. Give tidings, O Muhammad, of a painful doom to those who disbelieve". This theme is continued further: "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, take them captive, besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush"

This early-Madina surah (8:67), revealed after the battle Badr, admonishes Muhammad: "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land".

The Muslims of Madina, encouraged by the Jews, had begun to resent Muhammad's arrival (from Mecca) since it robbed them of their local influence. These Muslims were termed 'Hypocrites'. This mid-Madina Surah (33:61) directs the Prophet: "The Hypocrites will be seized wherever found and slain with a fierce slaughter".

Another mid-Madina surah (33:64-65) announces: "Lo! Allah has cursed the disbeliever and has prepared for them a flaming fire wherein they will abide for ever".

We learn from this early-Madina surah (22:19-21): "For the disbelievers, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads whereby that which is in their bellies and their skins too will be melted; and for them are hooked rods of iron". This theme is briefly repeated in a late-Madina surah (5:36-37).

Through this mid-Madina surah (2:98) God declares: "Lo! Allah himself is the enemy of the disbelievers".

This late-Madina surah (5:33) declares: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and his messenger will be that they will be killed and crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off'.

Meccan surahs: Placatory advice

Muhammad preached against idolatry for thirteen years in his native Mecca but without success. So he migrated to Madina where he had better luck. Any student of the Quran at once notices that the divine directions which he recited at Mecca (where he had to face severe opposition) were extremely mild and conciliatory in nature, while the tone of those at Madina (where he had gathered many followers) changed to threats and stern warnings.

I have already quoted some samples from the surahs received at Madina. Now, here are some samples of the surahs which Muhammad received at Mecca. The stark contrast is at once obvious.

The first sentence of this late-Meccan surah (2:256) announces: "There is no compulsion in religion", but the next sentence gently admonishes: "The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejects false deities and believes in Allah has grasped a firm handhold which will never break". (Defenders of Islam's tolerance towards other religions selectively quote only the first sentence in their articles and letters).

The mid-Meccan surah (10:99-100) is exceptionally conciliatory in its nature: "And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Would you, O Muhammad, compel men until they are believers? It is not for any soul to believe except by the permission of Allah". (There are many examples in the Quran where we find God coming to help Muhammad whenever he faced a problematic situation).

This late-Meccan surah (6:108) is equally soft towards the idolaters: "Had Allah willed, idolaters would not have been idolaters. We (i.e., God) have not sent you, O Muhammad, as a keeper over them, nor are you responsible for them".

The two surahs mentioned above pose a question: How could have the merciful God divinely directed one section of humanity to kill another section when both are his creations? Hindus are idolaters and Buddhists and Jains are unbelievers. Are we to understand that it is the divine duty of the Muslims to carry out wholesale murder of all of them? The scriptures of no other religion say so.

Several surahs direct the Muslims to destroy the places where idols were worshipped. Let me quote just one sample which has great historical importance: In 630 AD, Muhammad returned to his native Mecca as the Emperor and the Prophet. Witnessing the destruction of the 92 female idols in the Kaba under his supervision, he recited this surah (17:81) which he received from God: "And say, O Muhammad: Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Lo! It is ever bound to vanish". That event signified the end of idolatry in Arabia.

When in February 2001 the Taliban destroyed the two ancient and mammoth statues of Buddha of great archaeological value, the so-called rationalists among the Indian Muslims loudly announced: "That was un-Islamic!" The ignorant masses of the other religions actually believed that lie, although what the Taliban did had sanction from the Quran, which the Muslims believe to be God's word.

Quran's Criticism of Biblical Passages

Muslims take offence at the slightest criticism of some of passages in the Quran little realising that the very book is highly critical of the Christian scripture and hurtful to the Christian belief. This is evident from numerous surahs through which Allah declares that Jesus was not the son of God. Here are some samples:

This early Meccan surah (18: 4-5) declares: "Warn those who say that Allah has chosen a son, a thing whereof they have no knowledge, nor had their fathers. They speak nothing but a lie".

Paradoxically, another early Meccan surah (19:20-22) informs us: "Mary said: How can I have a son when no mortal has touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He (i.e., Angel Gabriel) told her: The Lord (i.e., God) said that it is easy for Him. And she conceived him (i.e., Jesus)".

This early-Meccan surah (19:88, 89, 91,92) declares: "They say god has taken unto Himself a son. Tell them that they utter a disastrous thing, for, it is not meet for God that He should take unto himself a son".

Here is a mid-Meccan surah (43:81) which directs Muhammad thus: "Say, 0 Muhammad, God has no son".

The Quran also denies that Jesus was crucified. This mid-Madina Surah (4:157) declares: "They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof, they have no knowledge thereof except pursuit of conjecture; they slew him not for certain".

Such passages in the Quran are just as hurtful to the Christians as are to idolaters and unbelievers, and to the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Muslims believe the Quran to be the Word of the same God. The point that highlights itself is that Islam is not tolerant of the beliefs of the people of the other religions.

Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism emerged from Hinduism because their founders saw (rightly in my view) some flaws and imperfections in Hinduism the religion of their birth. Yet, the scriptures of those religions (Tripitaka, Samana, Suttam and the Guru Granth Sahib) do not contain even one word against Hinduism! That is what true tolerance means.

Some Muslims, in order to cover up such passages which are offensive to the beliefs of the followers of other religions (idolatry of the Hindus, atheism of the Buddhists and the Jains, and divinity of Jesus Christ as God's son) offer a rather weak argument that such verses should be viewed ill relation to those times and to that region (Arabia)! They deliberately and conveniently forget that at other times they also maintain that the Quran is God's Word for the entire humanity, for all time to come. (Did not Allah say so through the late-Madina surah (5:3) which I mentioned earlier? This early Madina surah (2:185) also says that the Quran is guidance for the mankind).

I wonder if the school kids who study at the madrasas recite such offensive passages (like "kill the idolaters; destroy the unbelievers; Jesus was not the son of God; etc) when they memorise the Quran! Now, coming to the meaning of Jihad, the Quran itself amply clarifies that the 'holy war' was against the unbelievers and idolaters; there is no room for doubt about it. Besides the surahs which I have already mentioned, there are many others like these samples: This early Madina surah (2:216) was received in the second year of Muhammad's arrival at Madina, asking him to wage Jihad against his persecutors: "Warfare is ordained for you though it is hateful to you; but it may happen that you may hate a thing which is good -for you and love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows, you know not". In the same year, this early-Madina surah (8:65) was also received: "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence". Muhammad personally led 25 of the 65 holy wars he fought in compliance with divine commands.

Many such surahs notwithstanding, even the rationalist Muslims attribute totally different meaning to the 'holy war' saying that it is a war in our own minds in which we fight the evil and make the good thought and actions to overcome it.

As mentioned at the outset, this write-up restricts itself only to certain highly unpalatable aspects of Islam, which, in sum, simply say: "Kill the idolaters and unbelievers and make Islam the conqueror of religions". If that is so, why did I have to write so much to express so little? I could have simply said it in a single sentence and quoted merely the reference numbers of the 25 surahs which I have mentioned, couldn't I? No, I couldn't, for, in the absence of the exact text of each surah, a single sentence could never have carried any credibility; the ignorant would have remained ignorant and the fanatics among the Muslims would ... well! That is not all that unimaginable, is it?

This is possibly one of the best hand-crafted duas I've read in Ramadan.  Ma sha Allah, it was written by a Turkish brother who is helping out with the Greeks Rethink team.  May Allah reward him.  If you want an eman rush, read on:

O Allah, O Karim,
Please have Mercy on me.

O Allah, O Karim,
Please forgive me
for the sins I committed in the past
and those I will commit in the future.

O Allah,
have Mercy on all the Muslimeen,
and guide them.
Guide me O Allah,
and guide my parents,
my siblings, my cousins,
my aunts and uncles,
my nephews and nieces.

O Allah,
I ask You
to strengthen my iman and those around me.
I ask You to soften my heart
and to soften the hearts of the Believers.

O Allah,
forgive me for my shortcomings,
for only You are Perfect.

O Allah,
Please Forgive me
if I ever got too wrapped in a matter
that I didn't have the time to utter Your Name.

O Allah,
Please Forgive me for all the salat I missed
because of ignorance or laziness,
Please Forgive me for all the fasts I didn't make up,
thinking it was "alright, since I fasted most of the days anyway."

O Allah,
Please Forgive me
for the penny I never dropped
into the metal cup for the homeless man begging on the street.

O Allah,
Please spark the love of Islam in my heart
and in the hearts of every single Muslim
until it gets implanted in their children
and their childern's children and so on.

O Allah,
I ask that You help me for I am weak
and will only grow stronger by Your Strength,
so Allah Please Strengthen me
to fight Shaitan and his whispers.
And if I ever fell into his trap
and followed my desire,
then sincerely forgive me,
for that displays not only my weakness,
but Your Greatness as well.

O Allah, Please lighten the punishment in the grave
for those before us and those after us.
Please Allah, lighten the punishment
and please shed light into every Muslim's grave.

O Allah, if I ever was too afraid
to stand up for Your Deen
because of what others would think,
then Forgive me, for I was a fool for doing so.

O Allah, Please Protect me and each Muslim,
and Protect especially the orphans and the widows.

O Allah, Please Strengthen the faith
of the destitute Muslims around the world,
so they have hope to live.

O Allah, if I ever forgot to do du'a
for even one suffering Muslim,
then Forgive me
for then it is as if I haven't done du'a
for the entire ummah.

O Allah,
Please be the Light of my eyes, ears and heart.

O Allah,
Please be the Light on the sides of me
and the Light behind me
and the light in front of me.

O Allah, Please Forgive me
for all the foul words I spoke
either out of ignorance or
because I was trying to be "cool."

O Allah, please forgive me
if I never stopped to think about You,
due to "other important things."

O Allah, Please Forgive me
for not having enough time
or creating time for reading the Qur'an.

O Allah, Please Forgive me
for listening to music
and wasting time watching Harram on TV and the Internet

O Allah, please forgive me
for all the yelling I've done
and the arguments I've been in.
For the only time the voice should be raised is for Your Praises!

O Allah, Please Forgive me
for my disrespect towards my family,
elders, siblings and friends.

O Allah, Please Forgive me
for any backbiting I have been accused of,
whether I did it consciously or unconsciously.

O Allah, Rab al-Alamin,
Forgive me,
Forgive me for everything.
So for everyone,
every single Muslim,
dead or alive,
I do du'a that you forgive them
for all their sins.

O Allah,
Please Please Please
help the suffering Muslims
of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya,
Bosnia, Gujarat, Nigeria,
Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere around the world.

Please O Allah, make the Mujahedeen victorious,
and let the beauty of Islam reign!

O Allah, Give victory to the Muslims!

O Allah, Please let True Islam reign!

O Allah, Please increase our knowledge
of Your Deen and this world.

Oh Allah, Please Help us all and guide us,
for You are Everything to us.

O Allah,
I cannot stress how much I ask
for Your Forgiveness and Your Guidance.

O Allah,
I fear You,
I fear You soooo much words cannot describe.
I fear the day when I will meet You,
and I WILL meet You.
When we are one on one,
and I have no one's help or support.
No-one can take the blame for me
nor I for them.
The only thing I will have is a little book given to me by You that has my deeds.

O Allah,
Please Forgive me for my thoughts,
for even though I get sinned only for my actions,
I cannot help but feel guilty for my thoughts
and I ask You to Forgive me for them and to clear my mind of any impurities

until You become the Only thing on my mind.

O Allah,
Please Forgive me
if I ever did anything out of gain
for this life and not for Your pleasure.
If I ever did anything to "show off"
then Please Forgive me for that.

O Allah,
I do du'a
that You grant us all God-Fearing spouses
and grant us righteous children.

O Allah,
I do du'a that You continue to strengthen this ummah
until the Day of Resurrection.

O Allah,
Forgive me
for whatever I have not mentioned,
for I am bound to forget

....but You,

through Your Greatness...

You Never Forget.

O Allah,
Please Grant
all the Muslims
Jannah-tul-Firdaus.

O Allah,
I ask that You shed Your Mercy
on all the Prophets (peace be upon them)
and on all the Angels (peace be upon them).

Lastly, I do du'a
You shed Your Mercy
on the Prophet Muhammad,
his family and companions.

I do du'a
that you grant Muhammad
the Highest Station in Paradise.

Rabinna Aataina
Fiduniya Hasinathow
Wa Fil Akhirati Hasinathow,
Wakina Adhab innaar

Ameen.

Al-Qaeda issued new threats against Denmark in an internet video released on Friday, saying an attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan is just the start of its retaliation for perceived insults to the Prophet Muhammad.

So instead of ignoring the cartoons, laughing it off because they are above primitive behaviour such as violence, maybe even leaving it in the hands of their "almighty" god or just using their great, religiously inspired, intellect to write a few sharp rebuttals etc.....

The video profiled a suicide bomber who it said carried out a June 2 attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad, which killed six people, in response to the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad by Danish newspapers.

Same boring, primitive, backward and deadly nonsense .....it is still a case of religion encouraging people to express their emotions at the most basic level of humanity again... death and destruction...instead of encouraging them to use their "god-given" intellect.

And Muslims everywhere can praise al-Qaeda and all the Muslim rioters violently expressing their "hurt feelings", for doing such a sterling public relations job in advancing the cause for acceptance of Islam, the religion of peace violence, by everyone...

"We have warned previously, and we warn once more, the crusader states which insult, mock and defame our Prophet and the Qur'an in their media and occupy our lands, steal our treasure and kill our brothers that we will exact revenge at the appropriate time and place," said Abu al-Yazid.

O really, using this astound logic.. I now declare Pighad on Muslims everywhere for insulting and mocking the great PiG (peace be upon him), for banishing my PiG (PBUH) lord from their lands and treating it with disrespect... I now have the right for making my own personal delusion everyone elses problem... Furthermore I will demand respect instead of earning it. Purile and ridiculous right?

As for stealing "their" treasure oil, well that might be a different case, but they need to be more specific. So it was Denmark instructing the US to attack and plunder liberate Iraq?

Bottomline: Keep using religion as an excuse to behave like a complete bunch troglodytes and that little modern nicety called "freedom of religion" will me taken away from you.
Technorati Tags: Denmark, Cartoons, Muslims, Islam, al-Qaeda, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, Osama bin Laden, Suicide Bombers, Allah, Muhammad, Oil, Pakistan

Loving him is following him

Muslims all over the world are deeply hurt by the recent caricatures of our beloved Prophet Muhammad , in Danish and several other publications.

Every now and then, some Western media outlets provoke Muslims by insulting the Prophet Muhammad . The baiting often succeeds in eliciting Muslims' outrage and sporadic violence.

The latest incident started with a Danish newspaper's caricature portraying the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. To add insult to injury, Norwegian, French, German, Dutch and a few other newspapers reprinted the defamatory cartoons to "defend"—they claimed—the freedom of expression.

The real issue is not the freedom of expression. Free speech is not and was never meant to be absolute. There are laws in the West that ban certain kinds of speech, including those that incite anti-Semitism, racism and violence. Moreover, some countries have laws against blasphemy and defamation. To Muslims, banning blasphemy against Allah and the Prophet Muhammad has a higher priority.

For the European newspapers to reprint the offensive cartoons to show solidarity with their Danish counterpart seems akin to the plot the leaders of Quraysh had hatched to assassinate Prophet Muhammad .

The Quraysh masterminds had figured that including representatives from major tribes of Makkah in the heinous plot would make it impossible for the Prophet's clan, Banu Hashim, to avenge. But Allah willed that the Prophet Muhammad would migrate to Madinah unscathed while the plotters laid siege to his house.

The West often underestimates the Muslims' reverence for their beloved Prophet Muhammad, (sallallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and is, therefore, staltred by the fierce Islamic reaction to an insult against him. Few in the West know that for Muslims, loving their Prophet more than themselves is a matter of faith, not choice.

Further, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad , as a terrorist is a falsification of history. He was considered "Al-Ameen," the trustworthy, by his people even before he received the Prophethood.

Once, when asked by some of his followers to invoke Allah's wrath on the enemies, he refused saying he had been sent as a mercy unto mankind.

Objective Western intellectuals have acknowledged the superior character of Prophet Muhammad . In his “The 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," Michael H. Hart ranked Prophet Muhammad, (sallallallahu alayhi wa sallam) No. 1 because "He was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.”

Alphonse de Lamartine, a renowned 19^th Century French writer, had this to say about the Prophet Muhammad : "As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than him?”

Unfortunately, some Muslims forget that loving their Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) means following him. Burning Danish embassies, as they did in Damascus and Beirut, to avenge the insult to the Prophet Muhammad is a complete disservice to him. Our violent reaction only plays into the hands of those who wish to reinforce the negative stereotypes about Muslims.

Do Muslims need reminding that Prophet Muhammad , forgave the people of Ta'if who had rejected his message of monotheism and pelted him with stones, bloodying him? Islamic tradition has it that when Jibreel (Archangel Gabriel) sought his permission to punish the perpetrators, the Prophet , instead prayed that some day the inhabitants of Ta'if would leave their idols and worship Allah alone. Within a few years they did.

Prophet Muhammad's, (sallallallahu alayhi wa sallam) servant once noted his forgiving disposition, said, "I served the Prophet , for ten years, and he never said ‘uf’ (a word indicating impatience or discontent) to me and never blamed me by saying, `Why did you do so or why didn't you do so?" (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Prophet Muhammad's, (sallallallahu alayhi wa sallam) archenemies hated his Message and hurled malicious insults at him, to which he responded with forbearance. Years later when he, sallallallahu alayhi wa sallam returned as victor to Makkah, his city of birth which he was forced to leave, he asked its awed citizens, "What do you think I'm going to do to you." They said, "You are a noble brother, son of a noble brother; we expect only good from you." The Prophet responded with a general amnesty.

Let Muslims not forget that the Prophet , encouraged freedom of expression. In the Battle of Badr, he changed the battlefield against his own opinion due to the passionate advice of some young soldiers.

Part of the West's success today is the freedom of expression, of thought, of religion—that draws Muslims to it from their oppressed societies. For that, Muslims should be thankful to the West. After all, freedom is an Islamic value that the West has embraced while Muslim societies have forsaken.

Defending Prophet Muhammad requires allowing freedom and practicing compassion and forgiveness, like he did. In his lifetime he , bore insults with magnanimity and devoted his time to spreading the Message of Allah. In fact, he never avenged anyone for a personal offence. Can we really respect him by violent retaliation?

Muslims should turn this extremely painful incident into something positive, by teaching the world what the Prophet , means to us and what his life was like.

As for the West, there really is a need to reexamine the notion of free speech. Without safeguards, the exercise of this freedom can be lethal, as we have seen.

One may ask, is it morally defensible to provoke violence, cause death, and create a civilizational conflict for one cartoonist's freedom of expression?

The West already has laws to protect religious freedom, which Muslims and other peoples of faith admire. What it now needs to do is protect this freedom from being trampled by unbridled free speech. No one should have to insult Prophet Muhammad, Jesus, or Moses, may Allah exalt their mention to speak freely.

We can turn these negative, malicious cartoons into something positive by learning about the Prophet , by following him, and educating others about his teachings.

Allah described the Prophet in the verse (which means): "And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character." (Quran 68:4)

And (what means): "Indeed in the Messenger of Allah there is a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much." (Quran 33:21)

By a divine decision, the status of Muhammad was raised forever, as in the verse (which means): "And (has Allah not) raised high your fame?" (Quran 94:4)

Muslims were commanded to lower their voices low in the presence of the Prophet , out of respect, as in the verse (which means): "O you who believe, raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him as you speak aloud to one another lest your deeds be rendered fruitless while you perceive not. Verily, those who lower their voices in the presence of Allah's Messenger, they are the ones whose hearts Allah has tested for piety. For them there is forgiveness and a great reward." (Quran 49:2-3)

While other prophets were sent to their own people, Muhammad was appointed as the Messenger to all mankind. And such he was asked to declare (what means): "Say (O Muhammad): `O mankind, verily I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah - to Whom belongs the Dominion of the heavens and the earth." (Quran 7:158)

On the Day of Judgement he will be the only Messenger to intercede with Allah to seek forgiveness for the wrongdoers.

As blasphemous as the drawings are, we believe that behind all events there is Allah's pre-decree and wisdom that mortal beings fully understand only in hindsight. In the end, this deeply hurtful incident would be seen as benefiting the image of the Prophet .

A case in point is the verse (which means): "Verily, We have given you (O Muhammad) a manifest victory." (Quran 48:1)

When this verse was revealed, even some of the most exemplary Muslims could not understand how being prevented from performing pilgrimage by the enemies could be a manifest victory. Prophet Muhammad had just signed a treaty with non-Muslims of Makkah that imposed unfair restrictions on Muslims.

The Prophet swore by Allah that no matter how restrictive this treaty seemed, it was a clear victory for Muslims. Within a few years, the victory became abundantly clear when Muslims marched into Makkah, not just as pilgrims but as victors.

Our love for the Prophet Muhammad cannot be expressed except by following him. If we did that, we will see how Allah can change this painful incident into a great opportunity for the Islamic cause.

http://www.islamhouse.com/p/132779

“Saya bukan penyair!” Kata Muhammad kepada suara ghaib yang terus mengatakan,

“Iqra (bacalah dengan suara keras)!”

Beberapa tahun lalu saya menelusuri berbagai toko buku untuk mencari tahu tentang Muhammad. Ya, kala itu, saya tidak puas dengan cerita ustad saya waktu kecil; Muhammad itu ayahnya Abdullah, ibunya Aminah, ibu susunya Halimah, pamannya Abu Thalib, istrinya Khadijah, waktu kecil dadanya dibelah oleh malaikat dst. Waktu itu saya ingin mencari Muhammad yang historis; siapakah Muhammad? Waktu SMA dulu saya sudah baca sirahnya Munawwar Cholil. Saya juga mendengar katanya bukunya Husein Haikal bagus, saya beli. Ah, sebelumnya saya baca Sirah Nabawiyahnya Yusuf al-Kandahlawi, katanya pemenang lomba penulisan sirah nabi. Waktu kuliah saya disodorin orientalis bukunya Montgomery Watt, terus diberi tahu juga bahwa bukunya Ibn Ishaq yang diringkas Ibn Hisyam itu sumber paling tua dan lengkap. Saya menemukan bukunya Martin Ling dan Karen Armstrong  tentang Muhammad beberapa tahun kemudian. Sampai akhirnya saya meneluri internet dan melihat penghujatan pada Nabi, sayangnya berdasarkan bukunya Ibn Ishaq. Dan akhirnya saya merasa tidak perduli dengan Muhammad historis. Sudahlah, biar saja sirah nabi diperlakukan seperti mitos dengan Muhammad sebagai figur protagonis adi-sempurna. Tetapi saat ini saya melihat bahwa mistifikasi terhadap Muhammad telah mengakibatkan cara berpikir yang mundur; bahwa sirah nabi itu harus jadi default dari sejarah dunia Islam, di manapun dan kapanpun. Akhirnya saya ingin melihat mitos itu kembali sebagai 'sejarah'. Saya beli buku Karen Armstrong yang terakhir, Muhammad: Prophet of Our Time dan bukunya Bruce Lawrence, The Qur’an: A Biography. Saya menjadikan kedua buku tersebut sebagai sumber tulisan ini. Keduanya bukan tanpa cela dan bisa salah. Kalo ada yang bisa meluruskan pandangan saya, secara bertanggunjawab dan argumentatif, akan saya terima dengan senang hati.

Manusia Soliter, Kegelisahan dan Keraguannya

Sendirian di dalam gua, wajar bila Muhammad merasa takut saat itu. Kebiasaan bermeditasi yang biasa dilakukannya pada bulan suci Ramadan, sebuah kebiasaan yang sudah sejak dulu dilakukan oleh penduduk Mekkah, pada malam itu terasa lain. Konon katanya Muhammad merasa seperti dikendalikan oleh sebuah kekuatan yang maha dasyhat; kemudian ia mendengar kata perintah, “Bacalah!” Bingung dan takut, Muhammad bertanya: “Apa yang harus saya baca!?” Perintah itu datang berulang dan pedagang Arab yang konon katanya buta aksara itu kembali bertanya “Apa yang harus saya baca dengan keras?”, sampai akhirnya bagian pertama dari surat al-Alaq  yang kita kenal dibacakan oleh Malaikat Jibril: Bacalah dalam Nama Tuhanmu Yang Telah Menciptakan. Pada malam itu al-Qur’an mulai diturunkan, bukan sebagai aturan; tetapi sebagai puisi yang menyingkapkan Kebenaran, sama persis dengan para rishi di tepi sungai Indus. Muhammad saat itu menurut saya seperti diminta untuk mendeklamasikan puisi:

Bacalah dalam Nama Tuhanmu Yang Telah Menciptakan

Menciptakan Manusia dari Darah yang Menggantung…

Muhammad bukan tanpa curiga dan rasa takut setelah mengalami peristiwa itu. Masyarakat Arab pada masa jahiliah bukanlah masyarakat yang diliputi kebodohan dalam arti tidak berbudaya. Para penyair pra-Qur’an biasa membacakan puisinya di pinggiran Kabah, kadang untuk membesar-besarkan sukunya, dan kadang untuk Tuhan. Puisinya juga bagus-bagus. Seniman berujar berdasarkan inspirasi, mirip dengan para Nabi. Seniman, khususnya penyair, menelusuri jejak kebenaran melalui wahyu, inspirasi atau peyingkapan yang ia dapatkan ketika menciptakan karya seninya. Nah, sekali lagi ini konon, para penyair Arab, seperti para peramal dan ahli nujum, juga biasa kerasukan setan yang dengannya mereka bisa membuat syair hebat ketika sedang mengasingkan diri. Wajarkah bila Muhammad ragu? Wajarlah, jangan-jangan ia kerasukan jin? Ia pun melaporkan peristiwa itu pada istrinya Khadijah, yang kemudian meminta nasihat dari kerabatnya Waraqah bin Naufal, seorang Kristen yang hanif. Singkat kata, Muhammad berhasil diyakinkan bahwa ia adalah Nabi bagi kaumnya dan ia menerima tugas itu. Hanya saja, kadang ia diliputi keraguan, karena inspirasi ilahi tidak datang secara reguler. Wahyu yang diterimanya saat masih di Mekkah adalah puisi-puisi yang bercerita tentang hari akhir dan kehidupan setelah mati; liriknya pendek-pendek, berima dan dibaca seperti stakato dalam kosakata musik. Ah, al-Qur’an memang musik! Tapi wahyu-wahyu itu tidak berkait secara praktis dengan misi kenabiannya di Mekkah. Dalam interval ketika Allah tidak memberinya wahyu, Muhammad harus memikirkan sendiri apa yang harus ia lakukan – seringkali ia tampak sangat mengandalkan dukungan moral istri dan pamannya. Di sini Muhammad sama seperti manusia lainnya, ragu dan tidak tahu. Untungnya petunjuk Allah selalu datang dalam kondisi-kondisi genting, terutama setelah berhijrah ke Yastrib, yang oleh kaum Yahudi disebut Medinta (kota) dalam Bahasa Aramaik.

Manusia Pada Zamannya: Perang, Keadilan dan Rekonsiliasi

Setelah hijrah ke Madinah, demikian para penulis sejarah Nabi dari Ibn Ishaq sampai Karen Arsmtrong, Muhammad dan generasi Islam pertama adalah orang-orang yang terbuang. Seperti kelompok Ahmadiyah, mereka menjadi pengungsi di kota itu. Hijrah adalah pilihan yang terpaksa bagi kaum Muslimin. Dulu mereka -- Muhammad, Abu Bakar dan para sahabat lainnya -- adalah para pedagang yang cukup handal, tetapi ketika ‘MUI’-nya Mekkah pada masa jahiliyah itu menyatakan kelompok Muhammad sesat, meminta mereka dibubarkan dan melakukan aniaya, maka tidak ada pilihan bagi mereka selain berhijrah meninggalkan kerabat yang mereka cintai dan aset-aset perniagaan yang menopang hidup mereka sejak dulu.

Di Madina mereka praktis tak berdaya secara ekonomi. Yah, namanya juga pengungsi. Sayangnya waktu itu belum ada UNHCR atau lembaga PBB yang menangani masalah pengungsi dan HAM. :D Karena itu, sebenarnya mereka menjadi beban bagi penduduk lokal, kaum Anshor. Muhammad menyadari hal itu. Masalahnya, mereka tidak mungkin berdagang di Madina karena perekonomian kota itu sudah dimonopoli pedagang Arab dan Yahudi. Mau bertani juga sepertinya sulit; tangan mereka tangan pedagang, dan lagipula, di mana mereka bisa menemukan tanah subur? Akhirnya Muhammad memutuskan untuk melakukan ghazu, yakni merampok kafilah dagang dari dan menuju Mekkah. Ini tradisi lama, dan bukan tidak dikenal di Tanah Arab ketika Muhammad hidup, jadi tidak dianggap kejahatan. Di Mekkah, kaum Muslim adalah orang tertindas; di luar Mekkah, mereka menjadi ‘hantu’ jalanan yang hidup mengandalkan barang rampasan. Mereka tentu bukan penjahat sungguhan, agak mirip sama Robin Hood atau kelompok revolusioner yang menjadi kuat karena ditindas. Dan mereka pun tidak terlatih secara militer tentunya. Status quo Mekkah pun jengah sekaligus heran dengan ulah Muhammad dan pengikutnya.

Berbagai peperangan yang tenar dalam sejarah Nabi bermula dari upaya perampokan itu. Pada awalnya perampokan itu bermotifkan ekonomi atau survival dalam konteks yang lebih umum. Praktik ini tentu bertentangan dengan misi Muhammad untuk menegakkan keadilan dan kasih sayang, karena itu Allah merasa perlu melegitimasi aksi peperangan itu dengan memberinya konteks. Perampokan itu dilakukan dalam konteks peperangan, kira-kira begitu kata Allah (Qur’an 22:36-40). Kalian adalah orang-orang yang ditindas, diusir dari rumah kalian tanpa alasan yang dibenarkan, dan karena itu kalian “diizinkan” untuk berperang, merampok orang yang memerangi kalian. Suatu hari di bulan Rajab, ketika diharamkan melakukan peperangan, kaum Muslimin menyerang kafilah dagang di Nakhlah. Mereka tidak punya pilihan, karena kalau menunggu bulan itu selesai, kafilah itu bakal selamat sampai Mekkah. Sayangnya satu orang terbunuh kena panah dalam perampokan itu. Muhammad memang mengirimkan pasukan, tapi ia tidak menyangka bahwa peperangan itu akan terjadi di bulan yang disucikan. Allah pun memberi dukungan: pertumpahan darah di bulan suci itu dilarang tetapi melawan penindasan itu lebih penting; penindasan itu jauh lebih keji dari pembunuhan, kata Allah (Qur’an 2:217).

Suatu saat Muhammad bermimpi ia pergi berhaji seperti yang dilakukan kaum pagan di Mekkah. Kaum Muslim pun diminta untuk pergi ke "negeri yang aman" itu tanpa senjata. Sebagai seorang Nabi, ia harus mengikuti perintah Allah kepadanya. Dalam situasi perang, ia melakukan suatu gerak politik yang saat itu cukup mengejutkan bagi para pengikutnya; Muhammad bernegoisasi dengan lawan politiknya di Mekkah. Dalam negoisasi itu, ia menanggalkan gelarnya sebagai Utusan Allah. Hanya Muhammad, anaknya Abdullah. Saya tidak tahu apakah keputusan itu diperintahkan Allah atau tidak, tetapi yang jelas ini adalah strategi Muhammad untuk bisa memasuki Mekkah tanpa celaka., dan ini adalah pilihan pribadinya yang sangat krusial. Tidak lama kemudian jumlah kaum Muslim, dan para simpatisan mereka serta kaum munafik yang mau mencari untung sesaat, semakin banyak dan kaum kafir Mekkah pun secara moral melemah. Hari kemenangan tiba. Mekkah pun ditaklukkan. Lalu, apakah misi kenabian berakhir bersamaan dengan runtuhnya entitas politik Mekkah yang kafir? Tidak, misi kenabian berakhir ketika Muhammad mengakhiri peperangan dalam semangat rekonsiliasi dan sebuah masyarakat yang berketuhanan terbentuk berdasarkan asas keadilan. Ini tafsirnya Karen Arsmtrong dan saya sepakat. :D

Muhammad adalah seorang pemimpin revolusi. Dia adalah seorang politisi yang bisa mengobarkan semangat revolusi para pengikutnya. Keputusan moral dan politik yang ia buat adalah cerminan dari pribadi sekaligus masyarakat tempat ia hidup. Karena itu, jangan heran, ketika orang Yahudi dari Bani Quraizah berkhianat, Muhammad memutuskan untuk memenggal mereka (sekitar 700 orang) dan sanak keluarga mereka dijual sebagai budak. Kelompok Yahudi ini memang sial, karena dua kelompok Yahudi sebelumnya dibiarkan pergi oleh Muhammad. Penyerangan dan berbagai peperangan yang dilakukan oleh Muhammad ini penting bagi kesuksesan risalah Nabi. Umat Islam harus tetap hidup, karena itu mereka membajak kafilah dagang, sekaligus mengirimkan pesan politik pada status-quo Mekkah. Ini adalah keputusan politik Muhammad yang selanjutnya dijustifikasi oleh Allah. Saya secara pribadi tidak menyetujui pilihan moral semacam itu dilakukan sekarang, tetapi seandainya saya hidup pada masa Muhammad, mungkin saya akan berpikir lain. Apakah cerita itu benar? Tidak tahu juga. Tetapi begitulah cerita yang sampai kepada saya. Benar atau tidaknya, hanya Allah yang tahu.

Muhammad bukan Segalanya

Nabi Muhammad SAW sudah terbiasa dihina ketika ia masih hidup, dan ia tidak pernah tersinggung setengah mati dan kemudian seperti orang keblingsatan membakar bendera Denmark menghina balik atau, apalagi, mengancam akan memenggal orang yang menghinanya. Jadi, saya heran kalau ada orang yang tersinggung ketika Muhammad bin Abdullah dihina dan melakukan kekejian sebagai aksi pembalasan. Lah, bukankah Muhammad dulu dihina dan ia memaafkan orang yang menghinanya? Lagipula, Muhammad tahu betul ia hanya manusia biasa, bukan manusia adi-sempurna setengah dewa yang gila hormat. Tulisan ini adalah pandangan saya atas Muhammad. Seperti Ali Sina dan orang kafir yang fobia terhadap Islam, saya ingin mendemistifikasi Muhammad, tetapi bukan untuk mengecilkannya, tetapi membesarkannya sebagai manusia. Sama ketika saya mencoba melihat Yesus Kristus dalam kemanusiaannya, dalam berbagai kelemahannya, bukan dalam fitur-fitur keilahiannya. Yang Adi-Sempurna hanya Allah semata, dan tanpa pertolongan Allah, Muhammad hanyalah manusia biasa seperti halnya Soekarno, Thomas Jefferson, Tan Malaka atau Munir. Yang menjadikannya hebat dan layak dianggap sebagai figur besar adalah kemampuannya mengatasi berbagai kelemahannya dan tantangan berat pada masanya dalam menjalankan misinya sebagai pembawa risalah Allah Penguasa Kehidupan kepada umat manusia, yakni al-Qur'an -- kitab yang membawa gagasan universal dalam bahasa partikular: sejarah Muhammad bin Abdullah. 

Wallahu a'lam bi ash-Shawwaab

In Buddhism you are supposed to follow Buddha,

In Hinduism you are supposed to follow the Vedas,

In Jainism you are supposed to follow Mahavira,

In Islam you are supposed to follow Muhammad.

I say supposed because I don’t know actually how many follow them truly, even though when asked the most prompt answer is, I am a Christian or Muslim, or Hindu or Jain or Buddhist.

But in Iism, you only follow the “I” and not anyone or anything else.

This “I” is not your Personality.

This “I” is not your Ego.

This “I” is not your First Name, Middle Name, Surname, Nickname, or any other names.

This “I” is your “Consciousness” which is the “Source”, the “Source of Existence”.

The entire existence is a sea of Consciousness manifesting itself whether in the form of “Matter” or “Energy”.

In the form of matter, Consciousness takes the shape of cells, microbes, plants, animals, the earth, the sea, the sky which when broken down to the basic elements gives us Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and all the other ones present in the “Periodic Table”.

When further broken down, the elements of matter, gives us Molecules, Atoms, Protons, Neutrons, Electrons, Quarks, Bosons, Mesons, Photons, Leptons so on and so forth.

Albert Einstein proved, All matter is Convertible to Energy, and all Matter is nothing but forms of static or dormant Energy.

All Matter and Energy forms are created from Consciousness, which is the all pervasive, omnipotent, omniscient Intelligence, the Creator of this Existence.

The entire existence, all the planets, solar systems, galaxies in the Universe are nothing but Conscious Intelligence manifesting itself through Matter and Energy.

This Conscious Intelligence is the “I”, and when you realize this, all duality disappears, then you are not bothered about your so called Religion, then you are not bothered about your so called Caste, then you are not bothered about your so called Community, then you are not bothered about your so called Nation, then you are not bothered about your so called Species.

Iism is just a way, it doesn’t have any scriptures, Iism doesn’t want you to be disciplined, Iism doesn’t want you to follow any rituals, Iism doesn’t ask you to say any prayers, and Iism doesn’t ask you to ask for anyone’s blessings.

Whom will you pray to... Yourself?

Whom will you ask blessings from?... Yourself?

That’s the greatest joke mankind has invented and blindly followed for the last 10,000 years, and just like an accepted joke, hardly anyone questions it, and if anyone does question it, then he is labeled Crazy.

Iism asks you to come out of that joke, come out of that dependence and realize that you are the Source, and the Source has no one to pray to, nothing to pray for, It has everything, It is everything.

You are everything that there was, is and will be.

Once you know it, then you know your true self, then you know the “I” and when you realize that, then your life is a Sheer Joy, it’s a Celebration of Existence, then life is Blissful, then it’s a Moment to Moment Ecstacy, then you celebrate Here and Now, then you attain Nirvana, then you attain Moksh, then you are Liberated, then you are once more the Free Spirit.

Love Always

The Free Spirit

]]> http://sunninews.wordpress.com/?p=221 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:39:22 +0000 Shahnawaz warsi http://sunninews.wordpress.com/?p=221 What is Ramadan?

Ramadan is the name of the ninth Islamic lunar month. It is the month Allah (The one God), ordered the Muslims to fast since it was the month He revealed the Qur’an (the Muslims’ holy scripture) to Muhammad (the final Prophet of Allah). Muslims abstain from eating, drinking and intimate relations with their spouse during the daylight hours of the blessed month. It is a time for Muslims to contemplate on their belief and increase their faith by actively increasing in worship, prayer and receiting the Qur’an. It is an opportunity for spiritual as well as physical purification.
Do Muslims not eat and drink for a whole month?

No. Muslims are ordered to abstain from food, drink and sensual pleasures from the break of dawn until sunset throughout the whole month. That means, that after sunset until the break of dawn of the following day, Muslims may eat and drink as they please. Many Muslims take this opportunity to invite friends and family over to share in the spirit of Ramadan
What do Muslims do during Ramadan?

Muslims usually wake before dawn to take a small meal called “suhoor”. They abstain from eating, drinking and sensual pleasures during the daylight hours of the blessed month. Muslims exert more effort in worship, praying, contemplating, helping others, giving charity, reciting the Quran (the holy book of the Muslims); many Muslims endeavour to complete the Qur’an’s recitation at least once during the month. At sunset, Muslims break their fast, usually with a big meal with family and friends. Many Muslims also attend the mosque at night, to engage in special night prayers called “taraweeh”.

Is Ramadan a Prophet of Islam?
No, Ramadan is not a Prophet of Islam. Ramadan is simply the name of the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calender. It happens to be the month that Allah (the One God) revealed the Qur’an, to Muhammad (the final Prophet of Allah). Islam believes and honours all the Prophets of the past as servants and Messengers of Allah, including Noah (Nooh), Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa) and Jesus (’Isa) May Allah send His peace upon them all. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final Messenger of Allah, that the previous Messengers prophesised about. He preached the same message as those before him: “Worship Allah (the one God) alone, you have no god besides Him”.
Do children, sick and old people need to fast?

Fasting is only obligated on Muslims who have reached puberty, are sane and are healthy. So children who have not reached puberty are exempt, but are encouraged to fast some days, or a portion of a day, to train them for when they are obliged to fast. The temporarily sick who have a sickness that may extend a few days, where fasting may serverly affect them or prolong their recovery are not obliged to fast but must make up the days after Ramadan. The chronically ill and elderly, for example those with diabetes, are not obliged to fast, but should feed a needy or poor person for each day they miss.
How did the fast during Ramadan become obligatory for Muslims?

The revelations from God to the Prophet Muhammad that would eventually be compiled as the Quran began during Ramadan in the year 610, but the fast of Ramadan did not become a religious obligation for Muslims until the year 624. The obligation to fast is explained in the second chapter of the Quran: “O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may become righteous…The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’an, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it;…” (Chapter 2, verses 183 and 185)
What do Muslims believe they gain from fasting?

One of the main benefits of Ramadan are an increased compassion for those in need of the necessities of life, a sense of self-purification and reflection and a renewed focus on spirituality. Muslims also appreciate the feeling of togetherness shared by family and friends throughout the month. Perhaps the greatest practical benefit is the yearly lesson in self-restraint and discipline that can carry forward to other aspects of a Muslim’s life such as work and education.
Why does Ramadan begin on a different day each year?

Because Ramadan is a lunar month, it begins about eleven days earlier each year. Throughout a Muslim’s lifetime, Ramadan will fall both during winter months, when the days are short, and summer months, when the days are long and the fast is more difficult. In this way, the difficulty of the fast is evenly distributed between Muslims living in the northern and southern hemispheres.
What is Lailat ul-Qadr?

Lailat ul-Qadr (”Night of Power”) marks the anniversary of the night on which the Prophet Muhammad first began receiving revelations from God, through the angel Gabriel. An entire chapter in the Quran deals with this night: “We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power: and what will explain to thee what the Night of Power is? The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by God’s permission, on every errand. Peace!…This until the rise of morn.” (Chapter 97) Muslims believe Lailat ul-Qadr is one of the last odd-numbered nights of Ramadan.
Is it difficult to perform the fast in Australia, Canada, USA, and UK?

In many ways, fasting in Australia, Canada, USA, and UK is easier than fasting in some of the African countries where the climate is extremely hot. This year at least, the number of daylight hours will be less than when Ramadan occurs during the summer. In Muslim countries, most people are observing the fast, so there are fewer temptations such as luncheon meetings, daytime celebrations and offers of food from friends. Many Australian Muslims would prefer a daytime work shift during Ramadan so that they may break the fast with their families and attend evening prayers.
How can non-Muslim co-workers and friends help someone who is fasting?

Employers, co-workers and teachers can help by understanding the significance of Ramadan and by showing a willingness to make minor allowances for its physical demands. Special consideration can be given to such things as requests for vacation time, the need for flexible early morning or evening work schedules and lighter homework assignments. It is also very important that Muslim workers and students be given time to attend Eid prayers at the end of Ramadan. Eid is as important to Muslims as Christmas and Yom Kippur are to Christians and Jews. A small token such as a card (there are Eid cards available from Muslim bookstores) or baked goods given to a Muslim co-worker during Eid ul-Fitr would also be greatly appreciated. Hospital workers should be aware that injections and oral medications might break the fast. Patients should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not their condition exempts them from fasting.
Do people normally lose weight during Ramadan?

Some people do lose weight, but others may not. It is recommended that meals eaten during Ramadan be light, but most people can’t resist sampling special sweets and foods associated with Ramadan.

"Honor killing is neither in the Quran nor is it specified in any hadith. It is however the natural outcome of the Islamic ethos of misogyny.

Women in Islam are regarded as sources of shame. Muhammad said they are awrah which can be translated as object of shame.

"Ali reported the Prophet saying: 'Women have ten ('awrah). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten." [1]

What is awrah? The Encyclopedia of Islam defines 'awrah as pudendum, that is the external genitals, especially of the female. Pudendum derives from the Latin pudor which means sense of shame and modesty. So awrah signify an object of shame that needs to be covered. [2]

According to the following Hadith, women not only have ten 'awrah, but the woman herself is perceived as 'awrah:

"The woman is 'awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her." [3]

If a woman loses her awrah by e.g. through rape, she becomes the object of shame for her family and the only way to remove that shame and restore the honor is to remove that defiled woman.

So you can say honor killing is cultural, but it is a culture that is deeply rooted in Islamic mindset and derives from it. It is practiced in all Islamic countries. The more religious is a country, the more is widespread the honor killing.

Women are asked to; “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display” Quran 33.33

A woman who transgresses these orders becomes the source of shame to her family. She will not be marriageable, she and her family become the object of gossip of everyone. The entire family can lose prestige. No one would give a daughter to the brothers of that girl in marriage and no one would marry her sisters. The family and even the extended family are maligned and become outcasts. This can only stop if the family cleanses that stain with blood. The woman thus defiled must be sacrificed even if she is a victim of rape.

But you don’t have to be raped to become an exposed awrah and bring shame to your family. If you disobey your father who has consented that you marry a certain person you dishonor him. If you escape from your home for any reason including abuse, you have brought shame to your family and you could be haunted by your own brothers or even your mother and killed. If you reject a suitor, his pride can be injured and he may feel the urge to throw acid at your face to avenge and restore his honor.

If you are a female you have to remember that you have brought shame and disgrace to your father and everyone else in your family the day you were born and you must cover this shame, You are awrah, a pudendum, something to be ashamed of, something to hide. When you go to your husband’s house, your parents can breathe a sigh of relief. But from there on you become the awrah of your husband. Only the grave will cover all the shame that you have brought to this world. But as long as you are alive, it is your religious duty to be modest and cover this shame and not disgrace your qayyuums (male guardians). Your male kin, (father, brothers, husband, sons and even uncles) are your qayyuums and you are their awrah. If you make a dazzling display of yourself, the honor of all these "honorable" male relatives is injured and all of them have a right to burry you to restore their honor.

Muslim men have very low self esteem but they compensate the smallness of their selfhood by inflating their ego. If you are a women related to them, they feel as if they own you. Whatever you do affects their gigantic ego. They are possessive and feel dishonored if you make a "dazzling display" of yourself. And of course if you are deflowered, this is an affront to their humongous pride. The damage is irreparable and the only way to restore that pride is to get rid of you.

Honor killing is theoretically against the law in all Islamic countries, but generally the sentences are light. Often they are a year of jail or only a few months. The judges are very "understanding" and sympathize with the killers who are also grieving for the loss of their loved one. Most likely the Judges would do the same in similar situations. Everyone agrees that this is a very unfortunate situation that has no other solution but taking the life of the poor girl. Often the brothers and the parents hug the lifeless cadaver of their victim and cry bitterly after stabbing her to death or strangulating her. They don't listen to her pleading and begging to spare her life, but sure they cry profusely for her after they kill her.

On the bright side, if you survive all this, manage to go to your husband’s house and bear him sons, you are set. From there on, and proportionate to the number of sons that you have brought to this world, you gain prestige and respect. Maybe by the time you are a middle aged woman, your sons are strong and your husband is a crippling old man, you can even bang on his head and insult him to the delight of your heart. But you must have your sons on your side to stand behind you at all times. This is a delicate political maneuver that you have to plan for from early on. Then you can be the despot and your aging hubby becomes your vassal. Alas only a few women can savor this sweet taste of success. But those who do it, do it very well.

Oh well, Allah's "Grace is (entirely) in His Hand, to bestow it on whomsoever He wills". Quran 57:29"

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50128.htm

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

Women, creatures of shame!
how awful they've ten awrahs?
each has ten pudenda?
ten seem too many
"which ones?", asks a puzzled nonbeliever
"you know one when you see one", says the piou believer
"but the devil sees all ten."

women, stay quietly in your houses
don't make dazzling displays
of any of your pudenda
lest devil sets eyes on you
gets you
and in honor you are slain.

"If you are not breaking the law, you should be able to do what you want. And if people don’t like it, it’s their tough luck"

My full response to this can be read here but as I put it, I do think that approaches such as 'if people don’t like it, it’s their tough luck' are very dangerous and a somewhat unworkable premise from which to begin discussing how an increasingly diverse and rapidly changing society moves forward. Because of this, I feel that it is necessary to explore my thinking further.

first off, such laissez faire arguments completely bypass any recognition of respect, something that in effect diminishes the rights of the individual, the group and the society as a whole. Here the individual, the collective, and the communal are indeterminably reduced and - dare I say it - rendered somewhat unnecessary. I would even go as far as suggesting that it verges on being 'Social Darwinism' albeit in a different guise.

Don't agree...? Then what about the rhetoric employed by racists and bigots over the decades. Isn't the sentiment underpinning the old adage, "if they don't like it here, then they can go back home" pretty much the same?

Criminal or illegal...? No.

The reason why I ask whether it is 'criminal or illegal' is because as the comment put it, "If you are not breaking the law, you should be able to do what you want". Again, I believe that this is as equally misguided. If not, then as long as something is neither criminal nor illegal, then neither can it be wrong whether morally, ethically, socially or whatever. In this way, the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the British newspapers would have been fine (incidentally, none of the British national newspapers printed them).

So too would the BNP being cleared of inciting racial hatred in 2006. "If you are not breaking the law, you should be able to do what you want" therefore means that along with many other things, it should be completely acceptable and legitimate to describe Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith"; to state that Muslims are turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole"; and that as a society, we should "show these ethnics the door in 2004". These are not my words I hasten to add, but the words of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett from the BNP: words that were deemed not to have broken the law. And when I use the term 'we', I use this as being a British citizen that is comfortable with being a part of a wider (multicultural) British society rather than a jingoistic, racist bigot.

To develop this line of thinking, I came up with the following list of things and activities that did not involve breaking the law. At the same time however, I would suggest that a vast few numbers of people - in some cases the majority - would prefer them either to not happen or at least have some boundaries/ limitations placed upon them (NB: the list is NOT a list of things that I personally find offensive or inoffensive, right or wrong. Merely an indicative list of activities to illustrate a point):

Bullying
Breastfeeding in public
Wearing the niqab
Swearing in public
BNP/ NF marches
Binge drinking
Satanic, pagan, cult and heretical religions being practised openly and/ or recruiting
Animal sacrifice
Embryo experimentation
Cloning
Abortion
Smoking
Smacking
Over-eating
Public drinking
Overt sexual advertising
Sale of Mein Kampf in bookshops
Sale of Satanic Verses in bookshops
Direct targeting of children with advertising of junk food
Free speech
Pole dancing

None of these things necessarily break the law. But does this mean that they are all right and proper...? And if you don't think that they are right and proper, should we as a society collectively respond by saying 'tough'...?

Which of course brings me back to my initial point in the first post: whether we need to have societal ‘boundaries’ or whether the demarcation between the criminal and non is enough?

In Britain, discussions about multiculturalism are marked by a stark paradox. Many welcome the fact that Britain is a multicultural society and delight in its diversity. Yet some of these people also reject multiculturalism. How is it possible to do this and how can those who recognise the value of cultural diversity take such a diametrically opposed standpoint on multiculturalism?

There are several explanations available. However, the most important is the two different ways in which the term ‘multiculturalism’ is employed.

For some, multiculturalism stands for cultural isolationism or ghettoisation, based on the view that every community is in some way self-contained and self-authenticating, unquestionably having the right to live by its own social and cultural norms. 'Outsiders' cannot therefore judge or criticise and should respect each communities autonomy (the 'if they don't like it, tough' approach?).

Multiculturalism in this sense would seem to undermine attempts to have a shared life, existence, and experience. More importantly, it works against the whole notion of a multicultural society. Because different cultures do not passively coexist but instead interact and influence each other, multiculturalism defined in this way immediately puts a halt to such processes. Advocates of a multicultural society can therefore see multiculturalism as a barrier or obstacle to their societal aspiration or ideal. Such an approach might be described as isolationist or relativist multiculturalism.

Those who welcome multiculturalism and see no problems with the notion of a multicultural society define things very differently. Here the view is that every culture has limitations and benefits from a dialogue with others. Such dialogues accentuate new visions of life, exposes new world-views, looks at itself from the standpoint of others, increases its self-knowledge, and creates the conditions for human freedom and - allegedly - rationality.

This view therefore engenders the belief that different cultures should be respected but at the same time, brought into a process of interaction and engagement. It challenges the hegemonic dominant culture, exposes its biases and limitations, and helps create a composite culture in which 'others' can see something of themselves and their culture, and through which they can claim some ownership of. This model of multiculturalism is one where different cultures and communities feel valued and respected.

It is also necessary in this model - the one that I wholeheartedly prefer - for all of this to take place within an agreed system of rights and obligations: the boundaries from both 'inside' and 'outside' that I mentioned in my original post. This model might therefore be called a dialogical or pluralist view of multiculturalism: the type of multiculturalism my earlier post was suggesting.

"If people don’t like it, it’s their tough luck..."? Well maybe for some, but not in the multiculturalism that I prefer or in the multicultural society that I would like to see develop. Having said that though, where and how we begin to negotiate the necessary boundaries and who decides what these are is the real challenge facing us all.

This work by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Based on a work at www.chris-allen.co.uk.

Comment from: paarsurrey [Visitor] • http://paarsurrey.livejournal.com

The ultimate truth about Bible is that:

1. JesusYeshuaIssa did not leave the Word of God or anything in writing revealed on him from GodAllahYHWH in the form of stone tablets as was in the case of Moses.

2. Or anything written by JesusYeshuaIssa himself as a biography when he left from Galilee, after the incident of Crucifixion, alongwith his mother Mary in search of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel, he died natural and peaceful death in Kashmir, India.

3. Jesus left nothing behind authenticated by him, in possession of the Church, as there was none in existence.

4. We do respect the NTGospels which have account of Jesus life, but it does not have much utility for a non-Catholic except that we may treat it as a book of history subject to scrutiny, internal as well as external, for each bit of event for finding truth in it on merit.

120+ writers

There are about 120+ writers who wrote a sort of history books about the time of Jesus, that could be logically accepted as a historical source and truth could be searched out of it like we do from other sources of history on merit of each bit of event unbiased. All these 120+ books must be treated at par but unfortunately some have been selected by the clergy and are known as NTBible while others have been discarded. This shows their bias. The historians should come forward and sift the material for truth, if found, on equal footing from all of these 120+ books, with reason, rationality and valid arguments acceptable to the whole world, as these are claimed to be Universal by our Protestant/Catholic friends.
I respect your religion but I think I could form my own opinion freely. My Christian friends may remain steadfast on what they believe, no compulsion, and that is their right.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
08/29/08 @ 22:53

http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/2006/05/08/why_the_bible_1?blog=5#c2621

Comment from: Dan [Member]
It is unfortunate that your buddy Uthman decided to burn all the alternate versions of the Quran, or we could be studying those. That's scholarship for ya!
08/30/08 @ 10:40

Comment from: paarsurrey [Visitor] • http://paarsurrey.livejournal.com

Hi dan!

So in other words you accept that you don't have anything sure from Jesus. There is no Word of God with the Christians; only words of anonymous writers declared by the deviant Paul as "inspired" for his own vested ends.

I love Jesus, Mary and Muhammad

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com
09/02/08 @ 22:31

Comment from: Dan [Member]

As opposed to the anonymously written Quran written, composed and edited hundreds of years after the life of Jesus? On the contrary, I'll take the Injil accounts that Muhammad seemed to think were just fine, but failed to understand properly.

What's Ahmadi mean?
09/03/08 @ 07:27

Cover The Jewel of Medina/Amazon UK

Sumber: okezone.com

I have no idea when I started but somehow I got into the habit of pulling and/or touching my eyelashes. It's a really terrible habit. I think I do it when I'm concentrating on things unconsciously at this point (i.e. watching movies, reading books, thinking, etc.). I'd really like to stop, before it becomes obsessive compulsive. So, I'm mentioning it here, now.

Also continuing to learn a lot about Islam and get some perspective. The book "No god but God" describes the Quran as a handbook for a religiously inspired egalitarian society handbook. However, the vagueness of the language gradually, after Muhammad's death, lead to many different interpretations. A lot of those interpretations were created by Muslim men who wanted to impose patriarchal values. It is constantly being updated by various groups with various intentions. It sounds like it's vague as hell:

The phrase qawwamuna 'ala an-nisa can be understood as "watch over," "protect," "attend to," "look after,"  or "be in charge of" women. The final word in the verse, abribuhunna, which Fakhry has rendered as "beat them," can actually mean "turn away from them," "go along with them," and, remarkably, even "have consensual intercourse with them." If religion is indeed interpetation, then which meaning one chooses to accept and folow depends on what one is trying to extract from the texts: if one views the Quran as empowering women, then Ali's; if one looks to the Quran to justify violence against women, then Fakhry's.

The voice of God is so vague, it's too bad it has to pass through humans at all--there's nothing we can do but to try and interpret the subtle universal truths. Or seek truth on our own and realize it within the vague, which is what seems to be happening:

...Although long seen as the most distinctive emblem of Islam, the veil is, surprisingly, not enjoined upon Muslim women anywhere in the Quran...After all, only women who need not work in the fields could afford to remain seculded and vieled...there was no tradition of veiling until around 627 C.E., when the so-called "verse of hijab" suddenly descended upon the community. That verse, however, was addressed not to women in general, but exclusively to Muhammad's wives: "believers, do not enter the Prophet's house...unless asked. And if you are invited...do not linger. And when you ask somethin gof the Prophets wives, do so from behind a hijab. This will assure the purity of your hearts as well as theirs" (33:53)

...The fact is that the traditional colonial image of the veiled Muslim woman as the sheltered, docile sexual property of her husband is just misleading and simpleminded as the most postmodernist image of the veil as the emblem of female freedom and empowerment from Western cultural hegemony. The veil may be neither or both of these things, but that is up to Muslim women to decide for themselves.

...As Shirin Ebadi proudly declared while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work in defending the rights of women in Iran, "God created us all as equals...By fighting for equal status, we are doing what God wants us to do."

I think if I was a religious person I'd want to add something to Kenneth Burke's definition of man. It'd be added to "(man is) separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making," i'd add (or God's). As if Kenneth Burke's definition of man was depressing enough, imagine how depressing it is to think that we are seperated from ourselves because of God. Hence the "I'm trapped in this body and can't get out," and "you'll go to hell for what you're dirty mind is thinking" Radiohead shirts. And also hence this article from science blog.

BERLIN - A historical novel about the prophet Muhammad and his child bride that was pulled by Random House over concerns it would anger Muslims will be printed by another German publisher, the author said in an interview released Wednesday.

Germany's Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper said Sherry Jones told them her debut novel "The Jewel of Medina" will be published in October in English. The American author declined to identify the publisher or give other details, but dismissed concerns it could provoke violence, the newspaper reported.

"To claim that Muslims will answer my book with violence is pure nonsense," Jones said. "Anyone who reads the book will see that it honors the prophet and his favorite wife."

Random House Publishing Group, which is owned by German media company Bertelsmann AG, has acknowledged pulling the novel about Muhammad and his ninth wife, Aisha.

The publisher, which had planned to release the book last month, said in a statement at the time that "credible and unrelated sources" had warned that the book "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

The book is already scheduled for publication in several countries, including Italy, Spain, Brazil and Hungary. In August, Serbian publisher BeoBook released "The Jewel of Medina" but then quickly withdrew it from stores after protests from local Islamic leaders who said it insulted Muhammad and his family.

The publisher expressed its "apology and regret" to the Islamic community in a statement published on the company Web site. Jones' agent, Natasha Kern, says she has been working on resolving the situation in Serbia and remains hopeful it will be published there.

Following the Random House decision, Salman Rushdie, whose "The Satanic Verses" led to a death decree in 1989 from Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that forced the author to live under police protection for years, said the publisher had allowed itself to be intimidated.

"I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have canceled another author's novel, apparently because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals," Rushdie said in an e-mail sent last month to The Associated Press. "This is censorship by fear, and it sets a very bad precedent indeed."

Jones was quoted by the Leipziger Volkszeitung as saying that the fact "that one of the biggest publishing houses in the world refuses to publish a book because of warnings is a sobering comment on the state of freedom of speech in the USA."