ROAD TO THE TRUTH

ISRA AND MI'RAJ

2011-06-29T07:38:00.000-07:00

In the twelfth year of his mission, the Prophet made his night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to heaven. His journey, known in history as Miraj (Ascension), was a real bodily one and not only a vision. It was at this time that Allah ordered the Muslims to pray the five daily prayers.

Almighty Allah has said: "Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allah) above all that (evil) they associate with Him, Who took His slave Muhammad for a journey by night from AlMasjid-al-Haram (at Makka) to the farthest mosque (in Jerusalem), the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show him (Muhammad) of 0ur Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.). Verily He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." (Surah 17: 1)

Abbas Ibn Malik reported that Malik Ibn Sasaa said that Allah's Messenger described to them his Night Journey saying:

"While I was lying in Al-Hatim or Al-Hijr, suddenly someone came to me and cut my body open from here to here." I asked Al-Jarud, who was by my side, "What does he mean?" He said: "It means from his throat to his pubic area," or said, "From the top of the chest." The Prophet further said, "He then took out my heart. Then a gold tray of Belief was brought to me and my heart was washed and was filled (with Belief) and then returned to its original place. Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me." (On this Al-Jarud asked: "Was it the Buraq, 0 Abu Hamza?" I (i.e. Anas) replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said: 'The animal's step (was so wide that it) reached the farthest point within the reach of the animal's sight. I was carried on it, and Gabriel set out with me till we reached the nearest heaven.

"When he asked for the gate to be opened, it was asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered, 'Gabriel.' It was asked, 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked, 'Has Muhammad been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said, 'He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!' The gate was opened, and when I went over the first heaven, I saw Adam there. Gabriel said (to me): 'This is your father, Adam; pay him your greetings.' So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said:'You are welcomed, 0 pious son and pious Prophet.'

Then Gabriel ascended with me till we reached the second heaven. Gabriel asked for the gate to be opened. It was asked: 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered: 'Gabriel.' It was asked: 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked: 'Has he been called?' Gabriel answered in the affirmative. Then it was said: 'He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!' The gate was opened. "When I went over the second heaven, there I saw John (Yahya) and Jesus (Isa), who were cousins of each other. Gabriel said (to me): 'These are John and Jesus; pay them your greetings.' So I greeted them and both of them returned my greetings to me and said, 'You are welcomed, 0 pious brother and pious Prophet.'

Then Gabriel ascended with me to the third heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked: 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied: 'Gabriel.' It was asked: 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied, 'Muhammad.' It was asked: 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said: 'He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!' The gate was opened, and when I went over the third heaven there I saw Joseph (Yusuf). Gabriel said (to me): 'This is Joseph; pay him your greetings.' So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said: 'You are welcomed, 0 pious brother and pious Prophet.'

Then Gabriel ascended with me to the fourth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked: 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel' It was asked: 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied: 'Muhammad.' It was asked: 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said: 'He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is!' "The gate was opened, and when I went over the fourth heaven, there I saw Enoch (Idris). Gabriel said (to me): This is Enoch; pay him your greetings.' So I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said: 'You are welcomed, 0 pious brother and pious Prophet.'

Then Gabriel ascended with me to the fifth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked: 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied: 'Gabriel.' It was asked: 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied: 'Muhammad.' It was asked: 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said: "He is welcomed, what an excellent visit his is! So when I went over the fifth heaven, there I saw Aaron (Harun), Gabriel said (to me): 'This is Aaron; pay him your greetings.' I greeted him and he returned the greeting to me and said: 'You are welcomed, 0 pious brother and pious Prophet.'

Then Gabriel ascended with me to the sixth heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked: 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied, 'Gabriel.' It was asked: 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied: 'Muhammad.' It was asked: 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. It was said: 'He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!' "When I went (over the sixth heaven), there I saw Moses (Musa). Gabriel said (to me): 'This is Moses; pay him your greeting. So I greeted him and he returned the greetings to me and said: 'You are welcomed, 0 pious brother and pious Prophet.' When I left him (i.e. Moses) he wept. Someone asked him: 'What makes you weep?' Moses said: 'I weep because after me there has been sent (as Prophet) a young man whose followers will enter Paradise in greater numbers than my followers.'

Then Gabriel ascended with me to the seventh heaven and asked for its gate to be opened. It was asked: 'Who is it?' Gabriel replied: 'Gabriel.' It was asked: 'Who is accompanying you?' Gabriel replied: 'Muhammad.' It was asked: 'Has he been called?' Gabriel replied in the affirmative. Then it was said: 'He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!' "So when I went (over the seventh heaven), there I saw Abraham (Ibrahim). Gabriel said (to me): This is your father; pay your greetings to him.' So I greeted him and he returned the greetings to me and said: 'You are welcomed, 0 pious son and pious Prophet.'

Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the Lote Tree of the utmost boundary). Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said: 'This is the Lote Tree of the utmost boundary.' Behold! There ran four rivers; two were hidden and two were visible, I asked: 'What are these two kinds of rivers, 0 Gabriel?' He replied: 'As for the hidden rivers, they are two rivers in Paradise and the visible rivers are the Nile and the Euphrates.'

'Then Al-Bait-ul-Mamur (i.e. the Sacred House) was shown to me and a container full of wine and another full of milk and a third full of honey were brought to me. I took the milk. Gabriel remarked: 'This is the Islamic religion which you and your followers are following.'

Then the prayers were enjoined on me: they were fifty prayers a day. When I returned, I passed by Moses, who asked (me): 'What have you been ordered to do?' I replied: 'I have been ordered to offer fifty prayers a day.' Moses said: 'Your followers cannot bear fifty prayers a day, and by Allah I have tested people before you, and I have tried my level best with Bani Israel (in vain). Go back to your Lord and ask for reduction to lessen your followers' burden.' So I went back, and Allah reduced ten prayers for me. Then again I came to Moses, but he repeated the same as he had said before. Then again I went back to Allah, and He reduced ten more prayers. When I came back to Moses he said the same. I went back to Allah, and He ordered me to observe ten prayers a day. When I came back to Moses, he repeated the same advice, so I went back to Allah and was ordered to observe five prayers a day.

"When I came back to Moses, he said: 'What have you been ordered?' I replied: 'I have been ordered to observe five prayers a day.' He said: 'Your followers cannot bear five prayers a day, and no doubt, I have got an experience of the people before you, and I have tried my level best with Bani Israel, so go back to your Lord and ask for reduction to lessen your followers' burden.' I said: 'I have requested so much of my Lord that I feel ashamed, but I am satisfied now and surrender to Allah's Order.' When I left, I heard a voice saying: 'I have passed My order and have lessened the burden of My worshippers."'

[Source: Islam Awareness]

GARY MILLER, THE MAN WHO CHALLENGED THE QUR'AN

2011-05-29T22:51:00.000-07:00

In 1977, Professor Gary Miller, the active Canadian preacher and mathematics and logic lecturer at Toronto University, decided to provide a great service to Christianity through exposing scientific and historical errors in the Noble Quran in such a way that would be beneficial to him and his fellow preachers in calling Muslims to Christianity. However, the result was completely to the contrary. Miller's writings were fair and his study and comments were positive, even better than many Muslims would write about the Noble Quran. He considered the Noble Quran, as it should be and reached the conclusion that it cannot be a work of a human being.

The first surprising issue for Professor Miller was the challenging tone in many ayahs such as the ayahs that can be translated as “Will they not then contemplate the Quran? And if it had been from (anywhere) other than the Providence of Allah, indeed they would have found in it many difference (s).” (TMQ 4:82) and “And in case you are suspicious (Literally: in suspicion) about what We have been sending down upon Our bondman, (i.e., the prophet. A bondman or slave is the highest title conferred by Allah upon his chosen men) then come up with a surah of like (manner), and invoke your witnesses, apart from Allah, in case you are sincere.” (TMQ 2:23) Although Professor Miller was challenging at the beginning he ended astonished at what he found.

The following are some of the points he mentioned in Miller’s lecture The Amazing Quran: There is no such author who writes a book and then challenges others that this book is errorless. As for the Noble Quran, it is the other way round. It tells the reader that there are no errors in it and then challenges all people to find any, if any.

The Noble Quran does not mention the hard events in Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) personal life, such as the death of his dear wife Lady Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her) , death of his daughters and sons. Strangely enough, the ayahs that were revealed as a comment on some of the setbacks proclaimed victory while those revealed at time of victory warned against arrogance and called for more sacrifices and efforts. If one writes his own autobiography, he would magnify the victories and justify the defeats. The Noble Quran did the opposite and this is consistent and logical: it was not a history of a specific period but rather a text that sets general rules for the relationship between Allah (the Almighty) and worshippers.

Miller thought about a particular ayah that can be translated as “Say, “Surely I admonish you with one (thing) only, that you rise up to Allah by twos and singly; thereafter meditate: in no way is there any madness in your Companion. Decidedly he is nothing except a constant warner to you, before (Literally: between the hands of) a strict torment.” (TMQ 34:46) He indicated the experiments one researcher had carried out at Toronto University on “Effectiveness of Collective Discussion”. The researcher had gathered different numbers of interlocutors in discussions and compared results. He discovered that the maximum efficiency of the discussion was achieved when the interlocutors were two while the more the number the less the efficiency.

There is a surah in the Noble Quran called Maryam (Mary) in which Lady Maryam (may Allah be pleased with her) is eulogized in a way not even found in the Bible. At the same time, there is no surah in the name of Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) or Lady Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her). The name of prophet Isa (PBUH) (Jesus) is mentioned 25 times in the Noble Qur’an while the name of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is mentioned only five times.

Some attackers say that devils used to dictate to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) what to write in the Noble Quran. But the question is how could this be while it contains ayahs that can be translated as “And in no way have Ash-Shayatîn (The ever-Vicious (ones), i.e., the devils) been coming down with it; And in no way does it behoove them, And in no way are they able to do (that).” (TMQ 29:209-210) and “So when you read the Quran, then seek refuge in Allah from the outcast Shaytan (The all-vicious, i.e., the Devil).” (TMQ 16:98)

If you were in the situation of the Prophet (PBUH) while he and Abu-Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) were inside the Cave of Hira’ surrounded by the unbelievers who could have seen them if they had looked down. The human reaction would be to search for a back exit or some other way out or to shush in order not to be heard. However, the Prophet (PBUH) told Abu-Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) “Grieve not; surely Allah is with us.” (TMQ 9:40). This is not the mentality of a deceiver; it is the mentality of a prophet who has the confidence that Allah (the Almighty) would surely take care of him.

Surat al-Masad (Palm Fibres) was revealed ten years before the death of Abu-Lahab, the Prophet's (PBUH) uncle. He had ten complete years to prove that the Noble Quran was wrong. However, he did not believe or even pretend to believe. How could the Prophet (PBUH) be that confident unless he was sure that the Noble Quran was Allah’s (the Almighty) revelation?

Commenting on the ayah that can be translated as “That is of the tidings of the Unseen that We reveal to you; in no way did you (yourself) know it, neither your people, even before this. So (endure) patiently; surely the (fair) end is for the pious.” (TMQ: 11:49) Miller writes that none of the Scriptures uses this kind of style; that is, giving the reader the piece of information and then tells him it is new information. It is really a unique challenge. What if the people of Makkah, even by pretence, had said they knew that before? What if one scholar discovered later that this information was already known before? However, this did not happen.

Professor Miller mentioned what Contemporary Catholic Encyclopedia includes under the entry 'Quran'. It mentions that despite the plethora of studies, theories, and attempts to attack the veracity of Quranic revelation under many pretexts none of them can be logically adopted. The Church itself did not dare to adopt any of such theories but at the same time it did not admit the truthfulness of the Muslims' theory that the Noble Quran is, without doubt, the last heavenly revelation.

In fact, Professor Miller was fair enough and was honest enough to change his position and choose the right way. Blessed be he and those who search for truth and do not allow their prejudices to prevent them from reaching it.

Final Comment
In 1977, Professor Miller had a famous debate with Islamic preacher Ahmad Deedat. His logic was clear and his justifications seemed based on intent to reach the truth without pride or prejudice. Many wished at the time that this man would embrace Islam (view the videos here).

In 1978 Professor Miller embraced Islam and called himself Abdul-Ahad. He worked for some years at Oil and Minerals University in Saudi Arabia and then devoted his life to da'wah through TV programs and public lectures (view some of his da'wah here).

Just think and do not let your prejudices prevent you from the right path.

GARRY MILLER: THE MAN WHO CHALLENGED THE QUR'AN
My Life, My Islam - Traveling towards Eternity

BIGGEST APOLOGY TO ISLAM?

2011-05-21T06:35:00.001-07:00

"Pope Benedict XVI prayed alongside an Islamic cleric in Turkey's most famous mosque Thursday in a dramatic gesture to Muslims after outrage from the pontiffs remarks linking violence and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad" says Associated press.

This mosque was Blue Mosque of Istanbul and today was the hell on Earth. Because of Pope's security, almost all main roads in the historical peninsula are closed by the police and almost 15 million Istanbulians paralyzed. Personally, I walked for 45 minutes to reach the shuttle to my work. It was interesting around with lots of different reactions to the visit: For the city, it was an extraordinary day, like a fest or a war. In the street tram -which we must have stopped 5 stations before the last one- everybody was talking with each other. The people who didn't meet before chatting; a woman with a headscarve said "Well, we should give a lesson to this insolent pope with kindness and sympathy, not with violence. So that he would feel pity. There is no need for such security means." Others, including women without headscarves approved with quite nods. After I hopped off to the station which is the closest one to my destination, streets were full of people and there are no cars around. Some 50 people who were going to a football match are stopped by the police who didn't let them to use the ordinary road. They adapted the newest soccer chant to the current situation in a melodic style and they sang, "Eat my d.ck, Pope!" Then there is a handwritten sign near the bus stop, which says "No buses today. Why? Because of the Pope!!" In Beyazit Square, there was a crowd who was protesting Pope's visit, while the pontiff was visiting Hagia Sofia.
* *
An unfortunate remark from the highest official of Catholicism and all these reactions from Muslims... No apology from the Pope -mostly because of the nature of his office.- "John Paul II was not like that," said one of my colleagues. Well, here it comes: After all, Benedict XVI made a big surprise and a prayed like he's a Muslim in Sultanahmet Mosque!!! The highest religious official of Istanbul province, Muftu, has called everyone to pray and the Pope faced the Kibla, performing the exact stance of a Muslim believer who is praying and his eyes closed, lips moved and here it comes.

Before the prayer, the Pope said in Italian, "Let us pray for brotherhood and for all humanity." And after the prayer, he told to Muftu, "Thank you for this moment of pray." That "thank you" is much bigger than any apology. Benedict XVI didn't officially apologise for his negative remarks about Prophet Mohammed -because he basically couldn't- but this gesture is even bigger than some sapless words. I'm curious about what these people, my coreligionists, who cursed and swore to the Pope think about. After Pope's remarks, I was somehow disturbed too, but this gesture meant a lot to me. I hope that none of my people would say, "Well, he seemed praying, but he was cursing to us from inside. He was not sincere" I hope that each sane person can understand what a powerful symbol it was and forget about any conspiracy theories. Now I also can say it without hesitation: "Thank you, your holiness."

[The Instanbulian, November 2006]

THE CULTURE OF ISLAM

2011-05-21T06:34:00.000-07:00

Pope Benedict XVI prays barefoot at the Blue Mosque

Earlier this month [December 2006] during his visit to Istanbul, [Pope] Benedict [XVI] backed Turkey’s admission into the EU, prayed toward Mecca in a mosque, and called Islam "a religion of peace, tolerance, and love." [1]

Introduction

For those not familiar with him, Pope Benedict XVI, who calls Islam a “religion of peace, tolerance, and love” (see above quote), is the head of the Catholic Church, a worldwide and influential religious institution. The Catholic Church is not a Muslim sect, and the popes of the medieval past -- who in fact referred to Muslims as ‘heathens’ and ‘infidels’ -- would have called Benedict an ‘anti-Christ’ (an agent of ‘Satan’) and burned him alive at the stake for praying in a mosque toward Mecca while functioning as a priest of the Church.

Some things have obviously changed in the Catholic Church.

One might say that the Catholic Church is joining the spirit of the times, because Pope Benedict’s assessment of Islam is very common in the Western mass media. This admits of a simple statistical demonstration. On 7 January 2007, I asked the Lexis-Nexis database to give me all appearances, just in the major Western newspapers it archives, of the word ‘Islam’ within 10 words of the phrase ‘religion of peace,’ and it returned 738 results. By contrast, when I asked for all appearances in the same database of the word ‘Islam’ within 10 words of ‘religion of war’ I got only 66 results. This means that Westerners hear in the mainstream mass media that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ more than 11 times more often than they hear the opposite argument. (And many of those 66 results, I must point out, were about how specific individuals got in trouble for saying that Islam was a ‘religion of war,’ so the true ratio is arguably higher.)

If we accept the common media representation of Islam, then those Muslims who quite obviously and openly preach war cannot be true or orthodox Muslims (despite the fact that they seem quite numerous), and therefore some qualifier will be needed to label their movements. Thus, we often encounter the terms ‘fundamentalist Islam,’ ‘radical Islam,’ ‘Islamo-fascism,’ ‘Islamism,’ and ‘Islamist terrorism’ when the media makes reference to warlike Muslim movements. By logical necessity, under this interpretation, the term ‘moderate Islam’ will refer to those Muslims who adhere to the traditional, orthodox, and true nature of Islam, which in this view is peace.

Should we rush to accept this common media representation of Islam, now pushed also by the head of the Catholic Church?

I think that might be rash. Although Pope Benedict XVI is certainly entitled to his own opinion, he is not a Muslim cleric or scholar. So before we commit ourselves to an interpretation it is probably wise at least to consult the recognized Muslim authorities on what the mission of Islam is supposed to be. If the interpretation of Muslim authorities agrees with Pope Benedict, very well. But if it doesn’t, it would be absurd to privilege the views of the Catholic Pope over the views of those who have defined Islam for millions of Muslims throughout the ages.

The first thing I will do is contrast the modern media interpretation of the word jihad, the central concept in Islam, with that of a famous 20th century Muslim cleric and scholar. Then I will look at the views of medieval Muslim clerics and scholars, and finally at the views of modern Muslims whom the Western mass media loudly calls 'moderates.'

What does the word jihad mean? These days it is common for the mass media to present us with Muslims who defend the view that jihad -- which is commonly translated as ‘holy war’ -- can have many different meanings, and that its primary meaning has nothing to do with violence (naturally because Islam is ‘the religion of peace’). For example, Riaz Hassan, writing in the South China Morning Post, explains:

“…jihad can be viewed as a revolutionary process in stages, proceeding from the spiritual to the temporal realm of politics. This interpretation is counter to the prevailing conception in the West... which views jihad in terms of destruction and suffering inflicted by religious fanatics on civilian populations.”[2]

In other words, Hassan is saying that only Muslim “religious fanatics” will use the word jihad to mean ‘terrorism’: “destruction and suffering inflicted…on civilian populations.” According to him, the word really has, primarily, a “spiritual” interpretation.

Western public figures routinely endorse such arguments. For example, in 1993, in a speech at the Sheldonian Theater in Oxford, where Charles the Prince of Wales is a patron of the Center for Islamic Studies, the future King of England said that “The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Qur’an, should be those of equity and compassion.”[2a] Strong stuff. Immediately after the terrorist attacks in New York on 11 September 2001, which US president George W. Bush attributed to a self-consciously Muslim terrorist organization, “President Bush join[ed American] Muslim leaders… to defend Islam as a religion of peace, not terrorism.”[3] Prince Charles and President Bush obviously agree with Riaz Hassan that any Muslim giving Islam’s central concept, jihad, a terrorist interpretation is a “religious fanatic,” not a mainstream, orthodox Muslim.

It is true that Bush made his statement surrounded by American Muslim leaders, but in the United States Islam is a minority religion, and in the context of a terrorist attack for which a self-consciously Muslim terrorist was taking responsibility, it was obviously politic for American Muslim leaders to agree publicly with Bush. It will be instructive, therefore, to see what a Muslim cleric and scholar in a majority Muslim country says about Islam. I turn, therefore, to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the creation of an Islamic Republic in Iran in 1979. On this very question of whether Islam is a religion of peace, Khomeini expressed himself with great clarity in a speech entitled Islam is not a Religion of Pacifists, as follows:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of Muhammad, the founder of Islam] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”[4]

It would appear that, concerning the nature of Islam, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini disagrees with the head of the Catholic Church, the future King of England, and the President of the United States. Benedict XVI says that Islam is “a religion of peace, tolerance, and love”; Prince Charles, claiming the authority of the Qur’an, says that Islam is about “equity and compassion”; and George Bush “defend[ed] Islam as a religion of peace, not terrorism.” But Khomeini 1) called Islam a religion of war, 2) he called for killing “all the unbelievers,” and 3) he was a major sponsor of terrorism around the world. Of course, Khomeini has been called a ‘fundamentalist,’ a ‘fanatic,’ a ‘radical,’ and an ‘Islamist,’ which is supposed to mean that he does not represent mainstream orthodox Islam. However, it is worth pointing out that unlike Pope Benedict, Prince Charles, or President Bush, who are not even Muslims, Khomeini was a widely respected cleric and scholar within Islam. And it is worth noting also that Khomeini bases his views on the Qur’an and the sayings of Muhammad.

In order to establish whether Khomeini was inside or outside what has traditionally been the Muslim mainstream, I shall now turn to the views of medieval Islamic scholars and see whether they are any different from Khomeini's. Then I will examine the views of modern Muslim authorities whom Western officials and the Western mass media have gone out of their way to praise as great ‘moderates,’ and again test to see whether their views are at all different from Khomeini’s. Done with that, I will examine how much room there is for interpreting Muhammad’s legacy in order to produce that phenomenon we keep hearing about: ‘moderate Islam.

Medieval Islam and its understanding of jihad

Medieval Islam, like modern Islam, was not a monolithic religion: there were sharp controversies, and different scholars defended contrasting views on many different points. I make this clear at the outset because whenever one talks about religion accusations easily fly that one has ‘painted with a broad brush’ and ignored the ideological diversity. And sure enough, this sometimes happens. We must indeed be fair to the various views within Islam, but we must also recognize that in a book-based religion the sacred texts will tether the debates around a center of gravity. By measuring the distance that separates the various disputants we can identify the point around which they all circle, thus recognizing the ideological diversity but characterizing also the broad agreement that keeps the disputants in the same intellectual community.

I will examine the views of Abū Muhammad ‘Alī ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘īd ibn Hazm (or Ibn Hazm, for mercy’s sake), relying on the French scholar Roger Arnaldez, who wrote in 1962 an article entitled Holy War According to Ibn Hazm of Córdoba, where he examines the medieval jurist’s views on the topic of jihad as expressed in his Kittab al-Muhalla.[5] I have chosen Ibn Hazm because he was 1) from a wealthy and politically powerful family in Muslim Córdoba (Spain), 2) advisor to the caliphs of the imperial Ummayad dynasty in the 12 century, and 3) one of the most prolific and influential theorists in Islam. Ibn Hazm was mainstream. Another reason is that Ibn Hazm sought to write a polemic attacking the controversies that existed within Islam in his time. Arnaldez explains that in his writings Ibn Hazm expresses “profound disgust” for the Muslim society in which he lives; his “purpose [is to] jolt and rouse a Muslim community that he considers to have fallen completely into religious decadence.”[6] The mistaken interpretations of other Muslim scholars were, in his view, responsible for the sad state of Muslim society, and Ibn Hazm worked hard to refute these rival views. So by examining his writings we can see what distance separated his views from those of his opponents, and in this way identify the intellectual center of gravity of medieval Islamic civilization.

In order to follow Roger Arnaldez my readers should know that Islam traditionally divides the world into two regions, Dar al Islam, and Dar al Harb. The first means the ‘House of Islam’: the region where Muslims are a majority and politically dominant; the second, revealingly, means the ‘House of War’: the rest of the world, where Muslims are not yet dominant.

What did Ibn Hazm think of jihad? “As for holy war,” Arnaldez explains, “it is clear that we do not find in Ibn Hazm’s writings any attempt to spiritualize the notion. For him, the jihad remains essentially a war waged with arms…”[7] Summarizing Ibn Hazm’s philosophy, Arnaldez says:

“Jihad is an obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. But when some of them fulfill it, drive back the enemy and bring war (gazwa) to his home territory, when they defend the frontier towns, the others are relieved of this obligation… Nevertheless, in the case of an emergency, every believer who has no serious impediment can be called up to fight. The Muslim in the Dar al Harb who receives orders to fight must obey, unless he has a valid excuse. Ibn Hazm does not mean that the Muslims, even those who are in fact relieved of the obligation, should dissociate themselves from the jihad on the pretext that it is not a personal requirement in the highest degree (fard ‘ayn). The texts that he cites are typical of his concern for keeping [all] the believers [whether or not directly involved in killing infidels] involved. The Qur’an, in many verses, insists on this duty: Offer your help, whether you have little or much weight, wage jihad by enlisting your property and your persons. Now, Ibn Hazm says that this is a ‘general’ command, since there is no one who is not ‘either light or heavy.’ According to one hadith, ‘he who dies without having waged war (wa lam yagzu), or without having harbored the hope of doing so (wa lam yuhaddith bihl nafsahu), dies in a sort of hypocrisy.’ According to another, the Prophet [Muhammad] declared: ‘No abandonment [of the cause] after victory, but jihad and steadfast resolve (niyya). And if you are called, come to their aid.’ It seems therefore, that besides the war, strictly speaking, there is something like a permanent psychological preparedness for war. In this latent form, the jihad must not cease.”[8]

In other words, for Ibn Hazm jihad is much more than armed combat against infidels to expand the frontiers of Dar al Islam; jihad is the total contribution that every Muslim makes all the time, in every way possible (excepting occasional valid excuses) toward the success of the permanent war waged on the line dividing Dar al Islam from Dar al Harb. Arnaldez cites what Ibn Hazm -- basing himself on the hadiths and the Qur’an -- considers the Islamic obligations incumbent on non-combatants, and then makes the following comment: “This text is interesting because it shows the antiquity of a very broad concept of the jihad, which consists of making a fundamental commitment to obey God in everything.”[9] The point of obeying God in everything is to maximize the probability of success for armed combat on the frontiers of Islam: one’s whole life must be oriented toward this goal. As the scholar Jacques Ellul once observed, “jihad is an institution and not an event -- that is, it is part of the normal functioning of the Muslim world.”[10]

The key point is this: in the context of what he writes, if Ibn Hazm was “profoundly disgusted” with the Islamic society of his times, then he was upset that Muslims were going soft, distracting themselves from their supreme obligation: war. Since Ibn Hazm was influential, it follows that in medieval Islam moderation was perceived to be heterodox, producing in reaction authoritative accusations of betrayal of Islam.

But Arnaldez explains that for Ibn Hazm “it is not enough to be a mercenary run amok to enter Paradise.”[11] The Muslim jurist took pains to clarify how a good Muslim wages jihad, by following the law in everything even as he kills the infidel.

Against those who say that if two Muslims face three or more of the enemy it is legal for them to flee (but not before), Ibn Hazm demonstrates, with asperity, that the Qur’anic verse on which his opponents base their affirmation has been interpreted in a frankly absurd pseudo-literal manner. Islam does not specify any number. The Muslim must always err on the side of attack even when the enemy’s strength is far superior, retreating only when this is tactically advisable to wage a better battle. Ibn Hazm doesn’t go so far as to defend an obligation to ‘martyrdom’ (a suicidal attack), but he does make it clear that martyrdom is positively valued.[12]

Abu Bakr, another Muslim jurist, recommends not to cut any fruit trees or to destroy the cultivated lands of the enemy. Ibn Hazm replies that “in enemy territory it is permissible to burn the produce of the land, the trees and the vineyards,” because the very “Prophet [Muhammad] set fire to the palm groves of the Banu ‘l-Nadir, a Jewish tribe of Medina.” But Abu Bakr is within his rights to make his recommendation, concedes Ibn Hazm, because there is not in fact an obligation to destroy everything, merely a permission to do so, and the decision in each particular case must be made by the commander.[13]

The great Malikite and Hanafite currents within Islam allow the killing of all of the domestic animals which the infidels possess because “war should bring destruction upon the enemy, and everything that is not consumed by the Muslim invader must be rendered unusable.”[14] But Ibn Hazm replies -- in marked contrast with his views on the destruction of lands and crops -- that this is forbidden, and that the domestic animals of the infidels may not even be harmed (except for the pigs, for these must all be killed).

Although the foregoing reveals that for Ibn Hazm not everything is allowed in war, he nevertheless agrees that against the infidels themselves practically anything is permitted. For example, as Arnaldez explains, Ibn Hazm maintains that

“The lives of women and children must be spared, at least when they are not fighting in the ranks with the men. If they are struck down in the course of a nighttime attack (bayat) or unintentionally in the fray, there is no crime. Apart from these two exceptions, it is permitted to kill all infidels, whether combatants or not: merchants, hired servants or common laborers, old men, peasants, bishops, priests or monks, the blind or the lame, without a single exception. Some authors cite various hadiths in favor of other exceptions: old men, monks, merchants. Ibn Hazm rejects them all. Nor does he admit that the permission to kill is limited to combatants. As a justification for his thesis, he recalls the Prophet’s [Muhammad’s] extermination of all the men in the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza, who were put to death without exception, while the women and the children were sold as slaves.”[14a]

(It is worth pointing out that Muhammad had done this with the Banu Qurayza after they had willingly surrendered to Muhammad following his seige of their stronghold.[14b])

Emphasizing his point, Ibn Hazm affirms that, according to the Prophet Muhammad, it is even legal to kill a very old man whose mind no longer works very well if he never “made islam,” which is to say if he never submitted to Allah, thus converting to the true religion (the meaning of ‘Islam,’ in English translation, is usually rendered as ‘submission’).

‘War booty’ refers to that property of infidels which the Muslim army takes by force. Many Muslim scholars defended the view that, in many cases, even if the property of a Muslim were found among the war booty (for example, a slave who had escaped to Dar al Harb), this property should not be returned to the Muslim owner but divided among the soldiers. That such an opinion should have been so widespread provokes Arnaldez to comment: “This teaching is interesting because it shows the importance that the Muslims attributed to the division of booty [among the soldiers], over and above any other consideration.”[15] Division of the booty is obviously a strong incentive for Muslims to wage war. But Ibn Hazm carefully points out that an infidel cannot legally own what was once the property of a Muslim, because he is a dirty infidel, and so the soldiers may not take another Muslim’s property, even should they find it among the war booty. As Arnaldez says, “The very important thing about these indignant reactions is that Ibn Hazm affirms therein that only Muslim law counts, even when it is a question of non-Muslims”[16] It also reveals that Ibn Hazm perceived many Muslim mercenaries to be beyond the pale, but not because they were in the habit of murdering all infidel men and enslaving the women and children (he was in warm agreement with that), but because they took the property of Muslims found in the war booty.

It is important to see this: the problem was not that Muslim soldiers were genocidal but corrupt. Here lay the decadence of medieval Muslim society that so disgusted Ibn Hazm.

On the topic of lying to the infidels, Ibn Hazm defends the view that this is not a sin: treaties and oaths with infidels have no validity and are made to be broken.[17] What would be a sin against a Muslim is justified with an infidel because the defeat of infidels is the whole point of Islam.

The jurist Abu Hanifa maintained that if an infidel in Dar al Harb converted to Islam and stayed there until the Muslims conquered his country, he should remain a free man when the conquest happened and keep all of his movable property. His children who were not yet of age would also become automatically Muslims and keep their freedom. But the convert’s land, and the fetus in the womb of his wife, even though Muslim, is part of the war booty (in Islamic law it is permissible for a slave to be Muslim). And if the convert had migrated to Dar al Islam, says Abu Hanifa, then everything he left behind becomes part of the war booty when the conquest happens, and will be divided among the soldiers. The same happens if he first came to Dar al Islam as an infidel and then submitted, with the difference that, in this latter case, his children are not automatically Muslims and form part of the war booty.

Ibn Hazm rejects all of Abu Hanifa's teachings because they do not produce the proper incentive for conversion to Islam: the laws must be designed so that infidels realize that the way to protect themselves from Muslim soldiers is to convert. So Ibn Hazm states that he who submits to Allah may keep his children and all his property regardless of where he finds himself when the Muslims conquer his country. The exceptions are the wife and those children who are already adults: these may legitimately be considered part of the war booty, probably because, being adults, they may prove difficult to indoctrinate and hence it is better to enslave them.[18]

This will suffice. The distance that existed between the very influential Ibn Hazm and his opponents does not allow us to say that any medieval jurist defended Islam as ‘the religion of peace.’ Clearly, they were all agreed that Islam was a religion of war -- and terrorist war at that. This was the ideological center of gravity, based on the actions and sayings of Muhammad, who was fond of exterminating infidels and in particular Jews.[14b] The disagreements among the medieval Islamic jurists were about just how much terrorist destruction it was lawful to apply, and the specific manner of it. It follows, therefore, that the opinion of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- and not that of Pope Benedict XVI, Prince Charles of Wales, or President George W. Bush -- is the one that best matches the medieval Islamic tradition.

According to Western officials and the mainstream mass media, what is a modern ‘moderate Muslim’?

You may remember the civil wars of the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia. Much of this happened in a place called Bosnia, populated by Slavic Muslims, Serbs, and Croats. One of the main protagonists in the Bosnian civil wars was the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic.

NATO backed Alija Izetbegovic with force because, NATO officials insisted, Izetbegovic was a moderate Muslim trying to preserve a democratic, tolerant, and multi-ethnic Bosnia against what the same NATO officials claimed were the racist and genocidal attacks of the Bosnian Serbs. The Western mass media by and large repeated this representation as if it were obviously true. Here follow a few samples of how Alija Izetbegovic was represented.

In an official statement, the US State Department said after Alija Izetbegovic’s death:

“President Izetbegovic’s personal courage helped the Bosnian people endure one of Europe's greatest tragedies since World War II. His determined leadership was instrumental in Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country.”[19]

Warren Zimmerman, former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, wrote in Foreign Affairs:

“Izetbegovic was…A devout Muslim but no extremist, he consistently advocated the preservation of a multinational Bosnia.”[20]

The Financial Times, in a headline, called him a

“Former rebel with a pacifist cause.”[21]

The Observer stated:

“Izetbegovic is rapidly emerging as an intelligent and moderate mediator in the conflict in Yugoslavia.”[22]

The Independent:

“Alija Izetbegovic, the Muslim President of Bosnia, has tried to steer a moderate course.”[23]

The New York Times:

“The Bosnian President, Mr. Izetbegovic, a Muslim Slav regarded by Western diplomats as a moderate.”[24]

The New York Times again:

“President Alija Izetbegovic, a moderate Muslim Slav…”[25]

The Washington Post:

“Bosnian President Alija IZETBEGOVIC, 70, a moderate Muslim often accused by the Serbs of trying to set up a fundamentalist Islamic state…”[26]

Newsweek magazine,

“The government of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic…has always been committed to a multiethnic society.”[27]

And Newsweek again:

“The moderate Muslim-led government of Alija Izetbegovic…”[28]

Knight-Ridder News Service, in reference to Izetbegovic’s movement, stated that,

“The Bosnian [Muslims] are struggling for democracy, human rights, and a multiethnic country.”[29]

Inter-Press Service:

“Izetbegovic, a moderate Muslim intellectual…”[30]

United Press International:

“President Alija Izetbegovic, a Muslim nationalist who is considered a pro-reform moderate”[31]

Associated Press:

“Izetbegovic, 66, won a reputation as a moderate…”[32]

You can see from the above why many people got the impression that Alija Izetbegovic was a ‘moderate Muslim’: the media said that he was. But it would be silly to form an opinion of Izetbegovic from media claims when Izetbegovic himself laid out in black and white what he believed. In a book titled Islamic Declaration (sometimes translated as Islamic Manifesto), and first published around 1970, Alija Izetbegovic wrote:

“Oh Prophet, incite the believers to combat. If there can be found among you twenty who will endure, they will vanquish two hundred, if one hundred can be found, they will vanquish a thousand infidels, because they are people such as cannot understand.”[33]

And also:

“And combat on Allah’s path those who combat you, and don’t disobey. True, Allah does not love the disobedient! And kill them where you will find them; chase them from where they chased you: association is a graver sin than murder. But don’t fight them near the sacred Mosque unless they fight you there first. And if they fight you there, kill them then. Such is the retribution against infidels. Should they cease, Allah is, surely, forgiving and merciful.”[33a]

I think this line in particular is quite revealing: “association [with an infidel] is a graver sin than murder [of a fellow Muslim],” because it tells us what the Qur’anic attitude -- and Izetbegovic’s -- is toward Muslims who wanted to get along with non-Muslims.

Now, the above two excerpts are quotations from the Qur’an that Izetbegovic reproduced without any comment or adornment, so he considered them self-evident. Indeed, they are quite clear. It is significant that these Quranic quotes appear in a section with the title: “The Relations Between the Islamic Society and Other Societies” (the entire section consists of similar Quranic quotes, all of them equally chilling, and all of them without comment or adornment). Consistent with this, Izetbegovic affirmed in the same book that “It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between ‘the Islamic Religion’ and non-Islamic social and political institutions.”[34] He also asserted that Muslims were required to take power by coup as soon as they were numerous enough to succeed.

As far back as 1983, Izetbegovic had been jailed by the government of Yugoslavia for inciting Muslims against non-Muslims in Bosnia.[35] Izetbegovic re-released his book -- which was a call to genocide -- as his election platform in the 1990 Bosnian elections, and subsequently recreated the SS Handzar Division. This had been a terrorist army created out of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who committed genocide against Serbs, Jews, and Roma (‘Gypsies’) in WWII, and launched by Hajj Amin al Husseini, former Mufti of Jerusalem. Hajj Amin al Husseini was the father of the so-called ‘Palestinian movement’ and the top leader, with Adolf Eichmann, of the German Nazi Final Solution.[36] Izetbegovic’s resuscitated Handzar behaved precisely as the original, killing great numbers of innocent Serbs (and the few Jews and Roma that could still be found) during the 1990s. To learn about all this, read HIR’s three-part series:

“WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?: Were the Serbs the criminal aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 19 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
www.hirhome.com/yugo/ihralija1.htm

The views of Alija Izetbegovic, whom Western officials and the mainstream mass media lionized left and right as a great ‘moderate,’ agree perfectly with those of Ibn Hazm and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

He is not an isolated case.

Somebody else who is sold by Western officials and the mainstream mass media as a ‘moderate Muslim’ is Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. ‘Abu Mazen’), the current leader of Al Fatah and the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). In a different piece I have analyzed the representation of Mahmoud Abbas in the mass media,[37] and I will reproduce that analysis here.

I ran a little test on September 20, 2005, that anybody with access to the Lexis-Nexis Academic database can easily repeat.

First, limiting myself to “major papers,” I asked the database to give me any newspaper articles that mentioned the word ‘antisemite’ or ‘anti-Semite’ within ten words of ‘Abu Mazen,’ which is Mahmoud Abbas’s nickname. I got nothing. Zip. Then I tried the word ‘terrorist’ within ten words of ‘Abu Mazen.’ This gave lots of results but when I started reading the articles I noticed that the word ‘terrorist’ and the nickname ‘Abu Mazen’ usually did not even appear in the same sentence.[38] These articles were not saying that Abu Mazen was a terrorist in the least. I was looking for something like, ‘the terrorist Abu Mazen,’ ‘Abu Mazen, the terrorist,’ ‘Abu Mazen, who is a terrorist’ -- anything like that. So I shortened the search to ‘Abu Mazen’ within 5 words of ‘terrorist.’ This time I got only 62 results, and as I started reading the articles I found the same phenomenon: the word ‘terrorist’ would end one sentence and the name ‘Abu Mazen’ would begin the next, as in “...and ceasing the targeted killings of suspected terrorist leaders. Abu Mazen may represent Israel’s best chance...”[39] Or else these were sentences that explicitly alleged that Abu Mazen was not a terrorist, as in “Sharon spokesman Raanan Gissin said: ‘Contrary to Arafat, Abu Mazen is against terrorist activity...’”[40]

So, according to my test, nobody much seems to accuse Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) of being a terrorist. That’s interesting because Fatah is one of the world’s worst terrorist organizations, and “Abu Mazen is... one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”[41] Moreover, Fatah is the controlling organ in the PLO, and as early as 1992 the PLO made clear that Mahmoud Abbas would be Yasser Arafat’s replacement.[42]

I tried one more search. This time I asked the database for appearances of ‘Abu Mazen’ within ten words of ‘moderate.’ Now I got a grand total of 121 results. Below I reproduce not a cherry-picked selection of these but simply the first five in the chronologically ordered list. You will notice an obvious -- and lightning quick -- progression.

1) 1992 (Financial Times). “Mr [Mahmoud] Abbas, whose nom de guerre is Abu Mazen and who is regarded as a moderate...”[43]

Notice the words “who is regarded as.” They seem innocent, but they are not. If some people regard Abbas as a moderate, it should matter to the reader who these people are. Are these people sane or insane? Knowledgeable or ignorant? Impartial or biased? All of these things can potentially be ascertained by the reader if only the identities of those who supposedly consider Abbas a moderate are not withheld. Why is the Financial Times leaving out this vital information? The effect of this prose, at least, will be to make most readers think that it is a scientific and/or widespread opinion that Abbas is a moderate (and the first hypothesis for any behavior ought to be that its actual effects were intended).

2) 1993 (Financial Times). “Mr Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the PLO moderate. . .”[44]

3) 1993 (Financial Times). “Mr Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen)...a key moderate...”[45]

The views at the Financial Times matured quickly in a consistent direction: Abbas began as “a moderate” according to implied but unidentified multitudes, and a year later became “the PLO moderate” (said in passing because it is supposedly so obvious), and also “a key moderate.”

Could Abbas become any more moderate? Yes he could.

4) 1994 (The Observer). “Abu Mazen, the leading moderate in the PLO. . .”[46]

But with a little effort, who’s to say that Abbas could not become an arch-moderate?

5) 1995 (The Guardian). “...the arch-moderate Abu Mazen...”[47]

This is now the ceiling; by 1995, the propaganda had reached its final destination. Abbas had become Gandhi, practically.

Now, here is what ought to be terribly surprising to anybody who was taught by the mainstream media, the US government, and the Israeli government, to think of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as a moderate: After Yasser Arafat died, the Fatah terrorists who publicly cried against ‘peace’ and promised to go on killing innocent Israelis were precisely those most eager to see Mahmoud Abbas succeed Yasser Arafat as Fatah chief.

An Associated Press wire dated 27 November 2004 reports that:

“. . .in the Balata refugee camp near the West Bank city of Nablus, about 1,000 Palestinians -- including scores of armed, masked militants affiliated with Fatah -- demonstrated for the continuation of the uprising.

The demonstrators also declared their support for Mahmoud Abbas, the new head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah’s candidate in Jan. 9 presidential elections.”[48]

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade branch of Fatah was passionate, taking Abbas’s side vociferously when it seemed like Marwan Barghouti, another Fatah leader, might seek the post:

“Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects. . . Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. ‘Barghouti. . .should resign from Fatah,’ he told the Associated Press.”[49]

The Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, as Newsday once explained, is “the deadliest Palestinian militia,”[50] so what we see above is that the most extreme Arab terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza are also the most enthusiastic supporters of Mahmoud Abbas.

Why? Because Mahmoud Abbas is an arch-moderate?

As we’ve seen above, Abbas is one of the founders of Fatah. The big force behind the creation of Fatah was the afore-mentioned Hajj Amin al Husseini, leader of the German Nazi Final Solution.[51] He received the best anti-Jewish training in the world, because Husseini supervised his training by German Nazis who were in Cairo to improve Egypt's intelligence and military apparatus after the defeat of 1948.[51a] And as historian Howard Sachar explains, “from the outset... the Fatah’s reputation depended largely upon the success of its Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad against Israel.”[52]

Mahmoud Abbas is one of the authors of the strategy of promising ‘peace’ to the Israelis in order to divide them and gain a better position from which to exterminate them.[53] This strategy eventually became the Oslo 'Peace' Process, and Abbas's importance to it may be gauged by the fact that the Oslo process resulted from “secret talks conducted [by]...Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas].”[53a] It is Abbas's signature, not Arafat's, that graces the agreement, and not coincidentally he is called the "architect" of Oslo.[53b] The entire strategy follows Al Fatah's “Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad,” because traditionally, from ancient times to the present, Muslim clerics and scholars have defended, as we saw in the case of Ibn Hazm's treatise on jihad, that it is okay to lie to the infidel in order to destroy him. Western governments and the mainstream media assist these lies when they represent Mahmoud Abbas as a supposed "arch-moderate."

Given their obvious ideology, if Alija Izetbegovic and Mahmoud Abbas are the modern ‘moderate Muslims,’ then we have once again identified what continues to be the center of gravity in the culture of Islam: terrorist war against non-Muslims.

Do genuine ‘moderate Muslims’ exist?

They do, in fact.

For example, in Part 2 and Part 3 of the above-mentioned HIR series on Bosnia, you will learn that a majority of Muslims in Bosnia voted against Alija Izetbegovic and for the Bosnian Muslim candidate who advocated peace with non-Muslims: Fikret Abdic. This was a very slim majority, however, which helps explain why the moderate Bosnian Muslims did not succeed. In fairness, though, the support for Izetbegovic coming from the NATO powers and the Muslim states played a larger role.

Because a majority of Muslims had voted for the moderate Fikret Abdic, Alija Izetbegovic, supported by NATO and the Muslim states, illegally seized power. When that happened, some of Abdic’s supporters decided to fight rather than be ruled by the racist Izetbegovic, and they liberated the so-called ‘Bihac pocket,’ fighting also alongside the Bosnian Serbs to preserve a peaceful, multiethnic Bosnia.

The details of all this are in the above-mentioned HIR series on Bosnia, but consider here just the following wire from Agence France Presse, entitled “Bihac refugees defy Izetbegovic plea to return home.” The Muslim refugees -- refugees from Izetbegovic’s slaughters against dissenters within his community -- obviously did not trust his promises that they would be given amnesty, and chose to go on fighting. I have placed the key paragraph in italics.

[Agence France Presse wire begins here]

Some 10,000 refugees from Bosnia’s breakaway Bihac enclave remained entrenched here Saturday between Croatian army and rebel Serb forces, ignoring appeals from Sarajevo authorities for them to return home.

Izetbegovic on Friday offered fresh guarantees for the refugees’ safety if they returned from the UN-controlled neutral zone between Croatian army lines and rebel Serb forces to the western enclave of Bihac, the former stronghold of routed rebel Moslem leader Fikret Abdic.

But there were no signs that the refugees, many wearing military uniforms, were ready to go back to Bihac.

“We will only return home if (Bosnian President Alija) Izetbegovic’s army withdraws completely from the Bihac pocket,” said one of the refugees, Dzenad Seferic. None of his fellow refugees nearby contradicted his sentiments.

Seferic added that the refugees would stay put until Bihac was “placed under the control of the UN Protection Force and [Fikret] Abdic returns as our head of state.”

Another refugee, Sefer Adic, 43, said he would rather die than return home.

“The world has not understood that Izetbegovic is an assassin, a (Moslem) fundamentalist who represents a danger for the whole of Europe,” he charged. “Of course we are Moslems. But we are moderates, not like those in Sarajevo.”

The Bosnian president had asked European Union officials in the zone Friday to assure the refugees that an amnesty for “soldiers and civilians” in the enclave had been “extended indefinitely.”

Sarajevo said the amnesty covered Abdic’s routed troops, provided they surrendered to government forces [i.e. to Izetbegovic’s illegal government] within seven days.

Croatia has refused entry to the refugees, who fled Bihac fearing reprisals after Abdic’s defeat last week by the Bosnian government army [i.e. Izetbegovic’s illegal ‘government’ army, made up significantly of foreign mujahedin terrorists sent by Iran (see here)], and a dozen Croatian armored vehicles were deployed Saturday to prevent them from moving beyond the UN-controlled zone.[54]

[Agence France Presse wire begins here]

There were lots of moderate Muslims in Bosnia, and, as we see above, they were concerned about the impact of Izetbegovic’s terrorism on the rest of Europe: they cared about their fellow human beings, even when these fellow humans were non-Muslims.

What I wish to impress upon you, however, is the position of a moderate Muslim in the ideological context of Islamic culture. As far as orthodox Islam is concerned, a moderate Muslim is a heretic, and there is precious little support for his position in the Muslim texts. Thus, moderate Muslims can easily be attacked by Muslim clerics and scholars such as Ibn Hazm and the Ayatollah Khomeini for deviating from what the Qur’an demands: the slaughter of infidels. The position of ‘moderate Muslims’ within the culture of Islam is therefore quite fragile, because the trend among Muslim clerics and scholars, taking their cue from the Qur’an, is to preach terrorist war. The moderate Muslim who wishes to live in peace with non-Muslims will thus be told that he is a traitor to Islam. You may think the solution is simple: moderate Muslims, who are obviously uncomfortable with their own religion, should convert to a different religion or become atheists. But this, you see, is punishable by death: one has become an infidel. And since Western governments turn out to be assisting Muslims who advocate terrorism against infidels, it is obvious that moderate Muslims cannot succeed.

From this point of view, the spread of Islam must be understood as a danger to world peace, notwithstanding the fact that moderate Muslims indeed exist.

But why do Western leaders and the media completely misrepresent Islam as ‘the religion of peace’? As you may recall, we began with quotes showing the president of the United States, and the Catholic Pope, to be defending the view, to the millions of Westerners whom they influence, that Islam is a religion of peace. What is the problem, here?

That will be the subject of a future HIR piece on the topic of Islam.

The next piece in this series is:

"Dhimmitude: The fates of non-Muslims in Islamic society"; from THE CULTURE OF ISLAM; Historical and Investigative Research; 9 September 2007; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/islam/culture02.htm

_____________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
_____________________________________________________

[1] Christians in crisis, The Jerusalem Post, December 24, 2006, Sunday, OPINION; Pg. 13, 712 words

[2] The Pope was wrong on jihad, too, South China Morning Post, September 23, 2006 Saturday, NEWS; Pg. 13, 1014 words, Riaz Hassan

[2a] “Prince Charles of Arabia”; by Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman; Middle East Quarterly; September 1997.
http://www.meforum.org/article/356

[3] Bush goes face to face to build anti-terror alliance, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 18, 2001 Tuesday, Home Edition, Pg. 1A, 1015 words, SCOTT SHEPARD [nota de fotografía].

[4] Bostom, A. G. 2005. The legacy of jihad. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (p.226)

[5] Arnaldez, R. 1962. "La guerre sainte selon Ibn Hasm de Cordoue," in Études d'Orientalism dediees a la memoire de Levi-Provençal, vol. 2, pp. 445-59. Paris: Masionneuve and Larose.

Reproduced in: Bostom, A. G. 2005. The legacy of jihad. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (pp,.267-81). Translation by Michel J. Miller.

[6] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.281.

[7] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.268.

[8] Arnaldez, R. 1962. "La guerre sainte selon Ibn Hasm de Cordoue," in Études d'Orientalism dediees a la memoire de Levi-Provençal, vol. 2, pp. 445-59. Paris: Masionneuve and Larose.

Reproduced in: Bostom, A. G. 2005. The legacy of jihad. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (pp,.267-81). Translation by Michel J. Miller.

[9] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.271.

[10] Les Chretiens d'Orient entre Jihad et Dhimmitude: VIIe-XXe siecle. (1991).

Translated to English in: Ye'or, B. 1996. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press (pp.18-19).

[11] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.271.

[12] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), pp.272-73.

[13] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), pp.273-74.

[14] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.274.

[14a] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.275.

[14b] Bostom, A. G. 2005. The legacy of jihad. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (pp.17-19).
http://www.hirhome.com/islam/art.htm

[15] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.277.

[16] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), p.278.

[17] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), pp.278-79.

[18] Arnaldez 1960 (in Bostom 2005), pp.279-80.

[19] M2 Presswire; October 21, 2003; Headline: US Dept Of State - Death of former President Alija Izetbegovic - Press Statement - Adam Ereli

[20] ‘The last ambassador: a memoir of the collapse of Yugoslavia.’ By Warren Zimmerman; Foreign Affairs March-April 1995 v74 n2 p2(19) (8919 words)

[21] Financial Times (London), March 7, 1992, Saturday, Pg. 6, 1108 words, Man in the News:

[22] Bosnia dragged into the bloodbath: Serbia continues its march to the Adriatic, The Observer, September 15 1991, Pg. 13, 957 words, NICK THORPE, BANJA LUKA

[23] Defiant Bosnia heads for showdown, The Independent (London), January 23, 1992, Thursday, FOREIGN NEWS PAGE; Page 10 , 649 words, By STEVE CRAWSHAW, East Europe Editor

[24] Bosnia Calls Up Guard and Reserve, The New York Times, April 5, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; Part 1; Page 3; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 681 words, By CHUCK SUDETIC, Special to The New York Times, SARAJEVO, Yugoslavia, April 4

[25] Bosnia's Besieged Government Near Disintegration, The New York Times, May 8, 1992, Friday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 10; Column 3; Foreign Desk, 1058 words, By CHUCK SUDETIC, Special to The New York Times, SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina, May 7

[26] LOOKING BACK, LOOKING AHEAD; How the wars began and how the world hopes to end them, The Washington Post, December 17, 1995, Sunday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A34, 991 words

[27] Newsweek, December 18, 1995, United States Edition, National Affairs; Pg. 32, 1240 Words, Sarajevo On The Spot, By Russell Watson And Rod Nordland

[28] Last Rites for Bosnia, Newsweek, May 10, 1993 , UNITED STATES EDITION, SPECIAL REPORT; Crisis In Bosnia; Pg. 30, 1207 words, By Charles Lane

[29] Bosnia suffers genocide as the world - and America - remains silent. (Originated from Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service) Jennifer Scarlott; Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service Dec 21, 1993 p1221K5689 (696 words)

[30] YUGOSLAVIA: FUTURE STILL UNCERTAIN, IPS-Inter Press Service, February 22, 1991, Friday, 621 words, by Svetislav Maksovic, BELGRADE, Feb. 22

[31] Officials of two republics apparently seek foreign support, United Press International, March 17, 1991, Sunday, BC cycle, International, 749 words, BY NESHO DJURIC, BELGRADE, Yugoslavia

[32] Moderate President No Stranger to Captivity, The Associated Press, May 3, 1992, Sunday, AM cycle, International News, 346 words, AP Photo FRA1, SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina

[33] Izetbegovic, Alija. 1999 [1980]. Le manifeste Islamique (original title: Islamska deklaracija). Beyrouth-Liban: Éditions Al-Bouraq (pp. 118-19).

[33a] Le manifeste Islamique (p.118-19).

[34] Le manifeste Islamique (p.81).

[35] “...The court found the accused guilty because it held that their activity had been directed against brotherhood and unity, and the equality of our nations and nationalities with a view to destroying Bosnia-Hercegovina as a Socialist Republic and thus of undermining the social order of the SFRY.

For the criminal act of association for the purpose of enemy activity and counter-revolutionary threatening of the social order Alija (Mustafa) Izetbegovic was sentenced to 14 years'...”

SOURCE: Copyright 1983 The British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC Summary Of World Broadcasts, August 22, 1983, Monday, Part 2 Eastern Europe; B. Internal Affairs; Yugoslavia; Ee/7418/B/1; , 372 Words, Muslim Nationalists Convicted, (A) Yuqoslav News Agency 1555 Gmt 12 Aug 83 Text Of Report Belgrade Home Service 1700 Gmt 20 Aug 83

[36] "How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US"; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT, An HIR series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[37] The analysis is borrowed from the section entitled “Is Mahmoud Abbas a moderate?” from the piece:

“WHAT IS SEEDS OF PEACE?: Does this US Intelligence operation groom young Arab leaders who want peace with Israel, or who wish to destroy Israel?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 September 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/seeds.htm

[38] Here are three examples of the common pattern:

“It is clear, however, that Arafat only acts on his own commitment to crack down on Palestinian terrorism when it is too late -- after a massive terrorist attack. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) admitted as much to the New Yorker, stating ‘until March (after the suicide bombings) we weren’t serious.’”

SOURCE: Get serious, The Jerusalem Post, December 13, 1996, Friday, OPINION; Pg. 4, 824 words

“Until now, Sharon, the architect of Israel's 1982 war against the PLO in Lebanon, has not softened his rejection of the PLO, calling it a terrorist organization and Arafat himself a ‘war criminal.’ The Sharon-Abu Mazen meeting was indeed a watershed event, in that it symbolizes the recognition of the PLO by the right-wing of the Likud.”

SOURCE: The Sharon watershed, The Jerusalem Post, June 30, 1997, Monday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 850 words.

“(b) Abu Mazen, longtime deputy to Yasir Arafat; (c) Marwan Barghouti, head of the terrorist Tanzim faction.”

SOURCE: Office Pool, 2002 , The New York Times, December 27, 2001 Thursday, Late Edition - Final , Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 19, 705 words, By WILLIAM SAFIRE; E-mail: safire@nytimes.com, WASHINGTON

[39] AN ALTERNATIVE TO ARAFAT, The Boston Globe, March 23, 2003, Sunday, ,THIRD EDITION, Pg. H10, 472 words

[40] Israel in warning on Arafat deadlock, The Australian, April 23, 2003 Wednesday All-round Metro Edition, WORLD; Pg. 7, 500 words, Robert Tait

[41] THUS FAR AND NO FATAH FOR MR PALESTINE; Resistance is growing within the PLO over Yasser Arafat and the Israeli peace process, The Guardian (London), November 12, 1993, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 24, 1204 words, DAVID HIRST

[42] “The PLO leadership has agreed that Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, will be Yasser Arafat's successor, Palestinian sources in East Jerusalem said yesterday. However other Palestinians were skeptical of the report.

According to the sources, Abu Mazen, a PLO executive committee member, and two other leaders will serve as a senior committee to take some of the pressure off Arafat in light of his current health problems.

The Israeli Arab newspaper, published in Jerusalem, reported that the other two committee members will be Farouk Kaddoumi and Khaled al-Hassan.

According to the paper, Abu Mazen, 59, was born near Safed and was one of the PLO's founders. He was responsible for making contacts with Israeli leftists and supporting the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks. He studied in Moscow and has a degree in Zionist history. Abu Mazen is known to support the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, believing that such a state would eventually absorb Israel.”

SOURCE: Abu Mazen is Arafat's heir, sources say, The Jerusalem Post, June 11, 1992, Thursday, News, 464 words, Jon Immanuel and Itim

[43] PLO crisis talks as Arafat is reported missing, Financial Times (London,England), April 8, 1992, Wednesday, Pg. 20, 437 words, By TONY WALKER

[44] Peres joins direct talks with PLO, Financial Times (London,England), September 4, 1993, Saturday, Pg. 3, 448 words, By JULIAN OZANNE and MARK NICHOLSON, JERUSALEM, CAIRO.

[45] How the secret deal was hatched: Only Peres' private coterie knew of talks with PLO, Financial Times (London,England), September 4, 1993, Saturday, Pg. 3, 485 words, By JULIAN OZANNE.

[46] THE PEACE BROKERS, The Observer, January 16, 1994, Sunday, THE OBSERVER MAGAZINE PAGE; Pg. 20, 3200 words

[47] THE AXE IS SHARPENED FOR ARAFAT; He once carried the hopes of his people. Now Yasser Arafat faces their bitterness as the peace process stalls and allegations of corruption, incompetence and even collaboration dog him. In the first of three articles, DAVID HIRST looks atthe slow collapse of the latest Palestinian dream of freedom., The Guardian (London), April 15, 1995, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 21, 3747 words, David Hirst

[48] Associated Press Online, November 27, 2004 Saturday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 991 words, Palestinian Security Unit to Be Disbanded, IBRAHIM BARZAK; Associated Press Writer, GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip.

[49] Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1, 2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH; Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank

[50] Newsday (New York, NY), September 8, 2002 Sunday, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION, Pg. A05, 1333 words, WEST BANK; Inside the Crucible; An occasional series on te Israel-Palestine conflict; Militia Goes More Quietly; Al-Aqsa changes tactics after losses, By Matthew McAllester. MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT

[51] "How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US"; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT, An HIR series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[51a] Al Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm

[52] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (pp. 698)

[53] 2005 -- Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas. ( This piece written before Gaza was turned over to the PLO ); from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#2005

[53a] THE PEACE BROKERS, The Observer, January 16, 1994, Sunday, THE OBSERVER MAGAZINE PAGE; Pg. 20, 3200 words

[53b] “Mr Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the PLO moderate who initialed last week’s draft Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in Norway”

SOURCE: Peres joins direct talks with PLO, Financial Times (London,England), September 4, 1993, Saturday, Pg. 3, 448 words, By JULIAN OZANNE and MARK NICHOLSON, JERUSALEM, CAIRO.

“Oslo could, perhaps, have worked. But its architect, the arch-moderate Abu Mazen, warned from the outset that it would lead ‘either to a Palestine state or the liquidation of the Palestine cause.’”

SOURCE: THE AXE IS SHARPENED FOR ARAFAT; He once carried the hopes of his people. Now Yasser Arafat faces their bitterness as the peace process stalls and allegations of corruption, incompetence and even collaboration dog him. In the first of three articles, DAVID HIRST looks atthe slow collapse of the latest Palestinian dream of freedom., The Guardian (London), April 15, 1995, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 21, 3747 words, David Hirst

[54] Bihac refugees defy Izetbegovic plea to return home, Agence France Presse -- English, August 27, 1994, International news, 414 words, Sonia Bakaric, TURANJ, Croatia, Aug 27

[From Hirhome.Com]

UNDERSTANDING ISLAM AND MUSLIMS

2011-05-20T09:37:00.000-07:00

Get more e-book from THE ISLAMIC BULLETIN

FREE (PDF) E-BOOK DOWNLOAD

2011-05-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

20 Ways to Show Off By Salman Alouda

33 Lessons For Every Muslim by Abdul-Aziz Al-Shomar

A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understanding Islam buy

A Guide to Hajj, ‘Umrah and Visiting the Prophet’s (PBUH) Mosque By Shaikh Muhammad bin Saalih al-'Uthaymeen

A Muslim's Response To A Christian's Response To A Muslim's Response To Tawhid By Abdur Rehman Robert Squires

A Response to Patricia Crone's Book: Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (English)(Arabic)

Abridgement of the Prophet's Prayer Described By Shaikh al-Albaanee

And Muhammed Is The Messenger of Allah By Abu Khalid Al-Muwahhid

Are you Ready for Islam?
Aspects of the Days of Ignorance (Masaa'il-ul-Jaahiliyyah) of Imaam Muhammad Ibn 'Abd-il-Wahhaab (rahimahullaah)

Before you Pray New by Anas bin Abdul Hameed Al-Gawz

Causes Behind The Increase and Decrease of Eemaan by Abdur-Razzaaq Al-Abbaad

Celebrating the Birthday of the Prophet (PBUH) Saleh al-Fawzaan

Christianity: The Original and Present Reality By Dr. Muhammad bin Abdullah as-Saheem

Common Mistakes In Salaat By Sh. Saleh Abdul-Aziz Aalish-Shaykh

Conditions of Laa Ilaaha ill-Allah By Jamaal Zarabozo

Contemporary Issues by Bilal Philips

Death is Enough as an Admonition By The Educational Department of Daar Al-Watan

Did God Become Man? By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

Discourses On Islamic Law And Matters Of Public Concern By Salman Alouda

Do You Know This Man?

Drowning In Minor Details By Salman Alouda

Eid Etiquette and Rulings

Essentials of Ramadan By Tajuddin B. Shuaib

Fataawa regarding Tobacco and Cigarettes

Fatawaa concerning Taraweeh By Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz

Fiqh-us-Sunnah By Sayid Sabiq | view

Foundations of the Sunnah By Imaam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal

Gender Equity in Islam By Jamal Badawi, Ph.D.

General Precepts of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah By Shaykh Naasir Al-Aql

Hisn Almuslim min Athkar Alkitab Wassunah By Saeed Alqahtani

How Do I Repent? By The Educational Department of Daar Al-Watan

How to Become a Muslim By AbdulRahman Al-Sheha

How to Perform the Rituals of Hajj and Umrah By Shaikh Al-Uthaimeen

Human Rights In ISLAM

Human Rights in Islam By Abdulrahman Alsheeha

I Appeal To Your Sense Of Shame! (For women) By Nawaal Bint Abdullah

Islam and Christianity By Mrs. Ulfat Aziz-Us-Samad

Islam And Secularism

Islam at a Glance

Islam Basic Principles and Characteristics

Islam in Focus

Islam Is ... (An excellent book geared towards non-Muslims)

Islam is your Birthright

Islamic Perspective of Sex By Abdur-Rahman A. Al-Sheha

Islamic Way Of Life By Syed Abul A'la Mawdudi

Islamic Works At Home By Salman Alouda

Jesus and The Bible

Just One Message! By Dr. Naji I. Al-Arfaj

Kitab At-Tauhid (Oneness Of Allah) By Shiekh Muhammed Bin Abdul Wahab

Know Your Prophet By The Educational Department of Daar Al-Watan

Knowledge By Shaikh Ibn Baaz

Let The Bible Speak By Abdulrahman Dimashqia

Life After Death

Material on the Authenticity of the Qur'an

Mere Islam, C.S. Lewis and the Betrayal of Christianity By Brandon Toropov

Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (May Allah Exalt His Mention)

Muhammad The Natural Successor To Christ By Ahmed Deedat

Muslim-Christian Dialogue By H.M. Baagil, M.D.

Muslim's Character By Muhammad Al-Ghazali

Notes on the Science of Hadeeth exctracted from "Tayseer Mustalahil Hadeeth" By Dr. Mahmood at-Tahhaan

Oh You Hindu, Awake! By Dr. Chatterjee

Personality Development In Islam And Its Effects On Nations And Civilizations By Salman Alouda

Pitfalls In The Quest For Knowledge By Salman Alouda

Polygyny: The Wisdom Of Love

Principles Of Islam By Sh. Hamoud Al-Lahim

Problems and Solutions

Prohibitions That Are Taken Too Lightly By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Prophethood in Islam

Realities of Sufism By Saleh Al-Saleh

Respond to the Call for Prayer by Khaalid Abu Saalih

Ruling of the Udhiyah (Eid Sacrifice) By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Rulings on Divorce

Rulings Pertaining to Ramadaan By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Seventy Ways to Earn Reward from Allah By The Educational Department of Daar Al-Watan

Shaytaan (Satan) His Ways in Misleadings

Shiekh Muhammed Bin Abdul Wahab, His life, Story and Call

Stories of the Prophets By Ibn Katheer

Stories Of the Quran By Ibn Khathir

Testimonies of Jewish Converts To Islam

The 200 FAQ On Muslim Belief By Hafiz Ibn Ahmed Al Hakami

The Amazing Quran By Gary Miller

The Authentic Creed and the Invalidators of Islam by Shaikh Ibn Baaz | Buy

The Beard between the salaf and the Khalaf By Muhammad al-Jibaly

The Book of Hajj and Umrah By Mahmoud Murad

The Concept of Worship in Islam

The Correct Reply To The One Who Changed The Relgion Of Messiah (Aljawab Alsaheeh by Ibn Taymyiah)

The Creed of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah concerning the Sahabah By Abdul-Muhsin Al-Abbad

The Creed of the Imaam of Hadeeth-a-Bukhari

THE DAY OF WRATH: Is the Intifadha of Rajab only the Beginning? By Safar Ibn `Abd Al-Rahman Al-Hawali | view

The Declaration of Faith by Shaikh Saalih Al-Fawzaan

The Description of the Prophet's Prayer By Abdulaziz Bin Baz

The Etiquettes of Marriage and Wedding By Shaikh Albani

The Evil Consequences of Adultery and Fornication By Muhammad al-Hamad

The Evil Consequences of Lying by Muhammad al-Hamad

The Evils of the Tongue

The Explanation of The Beautiful and Perfect Names of Allah By Abdur-Rahman as-Sa'di

The Fast By Ja'far Sheikh Idrees

The Good End Signs By Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Mutlaq

The Hijab of Muslim Woman By Abdulaziz Addwesh

The Ideal Muslim View

The Ideal Muslimah View

The Ideological Attack by Shaikh Abdul Azeez Ibn Baaz

The Islamic legal view-point on celebrating the anniversary birthday (Mawlid) of the Prophet

The Islamic Ruling on Tawassul By Naasir al-'Aql

The Life Of The Prophet Muhammad By Leila Azzam

The Life of this World is a Transient Shade By Abdul Malik Al-Qasim

The Manners of the Scholar and the Student of Knowledge

The Meaning of Our Testimony that Muhammad (PBUH) is the Messenger of Allah

The Message of Islam By Abdulrahman Alsheeha

The Moral System of Islam

The Most Excellent Manner of Seeking Forgivness By Abdur-Razzaaq Al-Abbaad

The Muslim Home? 40 recommendations By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

The Muslim Woman And Her Husband

The Muslim's Belief By Shaikh Muhammad as-Saleh Al-Uthaimin

The Obligation of Adhering to The Sunnah and a Caution Against Innovation By Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz

The Other Side Of Sufism By A. A. Tabari

The Path to Guidance By Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah

The Prophet’s Methods for Correcting People’s Mistakes By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

The Prophetic Commentary Of The Qur'an By Salman Alouda

The Prostration of Forgetfulness in the Prayer by Shaikh Muhammad Al-Uthaimeen

The Qur’aan and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible? By Dr. Zakir Naik

The Qur'an and Modern science

The Religion of Islam

The Religion of Truth By Abdul Rahman Bin Hammad Al-Omar

The Rights and Duties of Women in Islam By Shaikh Abdul Ghaffar Hassan

The Ruling on Magic and Fortunetelling B Y Abdulaziz Bin Baz

The Sealed Nectar By Al mubarakfury

The Seven Oft-Repeated Verses By Salman Alouda

The Signs Before The Day Of Judgment By Ibn Kathir

The Status of woman in Islam By Jamal Badawi

The Tears Of Finding The Truth Through The Internet

The True Message of Jesus Christ By Dr. Bilal Philips

The True Religion Of God By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

The Two 'Eids And Their Significance By Abdul-Majeed Ali Hasan

The Virtues of the Qur'an By Abdul Qadir al-Arna'oot

The Wisdom behind the Islamic Laws Regarding Women By Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq

Thirty three ways of developing khushoo in salaah By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Thus Taught The Prophets By Salman Alouda

To Be A Muslim By Fathi Yakan

Towards Understanding Islam By Syed Abul A'la Mawdudi

Virtues of the Ten Days of Dhul Hijjah By Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Visiting the Mosque of the Prophet (PBUH) By Yoosuf Bin Abdullah Al-Ahmad

Ways of Gaining Provision from Allah By The Educational Department of Daar Al-Watan

Ways to instigate the Love of Allah By The Educational Department of Daar Al-Watan

What Every Muslim Must Know about Purification By AbdulRahman Al-Sheha

What Every Muslim Must Know About Purification By AbdulRahman Al-Sheha

What Is His Nature? (God In Christianity) By Naji Al-Arfaj

What They Say About Muhammad Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam

What They Say About The Quran

Who Should Perform Ijtihad? By Salman Alouda

Who Wrote The Quran?

Why Do You Smoke? By Muhammad al-Hamad

Why I chose Islam By M. Emery

Wives Rather Than Mistresses By Hamdy Shafiq

Woman in the shade of Islam By Abdulrahman Alsheeha

You Ask and The Quran Answer

Zakaat al-Fitr

HADITS, BEST COLLECTION TO DOWNLOAD

2011-05-20T07:58:00.000-07:00

Sahih Al-Bukhari Al Jaami` Al Saheeh By Imam Al-Bukhari as a software Palm buy
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other hadith books in Arabic buy
Sahih Muslim By Imam Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjaj software buy
Imaam Maalik's Muwatta (by Tarjumana and Johnson) buy
Riyadh Ul-Salheen by Imam Nawawi PDF buy

THE HOLY QURAN, MULTI LANGUAGES TRANSLATIONS

2011-05-20T07:41:00.000-07:00

Translation of The Meanings of The Glorious Quran (Sahih International) (PDF)
The Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Quran (Hilali & Khan) Buy
The Interpretation of the meaning of The Noble Quran (Hilali & Khan) with Beautiful Recitation of Mishari Rashid Alefasy
Translations Of The Holy Quran in Many Languages (Islam House)

The Easy Dictionary of the Holy Quran
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) volume 10 By: Ibn Kathir Buy the whole book

FREE ISLAMIC E-BOOK DOWNLOAD SOURCES

2011-05-20T07:38:00.000-07:00

WHAT A BAD PERSON ?

2011-05-04T01:49:00.000-07:00

'Aayeshah Radiyallahu 'Anha reports. "A person asked permission to present himself before Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam while I was with him. Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam said: 'What a bad person is he among his community'. After saying this, he gave him permission to enter. After the person entered, he spoke very softly to him. When the person left I said: 'O Rasulullah, you said what you said before he entered, then you spoke so softly to him,. Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam said: 'O 'Aayeshah, the worst person is that who stops speaking to one because of his indecency'".

Commentary
Most of the 'ulama have written that this person's name was 'Uyaynah. It is said that till then he had not sincerely accepted Islaam, but hypocritically and outwardly. Upto that time Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam treated the hypocrites in the same manner as he had treated the Muslims. Therefore he treated him in the same manner. After the death of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam when some people began turning away from Islaam (irtidaad), he also became a murtad, and openly declared the kufr that was in his heart. When he was brought before Sayyidina Abubakr Radiyallahu 'Anhu, the children of Madinah began jeering him that this person has also become a murtad (turned apostate). He replied: 'Since when have I been a Muslim that it may be said that I have become a murtad?

He later became a Muslim, and took part in jihaad in the time of Sayyidina 'Umar Radiyallahu 'Anhu. It is for this reason that Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam pointed out this fact before he entered.

Since this was intended to rectify (islaah) and to save others from harm, therefore this saying of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam cannot be termed according to the shari'ah as ghibah (backbiting). To mention a bad deed of a person with the intention that others may not fall into it, or be tricked into it, is not classed as those prohibited in ghibah. Some of the 'ulama have stated that this person was an open faasiq. It is permissible to make ghibah of the one who openly indulges in fisq and fujur. When he arrived in the presence of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam, to make him feel at ease and captivate his heart, Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam spoke softly to him, as was his noble habit. It was also the noble habit of sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam to speak softly to everyone. It is for this reason that Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam made this clear to Sayyiditina 'Aayeshah Radiyallahu 'Anha and others, so they may not feel that by the courtesy shown by Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam to this person, that this person is honest and a well wisher, and due to this one may be deceived and fall into some, calamity, or a secret may be said before him.

It is the habit of hypocrites to discuss the secrets of others so that they obtain special status and one's inner secrets. In the last sentence of the hadith the words 'worst person' could have two meanings. This may be referring to the person that presented himself. In order to keep away from his rudeness, he was treated in this manner, or this may be referring to the noble personage of Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam that, 'When did you find me to be a rude person, that you were waiting for such a thing. He is an indecent person, and due to his indecency people will refrain from coming to him, and if I also speak like this, people must also stop coming to me'. As a result of which only he shall be a loser, but how could Sayyidina Rasulullah Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam tolerate him being a loser? [Tirmidhi 047:008 (333)]

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

2011-02-23T08:20:00.000-08:00

Click any video image in the gallery to activate video player, then click (by sequence or once at a time) any of which video clip you'd like to view.

Enjoy!

PS: Click here to search your own category video from this site, or else here to view more similar category videos directly on YouTube.com.
Thank you.

THE SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES OF THE HOLY AL QURAN

2011-02-21T06:38:00.000-08:00

Click any video image in the gallery to activate video player, then click (by sequence or once at a time) any of which video clip you'd like to view.
Enjoy!

PS: Click here to search your own category video from this site, or else here to view more similar category videos directly on YouTube.com.
Thank you.

SHEIKH AHMED DEEDAT, THE MIRACLE OF MIRACLES

2011-02-21T06:37:00.000-08:00

EASY PLUG'N PLAY YOUTUBE

2011-02-21T06:36:00.000-08:00

Enter any keyword into search box below then click SEARCH button. At least 50 video images will be displayed on your 'up-coming' randomized gallery. Click any image to activate video player, then click - by sequence or once at a time - any of which video clip you'd like to view.

Should you like to replace the gallery, simply follow the above steps. But before then, please make sure that you have already clicked REFRESH button of your browser.
Enjoy!

GARY MILLER (ABDUL AHAD OMAR), Islamic Lectures

2011-02-20T00:56:00.000-08:00

THE SPIRIT OF THE EAST AND BEYOND

2010-08-12T11:19:00.000-07:00

Ramadan, The Spirit Of The East And Beyond - By Charlotte McPherson

I remember sitting on a carpet which lay on top of the dirt floor of a large tent in an unregistered camp on the outskirts of Karachi in the early 1980s. As we were guests of the locals and were providing some aid for their desperate situations, they had invited us to stay and join them for iftar dinner.

As soon as the muezzin finished performing the call to prayer, they began putting into their mouths vast heaps of lamb pieces and boiled rice soaked in melted butter and drank water. I’d never seen so many plates or such large piles of rice before. I realized that I was among the more prominent of the community who could have a meat dish. Many of thousands in the camp that night would not. Appreciating the honor to be invited to join them for iftar, I had accepted. Mostly men sat around me, plunging their hands into meat and soaked rice. The women were busy refilling the serving plates and looking after every one. They would eat later in the next room. Nobody had any cutlery. They urged me and my colleagues to eat more but we had not been fasting all day so not much was required.

It saddens me to think that ever since the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan in the early 1980s millions of Afghans have never returned to their homeland. Apparently the number of refugees has increased considerably since then. According to a spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as reported in Pakistan’s daily newspaper DAWN (Feb. 10, 2009), Sindh is home to some 50,000 Afghan refugees. Although the Soviets have come and gone, the situation remains ominous.

The number of Muslims who will be fasting during Ramadan around the world is mind boggling. It is estimated that more than a billion Muslims around the world, including some 8 million in North America, will keep the fast.

Just in case you are not sure what Ramadan means, it is known by Muslims as a “month of blessing” marked by prayer, fasting and charity. From what my Muslim friends tell me, Ramadan retains its focus on self-sacrifice and devotion to God. Muslims who are better off will remember others less fortunate -- like those Afghans I mentioned earlier.

To help any newcomers in understanding the spiritual climate and how the land lies for the next few months, let me explore three main questions and attempt to briefly answer them. There’ll be one diversion which will help some Westerners understand the lunar calendar too.

The first question is: When is Ramadan 2010? You can Google this question and the answer that pops up informs you that Ramadan is expected to begin on or around Aug. 11, finishing around Sept. 8.

The month of Ramadan is considered the greatest religious observance in Islam. In short, Muslims practice sawm, or fasting, for the entire month of Ramadan. Non-Muslims often do not realize just exactly what this means: You may not eat or drink anything, including water, while the sun shines. Fasting is one of the five pillars, or duties, of a good Muslim. This practice starts around age 12. Fasting serves many purposes, for example, while they are hungry and thirsty, people are reminded of the suffering of the poor.

You probably noticed that an exact date or time was not given. That’s because the exact dates of Islamic holidays cannot be determined in advance, due to the nature of the Islamic lunar calendar. Estimated time is based on expected visibility of the hilal (waxing crescent moon following a new moon) and varies according to location.

If you have not been in Turkey during Ramadan before let me just say that it depends on where you are as the spiritual climate varies some, but for the most part, the majority of restaurants are either closed or not busy during daylight hours. People who are eating out or having a hot or cold drink during the day will be more discreet.

Be prepared for some noise in your building in the early morning hours as Muslim families get up early for suhur, a meal eaten before the sun rises. Don’t be alarmed in the evening by the number of shoes on the doorstep of your neighbors’ homes. It is a time for company and they begin iftar after the sun sets. The iftar meal usually begins with dates and sweet drinks. In the Afghan camps there were no dates and sweet drinks and no desserts -- just the main dish. (To be continued)

Note: Charlotte McPherson is the author of “Culture Smart: Turkey, 2005.” Please keep your questions and observations coming: I want to ensure this column is a help to you, Today’s Zaman’s readers. Email: c.mcpherson@todayszaman.com

THE FUTURE OF ISLAM

2010-07-08T13:13:00.000-07:00

Brooklyn, New York - According to a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Americans still have little to no knowledge of Islam's basic tenets. More disheartening, if not outright frightening, is that even given this avowed lack of knowledge, a sizeable percentage of US citizens nonetheless maintain a negative perception of Muslims.

So, either an informed, nuanced understanding of Islam is being obscured by the voluminous – and venomous – misinformation that clutters the media, or an accessible and authoritative account of what Muslims truly believe and how they interact with the world around them simply hasn't been produced.

John Esposito, given his celebrity and scholarship, is among perhaps only a handful of individuals who have met both these prospective challenges head-on with some success. His latest offering in a line of timely scholarly works, The Future of Islam, provides a refreshingly holistic assessment of the challenges Muslims face from increased pluralism on the one hand, and heightened hostility on the other.

Both novice and more advanced readers on the subject will find much of Esposito's narrative as insightful as it is comprehensive. The first chapter of the book includes a standard primer on the five pillars, the divisions between Sunni and Shia, and some brief remarks on the more "controversial" subjects of sharia, Islamic principles, and jihad, a spiritual and religious effort. This introductory information is supplemented, however, with a less common examination of the racial and intellectual diversity of Muslims in the West, and an even rarer assessment of the legitimate grievances Muslims around the world have with America and its allies.

For those possessing a firmer grasp of Islamic beliefs and attitudes, this book doubles as a clear and concise distillation of the Western Muslim experience. From the factors that distinguish Muslim Americans from their European counterparts, to the distinction between integration and assimilation, to the misapplication of terms such as "moderate" and "fundamentalist", Esposito's fluid analysis on these topics, often backed by empirical data, makes even the most complex phenomena easily digestible.

At its core, this book is an examination of the current prospects for Muslim reformers around the globe. By reform, Esposito ostensibly is referring to the reinterpretation of Qur'an and hadith, sayings of the prophet Muhammad, to produce new legal and social models that better meet the challenges of an ever more globalised world.

While acknowledging the breadth of Islamic jurisprudence and of debates over theological matters, Esposito nonetheless promotes certain positions, both implicitly and explicitly, throughout his narrative, including a liberal interpretation of women's rights, as exhibited through the likes of Muslim American scholar Amina Wadud; a more pluralistic approach to salvation, in contrast to the belief in salvific exclusivity; and the legitimacy and expansion of lay ijtihad, an Islamic tradition of creative reasoning, which undercuts the traditional role of ulema, those versed in Islamic jurisprudence, are all featured prominently in Esposito's discussion of reform and "a new way forward" (a phrase he borrows from US President Barack Obama's inauguration speech).

To be fair, Esposito is careful not to dismiss more traditional or conservative positions in Islam. He clearly cautions against facile labeling of a person or group as "extreme" simply because their understanding of a particular issue doesn't mesh with a Western, supposedly enlightened perspective. Moreover, Esposito sincerely highlights the work of Islamic jurists and activists such as Egyptian scholar Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Egyptian televangelist Amr Khalid, and Pakistani scholar Farhat Hashmi.

Esposito's keen socio-political acumen and sense of historical perspective clearly manifest with his concluding remarks on the future of Muslim-Western relations. He once again underscores that majorities of Muslims globally don't conflict with the West on religious or civilisational grounds, but distinguish between various nation-states based upon their policies. Esposito goes on to encourage Western powers to curtail and ultimately eliminate their support for authoritarian regimes across the Muslim world, and to reconcile with the fact that clear majorities in these countries wish to see Islam play a greater role in government.

Finally, to counteract the viral spread of Islamophobia, Esposito emphasises that Americans and Europeans must acknowledge a missing link in what Jews and Christians have come to regard as a shared heritage. Only when Muslims are no longer viewed as the "other," but as integral elements of a rich Judeo-Christian-Islamic history, can serious headway be made against the forces of extremism.

By Youssef Chouhoud, a writer from Brooklyn, New York by way of Alexandria, Egypt and is pursuing an MA in political science. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author. The full text can be found at www.muslimmatters.org.

Source: Muslim Matters, 12 March 2010, www.muslimmatters.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME, IS THERE GOD?

2010-07-06T01:58:00.000-07:00

This is a very old file I found still interesting and remains helpful to assist those who are seeking for the truth about Islam and the existence of Allah SWT - the only God of the universe. Hope you'll like it as much as I do ~ Gus.

Question (Dated): 2003: "I have a friend who doesn't even believe in god, and I said whatever I could, but her side of the argument was that if everything came from something, and there was a creator of everything, then where did god come from, and I don't know what to say. I'm kinda stuck!"

Bismillah Rahman Raheem,
Thank you for writing and for your question. First let us begin with Basics Of Islam
Here are some important points to keep in mind and these should be used when you are answering questions about Islam:

First - Tell them that we are pleased they are asking about Islam. Say, "Thanks for asking me about my religion."

Second, tell them two important things about our religion:
1. As Muslims we cannot lie about anything, especially about our religion.

2. We have original recorded sources of our religion:

A. The Quran

B. Teachings of Muhammad

This is a unique part of Islam, not available in any other ancient religions.

Now explain to them, sometimes "questions" contain misinformation. We must qualify what it is that someone is saying against what they are implying. We will need to straighten out the questions before giving answers.

And finally, ask them, "If during the answer, you hear yourself saying, "I didn't know that" or "This is good," then are you ready to worship your God and your Lord without any partners?

Tell them, "This what Islam is really all about. The most important subject is the worship of Almighty God, without any partners or associates or 'gods' besides Almighty God."

Now we are ready to begin to give the answers.

Answer: 2003 - Sept 15 14:40 EST -
The question that atheists usually ask regarding our belief in God, vary to some degree, but they are quite predictable over all. Let us consider a few:

1. If God created everything - then who created God? (may Allah forgive me)

(Remember to use the formula above - i.e.; "Thank you for asking me about my religion..." etc.) According to the Quran, Allah tells us that He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and that nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us that He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway. He calls Himself by a number of names and three of them are:

The First - (Al-Awal)
The Last - (Al Akhir)
The Eternal - (As-Samad)

Who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all. He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way.

2. How can you believe in God, when you can't see, hear, touch, smell, taste or even imagine what He is?

We know from the teachings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that no one has ever actually seen God - at least not in this lifetime. Nor are we able to use our senses to make some kind of contact with Him. However, we are encouraged in Islam to use our senses and our common sense to recognize that all of this universe could not possibly come into existence on its own. Something had to design it all and then put it into motion. That is beyond our ability to do, yet it is something that we can understand. We don't have to see an artist to recognize a painting, correct? So, if we see paintings without seeing artists painting them, in the same way, we can believe that Allah created everything without having to see Him (or touch, or hear, etc.).

3. Can God do anything? - Can He make a rock so big that nothing can move it? - If He did make a rock so big that nothing could move it, would that mean that He couldn't move it too? Or would it be impossible for Him to make something so big that He couldn't move it?

Allah tells us that "Allah is capable of doing anything that He Wills to do." He can make a rock (or anything for that matter) that is so large or heavy that nothing in the entire universe can move it. As regards Allah "moving" it, He is not in the universe and He does not resemble His creation. Whenever He wants anything done, He merely says "Qun! Faya Qun!" (Be! And so it will be!)

4. Where is God?

Some other religions teach that "God is everywhere." This is actually called "pantheism" and it is the opposite of our believe system in Islam. Allah tells us clearly that there is nothing, anywhere in the universe that resembles Him, nor is He ever in His creation. He tells us in the Quran that He created the universe in six "yawm" (periods of time) and then He "astawah 'ala al Arsh" (rose up, above His Throne). He is there (above His Throne) and will remain there until the End Times.

5. Why did God create everything?

Allah says in His Quran that He did not create all of this for any foolish purpose. He tells us that He created us for the purpose of worshiping Him, Alone and without any partners.

6. Is God pure, good, loving and fair? - If so, then where does evil, hatred and injustice come from?

Allah tells us that He is Pure, Loving, and absolutely Just in every respect. He says that He is the Best of Judges. He also tells us that the life that we are in is a test. He has created all the things that exist and He has created all that happens as well. There is nothing in this existence except what He has created. He also says in the Quran that He created evil (although He is not evil). He is using this as one of the many tests for us.

7. Does God really have power of things? - If so, then why does He let people become sick, oppressed and die?

Oppression is something that Allah forbids for Himself to do to anyone and He hates it when anyone oppresses someone else. He does have absolute power over everything. He allows sickness, disease, death and even oppression so that we can all be tested in what we do.

8. Can you prove there is a God?

Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident?" (See also "Quran" below)

9. Does God know everything that is going to happen? - Does He have absolute control on the outcome of everything? - If so, how is that fair for us? Where is our free will then?

Allah Knows everything that will happen. The first thing that He created was the "pen" and He ordered the pen to write. The pen wrote until it had written everything that would happen. And then Allah began to create the universe. All of this was already known to Him before He created it. He does have absolute and total control at all times. There is nothing that happens except that He is in control of if.

There is a mistake in the question: "Free Will." Allah alone, has Free Will, He Wills whatever He likes and it will always happen as He wills. We have something called, "Free choice." The difference is that what Allah "Wills" always happens and what we choose may or may not happen. We are not being judged on the outcome of things, we are being judged on our choices. This means that at the core of everything will always be our intentions. Whatever we intended, is what we will have the reward for. Each person will be judged according to what Allah gave them to work with, how they used it and what they intended to do with it.

As regards the actual "Judgment Day" - Allah tells us that everything we are doing is being recorded and not a single tiny thing escapes from this record. Even an atom's weight of good will be seen on the Day of Judgment and even a single atom's weight of evil will be seen too.

The one who will bring the evidences against us will be ourselves. Our ears, tongue, eyes and all of our bodies will begin to testify against us in front of Allah on the Day of Judgment. None will be oppressed on that Day, none will be falsely accused.

He could have put everyone in their respective places from the very beginning, but the people would complain as to why they were thrown in Hell without being given a chance. This life is exactly that; a chance to prove to ourselves who we really are and what we would really do if we indeed had a free choice. Allah Knows everything that will happen, but we don't. That is why the test is fair.

10. If there is only one God, then why are there so many religions?

Allah does not force anyone to submit to Him. He has laid out a clear path and then made it known to them the two ways (Heaven or Hell). The person is always free to make his or her own choice. There is no compulsion in the way of "Islam." Whoever chooses to worship Allah without partners and is devoted to Him and is obeying His commands as much as possible, has grasped the firm handhold that will never break. Whoever denies God and chooses some other way to worship or not to believe at all, for them there is an eternal punishment that is most horrible (Hell).

All religions originated with Allah and then people began to add or take away from the teachings so as to take control over each other. Man made religions are an abomination before the Lord and will never be accepted. He will only accept true submission, obedience and in purity and peace to His commandments.

11. How do you know that the Quran is really from God?

Muslims have something that offers the most clear proof of all, The Holy Quran. There is no other book like it anywhere on earth. It is absolutely perfect in the Arabic language. It has no mistakes in grammar, meanings or context. The scientific evidences are well known around the entire world, even amongst non-Muslim scholars. Predictions in the Quran have come true; and its teachings are clearly for all people, all places and all times. No one has been able to produce a book like it, nor ten chapters like it, nor even one chapter like it. It was memorized by thousands of people during the lifetime of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and then this memorization was passed down from teacher to student for generation after generation, from mouth to ear and from one nation to another. Today every single Muslim has memorized some part of the Quran in the original Arabic language that it was revealed in over 1,400 years ago, even though most of them are not Arabs. There are over nine million (9,000,000) Muslims living on the earth today who have totally memorized the entire Quran, word for word, and can recite the entire Quran, in Arabic just as Muhammad, peace be upon him, did 14 centuries ago.

More important links re: Islam - Research - Answers - Audio - Broadcast - Fatwa

Thanks again for your question. All good is from Allah & mistakes were from myself. May Allah guide us in Truth, ameen.

Salam alaykum - Yusuf Estes

Answers from Sheik Yusuf Estes, National Muslim chaplain. American born & former Christian, student of many scholars, he offers help with authentic information about ISLAM in easy English.

[Re: Proof there is God - Says Ex-Christian preacher who came to Islam]

MOON SPLITTED, IS THERE ANY PROOF?

2010-07-03T05:09:00.000-07:00

Did The Prophet Muhammad split the moon as a miracle?

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

'The Hour has approached, and the moon split. But whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is evident magic.' (54:1-2)

The miracle of the splitting of the moon was demonstrated before a certain gathering who persisted in denial of Muhammad's Prophethood. As was related by ‘Adbullah ibn Mas‘ud, while they were in Mina' one night, the Prophet split the moon into two by a gesture of his index finger. The halves of the moon appeared one behind the mountain and the other in front of it. Then, the Prophet turned to us and said: ‘Be witnesses!' [1]

The Qur'an refers to this miracle in the following verses:

The Hour has approached, and the moon split. But whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is evident magic'. (al-Qamar, 54.1-2)

Materialist philosophers and their unreasoning imitators, who want to cast a shadow with their vicious delusions over such a bright miracle of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, as the splitting of the moon, say: ‘If the splitting of the moon had taken place, it would have been known to the whole world and related in all subsequent books of human history'.

Answer: The splitting of the moon was demonstrated before a certain gathering who contradicted the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, in his cause as an evidence of his Prophethood. It happened momentarily at a time of night when people were all asleep. Also, there were obstacles which prevented the others from seeing it, such as mist, clouds and time-differences between different parts of the world. Besides, at that time science and civilization were not yet well advanced and not widespread, and, therefore, the observation of the sky was very limited. Last but not least, there was nothing to necessitate that it should have been seen all over the world. It is because of these reasons that the splitting of the moon was not witnessed in the whole world and related in the history books of other nations.

In order to remove such clouds of delusions concerning the miracle of the splitting of the moon, heed the following Five Points:

First point
The extreme stubborness of the unbelievers in the Hijaz at that time is well-known and is recorded in history. When the Qur'an, however, announced this incident to the whole world through its verse, The moon split, not any of those unbelievers, who denied the Qur'an, dared to contradict it in this announcement. If this incident had not occurred before their eyes, they would certainly have taken this verse as a pretext to attack the Prophet more formidably in his cause. However, neither the biographies of the Prophet, nor the books of history report anything to suggest that they denied the occurrence of this incident. What was reported concerning their reaction is as the verse records: They say, ‘This is evident magic'. The unbelievers declared the event to be magic, and they added further that if the caravans in other places had seen it, it truly happened, otherwise the Prophet bewitched them. When, however, the caravans coming the following morning from the Yemen and other places announced that they had witnessed the event, the unbelievers showed their usual reaction, saying,–God forbid!–‘The magic of Abu Talib's orphan has affected even the heavens!'

Second point
The majority of the foremost scholars of meticulous research such as Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazani concluded that like the flowing of water from the fingers of the Prophet, upon him be peace, and his satisfying the thirst of a whole army with that water, and the grieving of the dry wooden pole–against which the Prophet used to lean while delivering sermons–because of its separation from him, and its being heard by a whole congregation, the splitting of the moon, too, is mutawatir, that is, it has been transmitted by one truthful group at each period to another, forming such a vast community that their agreement on a lie is inconceivable. It is as certain as a famous comet–named Haley–having appeared a thousand years ago, or as the existence of an island which we have not seen but exists. Therefore, it is unreasonable to foster baseless doubts about such certain, witnessed matters. In fact, it is sufficient for their acceptability that they are not impossible. As for the splitting of the moon, it is quite as possible as a mountain's being split by a volcanic eruption.

Third point
Prophets work miracles to prove their claim of Prophethood and to convince deniers, not to compel belief. Therefore, every miracle had to be, and was, manifested to convince those who heard the claim of Prophethood. So, if they had been demonstrated in a way that could be seen by the whole world or would compel everyone to believe, this would have been contrary both to the wisdom of the All-Wise and the Divine purpose for creating man with free will, and sending religion, which entails that the ground be prepared for the mind's acceptance without the power of choice being annulled. If, then, the All-Wise Creator had, because materialist philosophers fancy it so, left the moon split for one or two hours in order that it would be seen by the whole world and recorded in all books of human history, then it would have been no more than other astronomical events, without having been special to the Messengership of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, and an evidence of his Prophethood. Or, it would have been such an obvious miracle that everyone would have felt compelled to believe for there would have been left for the will no way but to accept belief in him. This, in turn, would have resulted in that someone with a coal-like spirit like Abu Jahl would have remained at the same level as someone with a diamond-like spirit like Abu Bakr the Truthful, which means that the purpose of the creation of man with a special function and responsibility and the purpose of sending revelation would have been negated. That is why the miracle of the splitting of the moon was not shown to the whole world to be recorded in all books of human history.

Fourth point
Some unreasoning opponents argue that if that incident had taken place, in would have been mentioned in the histories of such nations as the Chinese, the Japanese and Americans. How could they have witnessed it, given that, when this event happened, in addition to other obstacles, it was barely sunset in such European countries as Spain, France and England, which were then enveloped in mists of ignorance, daytime in America and morning in China and Japan. A thousand curses on such toadies and sycophants of Europe!

(In some books there is an additional record that the moon fell to earth after it split into two parts. This was rejected by veracious scholars on account of its being added by a hypocrite who intended to reduce to nothing the value of this evident miracle.)

Fifth point
The splitting of the moon is not an ordinary incident which happened either due to particular causes or randoming so that it should be criticized from the viewpoint of the law of cause and effect. Rather, the All-Wise Creator of the sun and the moon made it happen as an extraordinary event in order to confirm the Prophethood of His Messenger and to support him in his claim. Therefore, it was shown as a convincing proof to certain people specified by Divine Wisdom because, as stated above, the nature of Divine guidance and human responsibility, and the purpose for raising a Messenger required it to be so. If it had not been concealed from the eyes of those who were not intended to see it and who had not yet heard the Prophethood of Muhammad due to some obstacles such as fog, clouds and time-differences, and if had occurred according to the law of cause and effect, then it would have been an ordinary astrological event, not a miracle peculiar to and connected with the Messengership of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings.

In conclusion, these arguments must be enough for any mind to be convinced of the possibility that the splitting of the moon occurred; now out of many evidences of its occurrence, we shall mention only six which have the strength of a six-fold consensus:

• The Companions of the Prophet, who were all men of justice and truthfulness, concurred upon its occurrence.

• All of the exacting interpreters of the Qur'an have agreed that the verse, The moon split indicates to the splitting of the moon with a gesture of Muhammad's fingers, upon him be peace and blessings.

• All the truthful Traditionists narrated this incident through various authentic channels of transmission.

• All the men of truth and sainthood, men of inspiration and spiritual discovery have borne testimony to the occurrence of this incident.

• All the foremost theologians whose way differ greatly from each other and all the learned scholars have nevertheless agreed in their confirmation of this event.

• The Community of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, who, as established by an authentic Prophetic tradition, never agree on an error, have accepted on its occurrence.

These six evidences are as clear as the sun to prove the splitting of the moon.

Conclusion: What we have put forward hitherto on this matter has been to establish the splitting of the moon by way of refuting the objections to the possibility of it. In a few concluding sentences we will now speak in the name of the truth and for the sake of belief. Now it is the turn of the truth to speak:

The Seal of the Prophets, upon him be peace and blessings, who is the luminous moon of the heaven of Messengership, proved his sainthood through his Ascension, which is the greatest miracle of his sainthood achieved through the quality of his worship–so elevated as to make him the beloved of God. In other words, by making Muhammad, an earthly being, travel through the heavens, God showed to the dwellers of the heavens and of the highest realms his superiority to them and his being His beloved. Similarly, through the splitting of the moon, which is set in the sky and bound to the earth, upon the gesture of the same earthly being, another great miracle was demonstrated for the inhabitants of the earth as an evidence of the Messengership of that earthly being. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, flew to the summit of perfections on the two brilliant wings of Messengership and sainthood–like the two bright halves of the moon split into two; he ascended so near as to the distance of two bowstrings–that is, to the highest rank, the nearest station to God–and so became the cause of pride of both the beings of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth.

Upon him and upon his family be blessings and peace such as to fill the earth and heavens.

Glory be unto You! We have no knowledge save that which You have taught us; indeed, Your are the All-Knowing, All-Wise.

[Abualwaleed - Answers by AllExpert]

[1] Bukhari, Manaqib, 27; Muslim, Kitab Sifat al-Munafiqin wa ahkamihim, 44.

THE MOON SPLIT?

2010-06-25T19:30:00.000-07:00

A photo from NASA using Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 shows an indication that the Moon was split on the past.

The above pictures shows the location of the “Rocky Belt” which shows the moon was once split.The unbelievers of Makkah said to the prophet that if you are truly a prophet split the moon and if you do we shall believe. It was a full moon that night.

The Miracle of the splitting of the moon was demonstrated 1400 years ago for people who persisted in denial of Muhammad’s Prophethood. As was related by Adbullah ibn Mas‘ud, while they were in Mina one night, Prophet Muhammad split the moon into two by a gesture of his index finger. The halves of the moon appeared one behind the mountain and the other in front of it. Then, the Prophet turned to us and said: ‘Be witnesses!’

The Qur’an refers to this miracle in the following verses:

"The Hour has approached, and the moon split. But whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is evident magic’." [Quran - 1:2]

In a TV interview with the Egyptian Geologist Dr. Zaghloul Annajar, the anchor asked him about the verse:

"The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] to show them a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon)." (Quran 54:1) whether it contains any Quranic scientific astounding facts?

Dr. Zaghloul answered saying that he has a story to tell about this verse.

He started explaining that at a time he delivered a lecture at Cardiff University in the West of Britain. The attendees included both Muslims and non-Muslims. A vital dialogue was taking place around scientific facts included in the Noble Quran. During the course of the lecture, a Muslim young man stood asking me, Sir Do you see in the Saying of Al Haq Tabarak wa Ta`ala (Allah the Truth) may He be Exalted - and he referred to the above mentioned verse - any indication to the scientific facts included in the Quran? Dr. Najjar answered: No because scientific astounding discoveries are interpreted through science whereas a miracle is something supernatural, which may not be interpreted through the usual. The splitting of the moon is a miracle, which happened to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in order to prove his prophecy. Tangible miracles are only a testimony of truth for those who witnessed it. It is only that the incident was mentioned in Quran and Prophet's Sunnah that made us believe other wise we Muslims of this era would have never believed in it. In addition that we know for sure that Allah is most capable of anything. At that point Dr. Zaghloul narrated the story of moon splitting as included in Sunnah books.

He said, Sunnah books tell that five years before the immigration of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from Mecca to Medina, a group of people from the tribe of Quraish came challenging him saying: Oh Muhammad if you were really a Prophet and a Messenger bring to us a miracle to establish this fact. So he asked them what do you want? They said in an effort to complicate matters for him: split the moon for us. The Messenger of ALLAH (PBUH) stood supplicating to Allah to support him and grant him victory in this hard situation. Allah may He be Exalted inspired him to sign towards the moon with his finger. Immediately, the moon cleft into two parts standing far from each other for several hours then cling back together. The pagans started claiming: Oh Muhammad (PBUH) practiced witchcraft on us.

At this point some of the wise men explained that magic would only affect the attendees whereas it can not maintain influence on everybody in general. They waited for travelers who were coming back from their journeys. The pagans harried up to the borders of Mecca in anticipation to meet the travelers. When the first arrivals appeared, they asked them did you see anything extraordinary happened to the moon? The travelers answered yes on the night (X) we saw the moon splitting into two parts which remained asunder for sometime then reattached. Upon this statement, a number of the group believed while the rest remained pagans. Therefore, the verse explains "The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to show them a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon). * And if they see a sign, they turn away, and say: This is continuous magic. *They belied the Verses of Allah - this Quran), and followed their own lusts. And every matter will be settled according to the kind of deeds: good deeds will take their doers to Paradise and similarly evil deeds will take their doers to Hell." (Quran 54:1-3) until the end of the verses which were revealed in this regard.

Dr. Najjar continued that at this point a British Muslim young man introduced himself as Daoud Moussa Peetcock head of the British Islamic Party. He carried on saying sir if you allow me I would like to add on this issue? I said please do. He explained saying: At the time when I was searching in religions (before he embraced Islam), a Muslim student gave me as a present the translation of the meaning of Quran. I thanked him and took it home. The first Surat I came across when I opened the book, it was Chapter of the Moon I read "has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder". I said to myself, is this statement logical? Is it possible for the moon to split and then reattach what kind of power may cause this? The man explained that this verse made me reluctant to continue reading. I became busy with my life,yet ALLAH of course Knows how sincere I was about finding the truth.

So, One day ALLAH made me sit to watch TV. It was a talk show between a British commentator and three American astronautics specialists. The show host was blaming the scientists for spending thriftily over space trips at a time when earth is suffering hunger,poverty, diseases and backwardness. He was telling them, it would have been more feasible to allocate this kind of money for reconstruction of earth. To this argument, the three men answered defending their position that such technology is widely applied in many wakes of life such as medicine, industry and agriculture. They added that the money is never wasted but it rather supported the development of highly advanced technology.

During their dialogue, they mentioned the trip in which a man landed on the moon surface as it consumes the the largest cost which comes to more than US $100.000.000.000. The British TV anchor screamed saying what kind of thrift is this? A hundred thousand million dollars just to plant the American flag on the moon surface? They answered no; the objective was not to plant the American flag but rather to study the interior composition of the moon. We actually came to a finding that would cost us double folds of this amount for people to believe and yet they will never believe. The show host inquired what is this fact? They replied: One day this moon was split and then reattached. The show host again probed: how did you realize that? The scientists responded about finding a belt of transformed rocks cutting the moon from its surface to core and then to the surface again. The stated saying: we consulted with earth scientists and geologists who explained that such phenomenon would never occur unless this moon one day split and then reattached.

The British Muslim man said: I jumped out of my chair saying ALLAH (SWT) forced the Americans to spend more than a hundred billion dollars to prove to Muslims a a miracle that took place 1400 years ago for Mohamed (PBUH)? This religion must be the truth. He added: I went back to the Quran and recited Surat Al Qamar, which was my gate for accepting Islam.

Image source:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021029.html

Original Image Source from NASA Official Website:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0210/rille_apollo10_big.jpg

So No one think it's been Photoshop Edited or something, and this link below show that the picture came from NASA itself and still being a topic of research:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021029.html

Scientists of NASA still Researching the Cause of this until today with no definitive results.

LET'S TALK ABOUT ISRAEL

2010-06-08T06:29:00.000-07:00

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CONTINUING ROLE IN HELPING TO DESTROY ISRAEL: DEJUDAIZATION OF JERUSALEM

In a recent speech at New York University in February, at a forum co-hosted by the White House and the Islamic Center at New York University, John Brennan, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser, called Jerusalem by its Arabic name “Al-Quds,” praised Saudi Arabia for its religious tolerance, and encouraged Hizbullah while calling Jihad a legitimate tenet of Islam (Read more here)

While these comments normally would be considered outrageous, disgraceful and a source of derision by rational individuals, especially those who know and understand history, one must realize that his words may easily be construed as a deliberate action of the Obama administration to help Muslims dejudaize Jerusalem and Israel and thereby, help bring about Israel’s destruction and that of the Jewish people. One must realize that the Obama administration has a great advantage in spreading its venom since it is working with a pastiche consisting of the unrelenting anti-Israel/antisemitic attacks of the political left, the Arab Muslim propaganda machine and a compliant antisemitic world-wide media. Similarly, one should not forget that hate is the most powerful human emotion and that religiously inspired hate is more powerful than any other stimulant – including nationalism – unless it is the marriage of religion with nationalism, in its broadest sense, which is exceedingly prevalent in the Muslim world.

Before you think me mad and paranoid, let us look at some of the evidence in addition to that most recent and obvious action of President Obama’s very public and undeserved attempt at humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his disgraceful and cowardly beating up of Israel.

However, Brennan’s statements leave me puzzled as to where to begin an analysis.

Why would President Obama select John Brennan as his surrogate? Certainly, as head of the counterterrorism department, his would be a powerful voice for whitewashing Saudi Arabia and the Muslim nations of their anti-civilized behavior. Who could be better to provide exoneration, grant dispensation and help change the American public’s negative perception of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations and Israel’s positive perception than John Brennan, a man who, as a result of his education and environment, has been primed all of his life to have an animus towards Israel and Jews and who, as a result of his professional employment in the state department, who had or developed a predilection for Israel’s enemies to carry out such a two pronged task? John Brennan is a Roman Catholic who was born and raised in Bergen, NJ, one of the more notorious communities in the country having an infamous past and present with respect to Nazism and antisemitism, who was educated in the Roman Catholic educational system and who spent a good part of his adult life representing the Muslim Mid-East to America (Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA; Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA; Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State).

In the same speech, Brennan also spoke of his time at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, referring to the common aspirations of his former Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian classmates, including the freedom “to practice our faith freely … In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina.”

Yet, while these Muslims refer to practicing their Muslim religion, they refuse the same right to others. But such uncivil actions do not seem bother John Brennan since he has no compunctions about outright lying about his Muslim charges by praising Saudi Arabia for its religious tolerance.

Yet the reality of Saudi Arabian attitudes towards others is grounded in its government and belies his statement. It is well known that Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and all Saudi citizens must be Muslims and, therefore, there can be no freedom of religion, no separation of Church and State and there are no guarantees of freedom of religion. In fact, Saudi Arabia prohibits the public practice of any religion other than Islam. The Saudi government does not permit its citizens to view this internet web sites primarily devoted to religious freedom and tolerance. The Christian cross, the Magen David (Star of David, the symbol of Judaism) or the symbol of any other religion is not permitted to be displayed in public. Only Muslim holy days are permitted to be celebrated. There is widespread discrimination against women. There is no tolerance for the LGBT community as evidenced by the punishment that can be inflicted, ranging from imprisonment, lashes, to execution. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are greatly restricted: as is access to the internet and there can be no criticism of the government Saudi Arabia bans Trade Unions and political organizations..

The political, antisemitic, mean spirited, hypocritical and irresponsible political left has gone insane labeling the open, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, culturally diverse, democratic Israeli society an apartheid state while there is no comparable criticism of what is clearly the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is an undemocratic, monarchical dictatorship devoid of a written constitution and an elected legislature that is beholden to an extreme and murderous fundamentalist sect of Islam.

The inability of the political left to acknowledge its overt hypocrisy is an absolute condemnation of its basic philosophy and its actions based thereon. There is no real need on my part, other than recognizing their existence, to refer to the more traditional antisemites since, by their definition or ideology, anything a Jews does, except die, is unacceptable behavior.

The inability of the political left to discern differences, their herd mentality and their willingness to permit ideology to override evidence, science and reason is definitive evidence of the hate-filled animus the left evinces towards Israel and Jews. These are the reasons why their continuous criticism of Israel is nonsensical: it is rarely based on fact but, unfortunately, all too often based on a very selective presentation of information – not necessarily facts – and its outright distortions. Such hatred of Israel on the part of the political left by its self-proclaimed intellectuals easily can be explained by the intense smug arrogance of true believers in and adherents of an ignorant and false ideology. But, then again, one of the hallmarks of the modern political left is its inability to think rationally. After all, this is group that came up with the idiotic non-scientific concept that all scientific knowledge is relative. However, when a friend offered one of the proponents of this philosophy to come to the roof of a building so they could jump off to test the relativeness of the concept of gravity, the individual refused. Yet, the same individual still insists on teaching that scientific knowledge is relative. Once again, such inability to think rationally, is another manifestation of the deadly influence of a false ideology in society. And, unfortunately, to the detriment to the public at large, the political left exerts a deadly influence in society especially when it comes to Israel.

Brennan has also been quoted as having said: “Hizbullah is a very interesting organization,” that evolved from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia and now to an organization that has members within the parliament and the cabinet. “There is certainly the elements of Hizbullah that are truly a concern to us, what they’re doing,” Of course what Brennan fails to say is that Hizbullah is a Lebanese-Iranian proxy terrorist group that continually calls for the destruction of Israel and has launched thousands of missiles into Israel civilian communities.

In his speech, Brennan referred to Jerusalem by its Arabic name, AL Quds. As far as I could tell, this was an overt indication of Obama’s attempts to dejudaize Jerusalem and perhaps even deny Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Why use the name Al-Quds when the name Jerusalem is at least 3,000 years older than the arabic name and the entire world has always known this city as Jerusalem unless there is another agenda?. Is Obama, through Brennan, providing another signal to the Arab and Muslim worlds that he is amenable to help them sate their unquenchable hatred of Israel and Jews and fulfill their equally insatiable desire to destroy Israel?

Brennan seems to be holding Israel completely the blame for all that has and is going wrong in that part of the middle east while not holding the Palestinians accountable for anything, including their unrelenting terrorism and teaching of hate against Israel and the Jewish people.

Obama role in the eventual destruction of Israel also includes his efforts in changing the public’s favorable attitude towards Israel this can be best seen in his most egregious action when he outright lies about American soldiers losing their lives because of Israel; no American soldier has ever been sent by any American administration to defend Israel and, therefore, no American soldier has died from such a non-existent order.. All Israel has ever asked is that arms be made available to it so it can defend itself. The fact that Israel still exists is proof of its abilities to care for itself. What President Obama refused to acknowledge is that Israel took American arms and altered them with more advanced electronic technology to enhance their capabilities. Of course, he failed to inform the public that the successful Israeli technology was adopted by the US military and has helped save American lives. Ditto for the invaluable intelligence information the US obtains from the Mossad. None of this seems to matter to President Obama as he continues his war against Israel by falsely linking American national security interests to the inability of Israelis and Palestinians to make peace.

The media have been speculating about how President Obama is going to resolve the dilemma created by the Turkish/Israeli confrontation resulting from the sailing of the flotilla from Turkey and the very serious injury of an Israeli soldier and the unfortunate killing of several Turkish citizens. There is also the issue of the very vociferous, world-wide hypocritical condemnation of Israel. As a result of this incident there seems to be a fraying of the tripartite relationship amongst Turkey, Israel, and the United States. Turkey, a non-Arab state, is considered to be the one Muslim nation most favorable to Israel.

But is this falling apart between Turkey and Israel so surprising or was it predictable? As long as Turkey was a secular oriented state, relations with Israel were excellent. In the past several years, the Muslim clerics have gained greater influence, much to the chagrin of the secularists, and relations with Israel began to deteriorate and, thereafter, have been worsening. Thus, this latest incident was an inevitable result of Turkey’s religiously based shifting of its national interests. Also, if Turkey is going to realize its aspirations of being an independent regional power, it will have to impress the surrounding Muslim Arab states and the rest of the Muslim world by start distancing itself from Israel while demonstrating an aggressive stance toward Israel.

Indeed, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister, used similar language as his Saudi Arabian neighbors by describing the flotilla incident as “state terrorism,”"piracy,” “banditry” and “barbarism.”

In view of the US’s relationship with Turkey, one has to question why the US did not use its influence with Turkey to have Turkey stop the flotilla and avoid any confrontation? Perhaps any influence the US had with the Turkish governments also waned pari passu the rise of the political influence of the Muslim clerics.

There is another explanation. The President must have known that the flotilla expedition was organized not by peace activists, as the media insisted on portraying them, but by the IHH, a Turkish group that has ties to Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza. In view of President Obama’s changing America’s attitude towards Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds, it would not be surprising to learn that the US, behind the scene, sanctioned the sailing of the flotilla. And, in light of John Brennan’s speech, this explanation takes on greater credence. If President Obama wanted, he could have stopped the flotilla weeks before it left or he could have prepared the world for what was to come.

Further, President Obama successfully convinced Hillary Rodham-Clinton to change her positions on Israel that she supported for eight years she served as senator from NY. This may not have been a difficult task since her true leftist beliefs about Israel the Mid East are more in line with that of President Obama and the far left than what she propounded for political expediency as senator. For example: during the 1980’sand 1990a, in her pre-senate days, Hillary Rodham-Clinton had an appalling anti-Israel record, In the 1980s, she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which funded the Palestine Liberation Organization. This support was forthcoming despite the fact that the PLO was officially considered to be a terrorist organization by the United States. And, I doubt if anyone will ever forget Hillary Rodham-Clinton kissing Soha Arafat, the wife of Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, while never demonstrating similar affection to any Israeli, man or woman, who espoused freedom from terrorism.

The world outrage against Israel was put into perspective by Thomas Friedman: “But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.” Of course, to this list one could also add the thousands of missiles that Hamas rained down on Israeli civilians.

All the uproar against Israel seems not to take into consideration what was the reason for the blockade: to deny Hamas the weaponry and raw materials it needs to continue its rocket attacks in Israel, killing innocent civilians, actions to which the world, by its silence, sanctioned. The silence was broken only when Israel dared to respond. There is not a single nation in the world that would tolerate having missiles attack its civilian populations without some immediate retaliation. Only Israel is expected not just to tolerate these attacks but is expected to accept the blame for their necessity. Instead of Israel being the victim, the Arab and Muslim worlds supported by their antisemitic cohorts, especially those in the media, insist on portraying the Israelis as the perpetrators and the so-called “Palestinians” as the victims. Orwell’s 1984 (or is it Brave New World?) had become a reality.

Even Vice President Biden – on the Charlie Rose show – recognized, perhaps in an unguarded moment which would seem to differ from the official Obama stance, that Israel has an “absolute right” to defend its security interests. He admitted that It is legitimate for Israel to say that it does not know what is on those ships.

What was not said by the antisemitic left and the Arabists is that maritime blockades are legal, legitimate and effective military measures of self-defense. No civilian nor military ship is permitted to enter the blockaded area once the recognized criteria for imposing a blockade have been met, which the Israelis did. Therefore Israel behaved correctly in exerting its right under international law to enforce the blockade against the flotilla terrorists who explicitly expressed their intention of breaking it, especially after Israel sent warnings to the captain’s of the ships that it intends to enforce the blockade. Similarly, Israeli soldiers had every right to defend themselves when their attempt to board the lead ship peacefully were met with violence.

There is not a country in the world that would have behaved differently under similar circumstances. Notice what happened when the US blockaded Cuba in the 1960s and President Kennedy’s response to the Soviet Union’s desire to break it. Although not a maritime blockade, Egypt did seal its borders between it and Gaza and even built a wall to separate the two areas thereby essentially imposing a land embargo.

There are a number of questions that could be raised about the failure of the so called humanitarians to protest or take actions against a variety of human rights violations by Arab and other Muslim nations, that do not involve Israel, that supports the allegations that the they are only protesting Israel to satisfy their antisemitic appetites.

The fact that President Obama has not fully backed Israel in this situation and not have his minions point out all the flaws in the reasoning of the protestors and their antisemitic supporters, suggests that he wants to curry factor with the Arab and Muslim worlds, and like Turkey, has to demonstrate his animus to Israel by distancing himself from it.

How much clearer can President Obama make it that through his use of people like John Brennan, he does intend to dejudaize Jerusalem and deligitimize the state of Israel and, thereby work for the ultimate destruction.

Source: AlterNet.Org | By Florida Dynamo | June 7, 2010

DR. WAFA SULTAN - A LOST OPPORTUNITY

2010-05-24T01:27:00.000-07:00

As I listened to Dr. Wafa Sultan speak about the crimes committed by Muslims throughout the centuries, I thought to myself, "Here we go again."

BY HESHAM HASSABALLA, MARCH 13, 2006

At first, I had hope in Dr. Wafa Sultan and her stinging criticism of the Muslim World. I had hoped she would shed light on the darkness in which the Muslim World today is wallowing and help it out of this darkness by showing it the light of true Islam. I had hoped this international sensation would add to the debate raging within the Muslim World between the extremists who - with their murderous tactics - threaten to destroy the Muslim ummah and the reformers to wish to save it from utter destruction.

Unfortunately, however, I was wrong. As I listened to her speak about the crimes committed by Muslims throughout the centuries, I thought to myself, "Here we go again, another one of those." Her story is typical: a daughter of a devout grain trader from Syria, Dr. Sultan was raised a devout Muslim and remained one into her adulthood. That is until she witnessed the murder of her medical school professor in 1979 by Muslim gunmen shouting "God is great!"

"At that point," Dr. Sultan said, "I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

Her search for "another god" has led to her conclude that "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."

Although I hoped she meant that the "clash" we are witnessing is between civilization and religious extremism, in listening to other statements made by the good doctor, I realized that the "Middle Age mentality," the "backwardness," the "primitive," the "barbaric" to which she was referring was Islam itself. Her response to a question about who started the Crusades left me near speechless:

"The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other."

Are you kidding me? The Crusades were a response to Islamic teachings? Does not the good doctor remember that the Crusades started more than 400 years after Umar (R) first entered Jerusalem? And to what were the Crusaders - who slaughtered both Jews and Muslims until their blood was knee-high to the Crusaders' horses - exactly responding? What did the Muslims and Jews who were killed in Jerusalem in 1099 do to those European Knights?

The more I listened to what she had to say, the more I realized that she was simply the latest of a legion of critics who reflect upon the religion of Islam the sins of some of its followers. It is a tired, old tactic, but in today's age, people who do so are in no shortage of an audience. Dr. Sultan said: "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them." She also questioned why "a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?"

Good point and good question. Yet, does the good doctor not know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world also do not destroy churches, kill people, destroy embassies and burn flags? Does she not know that the majority of Muslims around the world reject the violent rhetoric and tactics of the extremist mutants? Does the good doctor not understand that Islam does not condone suicide terrorism, even if said suicide terrorist claims that Islam is his (or her) motivation? Apparently not.

Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some Muslims horribly twist the faith of Islam for evil ends, it does not follow that the whole faith of Islam is evil? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some criminals murder in the name of Islam, it does not follow that Islam itself is criminal? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because barbarians have usurped Islam for their bloody barbarism, it does not follow that Islam itself is barbaric? Apparently not, and this makes me truly sad indeed.

Yet, whatever she had to say about Islam and Muslims, the reaction of some Muslims to her comments are nothing short of absurd, immoral, and patently ridiculous. According to the New York Times article, shortly after the Al Jazeera broadcast, clerics in Syria declared her an infidel. The article said that, "one [cleric] said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported."

The other guest on the Al Jazeera program, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because "she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Koran." Since then, according to the New York Times, she has received numerous death threats. One message on her answering machine said, "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." An email was sent to her saying: "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Why? Why are some Muslims so threatened by her criticisms of Islam, however misplaced they are, that they are willing to threaten her - a fellow human being, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister - with death? Certainly God is not threatened by her statements. So, why should we be?

Rather than silence her with the threat of death, why not engage her questions in an open, honest, and forthright debate? What if she has some valid points? Wouldn't the whole ummah be benefited by her insights, if there are any? No, these Muslims refuse to listen to what she has to say and would rather declare her an "infidel" and end the discussion. They are acting like the people of Abraham (pbuh), when they were confronted with the absurdity of their idol worship. Rather than admit that Abraham (pbuh) had a point, they responded by saying: "Burn him and give aid to your gods ..." (21:68).

Now, I am neither equating Dr. Sultan with the Prophet Abraham (pbuh), and nor saying these Muslims clerics are defending idolatry. Far from it. Nevertheless, the violent reaction to Dr. Sultan's criticisms of modern-day Muslims only serves to solidify her apparent point: that Muslims have become a backward, barbaric people at odds with modernity and civilization.

Truth, it is said, does not fear investigation. The Qur'an itself calls upon its readers to ponder and reflect over the Sacred Text: "Do they, then, not ponder over this Qur'an? Or, are there locks upon their hearts?" (47:24). What is essential is that such questioning and pondering be sincere and in good faith. Are the commonly-held beliefs and practices of Muslims truly rooted in the Divine, or are they simply taboos and cultural norms wrapped in the cloak of Islam?

There are many practices that many Muslims deem to be "Islamic" which have no basis in Islam at all, such as the shame of so-called "honor killings." Yet, this would never be found out if no one was allowed to question such practices free from threat of death. Muslims have to learn how to debate and discuss critical aspects of their faith without resorting to threats and ex-communication. Otherwise, the problems that fester in the Muslim World will never be solved, and the entire world will suffer because of it.

Hesham A. Hassaballa is a Chicago physician and writer. He is the co-author of “The Beliefnet Guide to Islam,“ published by Doubleday in 2006. His blog is at godfaithpen.com.

ANGELA COLLINS, WHY I DECIDED TO SUBMIT?

2010-05-16T10:42:00.000-07:00

I accept that I cannot control the events that occur in my life or in the lives of others.

Islam is the only religion that communicates total submission to our Creator, the Creator of all people and of all things. As a Muslim I know that everything I do first begins with an intention and then I must transform that intention into an effort in order to carry out what has already been decreed. This wisdom defines my path to be a better person to myself, my family, my community and to all of my brothers and sisters here on earth.

In essence Allah (the one God) opened my heart, Islam gave me the direction, and now I live to serve out the guidance lent by my Creator for happiness here on earth and if Allah wills, in the hereafter.

While religion is a resource to help guide ourselves to good behavior through our spirituality, there is no prerequisite that it should be far fetched in mental comprehension.

I am a recent convert. Catholicism is the religion followed by my forefathers. At the age of 14, I refused the trinity concept and narrowed what I saw as a complicated tale of 'three in one' down to 'two in one' and started attending a Baptist church.

Throughout my life, I have searched for understanding, but when it came to my faith I truly was confused about why God would come as a human being and would allow himself to die for the sins of only those privileged enough to believe in his (or his son's) crucifixion. I found this explanation extravagant and shared my doubts with pastors and scholars who gave every effort to communicate the Christian belief to my understanding. I asked myself: "Why would my religion need to be so complex?" When I reached adulthood, I decided to make it very simple. There was just one, our Creator and that was it. No other explanation could rationally make sense.

I see Islam as a religion that came to clarify the errors of human beings who changed the original word of God to fit their interests. Islam is simple: God is God. God created us and we worship God and God alone. God sent Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (PBUH) to deliver his message to guide all people. In Islam, Jesus is the only prophet who never died which is why he is the only messenger who will come back before the Day of Judgment to lead the people of the books: [the Torah, the Injeel (Bible) the book of Psalms and the Quran]. The Quran is the final book that has never been altered to fit the changing interest of people throughout history.

Islam confirms that you are not awarded passage into heaven just because you say you are Muslim. And you may not go straight to heaven just because you believe that God is monotheistic. You go to heaven based on your intentions and actions following the message taught to us by the messengers themselves and confirmed by the original books of God. Heaven is not an exclusive club for those who merely follow what their fathers taught them. Instead it is your responsibility, especially as a Muslim, to constantly search for truth, understanding and to read and think. After reading every chapter in the Quran twice and taking detailed notes, I believe that this masterpiece could only have come from my Creator. Without a doubt the author of this book knows more about me than I know about myself.

It is no secret that Islam is seriously misunderstood and disliked by many here in my homeland, the United States. My conversion to this "controversial" religion has my family and friends puzzled. It is my sincere belief that Allah led me to Islam by enhancing my passion in exploring unfamiliar perspectives through foreign travel. I have a genuine interest in building bridges with all people everywhere rather than promoting my own ideology as the only system that can work for all people.

While culture shock is a mild term to express the drastically different life styles of Muslims in the Middle East, I saw great beauty in the generosity of people, the cohesiveness of families and the immediate acceptance of a girl so foreign in her ways. Even so, in the present I face a culture shock within my own predominantly Middle Eastern Muslim community. I do understand the challenges a Muslim born into their religion faces to dissect their own culture within it. After finding myself in Islam, I am able to adhere to the teachings supported by the Quran and Hadiths while also managing to bypass the cultural manifestations taught by Muslims born into their religion. Islam is multi-cultural and is a system that can be adopted in any environment at any point in time.

I can confidently say that if Allah had not breathed Islam into my soul, I would have never found Angela. Well, today, here I am: Angela, a Muslim American: the soul who persistently searched for her Creator and has found the Creator of all that is in the universe and beyond, in Islam.

Angela Collins

ANGELA, MY ANALYSIS OF THIS MURTADIN-KAFIRUN BLOG

2010-05-16T09:20:00.000-07:00

To trap unsuspecting Muslims into a guided dialogue, where the Muslims will be cornered and lose in the cleverly articulated (aggressive Christians are well trained, and they are given all the counter arguments – they have a full load of toxic verbiage arsenal against the Muslims)
To make some weak Muslims leave Islam by the clever manipulation of the dialogues and the statements of Muslims – which will be twisted in such a way that the Muslims will look silly.
The blog was set up with a very carefully calculated purpose that would favour the murtadin-kafirun.
I HAVE ALL THE AMMUNICATIONS TO FIGHT YOU PEOPLE, BUT IN THE END YOU WILL TWIST ALL THE FACTS AND MAKE ME LOOK SO SILLY.
By that way, you will win the hearts of weak Muslims who may murtad to your brand of kafirun religion.
I have read many of the murtad blogs, e.g. that of Ali Sina etc., and also answering.islam.org etc., I have followed some of the debates – and Alhamdullillah there are some real converts to Islam who are there to the defence of Islam. This is about converts, so let the converts of Islam say their opinions as ex Christians – they are in a good position to argue back. Of course there are knowledgeable Muslims who are fighting this cyber infowar.
Murtad is a phenomenon that will go on. We are here not to stop the murtad people. They have their own opinions.
But, at the same time, there is also a growing phenomenon of conversion to Islam in especially western countries that is a big worry to the Christian church. THE KAFIRUN ARE URINATING UNDER THEIR PANTS OUT OF FEAR. Islam is not very missionary like Christrianity from Allah. I HAVE MET MANY OF THEM! They convert after they receive HIDAYAH FROM ALLAH.
IBLIS REBELLED WHEN ADAM WAS CREATED. And Iblis made a vow to BRING THE CHILDREN OF ADAM ASTRAY. ONLY THOSE WHO RECEIVE HIDYAH WILL GET THE TRUE MESSAGE. IT IS FROM ALLAH AND ALLAH ALONE.
The Christians are fighting back with their murtad program – they have all the resources – funding etc at their disposal.
It is undeniable that many Muslims go murtad – but my analysis show that they murtad for the wrong reasons – and not for the love of Allah and the Truth, but for some worldly gains.
In the light of this Christian aggression, and the effort to trap Muslims like me, I do not wish to go further in this blog.
Christians in their seminaries have designed this type of dialogue, and they are well supported. If you want to play the ball, you need 2 sides. I am not going to play it.
IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT CHRISTIAN HAS PAGAN ROOTS, AND THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS NOT AUTHENTIC. I HAVE SHOWN SOME OF IT TO THEM IN THIS BLOG. THERE ARE SO MANY, I CAN GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE BIBLE AND SHOW YOU WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE BIBLE.
AND THERE ARE MANY WRITINGS ON THIS SUBJECT WRITTEN BY WESTERNERS, BY FORMER CHRISTIANS. I HAVE READ THESE FOR MANY MANY YEARS. SO THE ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY AND BIBLE ACTUALLY DID COME FROM THE EX CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES – AND NOT THE WORK OF MUSLIMS
SO, I MUST SAY, YOU WILL NEVER SUCCEED IN YOUR EFFORT TO DESTROY ISLAM. READ THE HISTORY OF ISLAM, HOW IT SUCCEEDED AGAINST ALL ODDS. MURID RABBI SAID THE JEWS WERE IN MEDINA BEFORE THE PROPHET – BUT HE DID NOT TELL YOU THE TRUTH!
THE TRUTH IS .... IT IS WRITTEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT OF THE PROPHET OF ARABIA, AND FOR THAT REASON, THE JEWS HAD COME TO SETTLE IN MEDINA TO WAIT FOR THAT PROPHET.
BUT WHEN THE PROPHET DID NOT FULFILL THE WISHES OF THE JEWS, THUS THEY BECAME THE GREATEST ENEMY TO ISLAM – AND THESE ARE THE ISARAELIIYA WHO HAVE COME UP WITH ALL THE BAD STORIES ABOUT THE PROPHET – MANY OF THESE APPEAR HERE IN THIS BLOG.
THEN THE VATICAN LAYS CLAIM THAT ISLAM WAS CREATED BY THE VATICAN. THIS LIE WAS CREATED BY CARDINAL BEA – AND IT WAS TOLD TO THE WEST BY ALBERTO RIVIERA – AND THE STORY WAS PUBLISHED BY CHICK PUBLICATION. THESE ARE ALL FABRICATED TO BELITTLE ISLAM.
FOR CENTURIES AND AFTER MANY CRUSADES, THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM FAILED TO DESTROY ISLAM. THE JESUITS DESIGNED COMMUNISM TO DESTROY ISLAM IN RUSSIA AND CHINA. But failed. Islam in Russia is very strong now, and it is coming up in China. Of course Christian missionaries now flock to China in India – to turn these countries into Christian nation. Indonesia has been target as well. Today, India has the highest number of Jesuits!
YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MUSLIM SIDE OF THE STORY – BECAUSE YOU ARE SO OVERWHELMED BY THE WHITE PEOPLE. THE WHITE PAGAN CHRISTIAN WHITE PEOPLE ARE PART OF THE DAJJAL. I HAVE READ WHAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN HERE ABOUT DAJJAL, BUT YOU DONT GET IT RIGHT. YOU HAVE MINSINTERPRETED SURAH AL KAHFI – AND YOU SAY THAT THE RABBI WAS TEASING THE PROPHET WITH SOME LEGENDS. THIS IS ANOTHER TOPIC.
TODAY, THE MUSLIMS ARE MADE TO APPEAR TERRORIST. IN FACT, THIS IS A PROJECT – AND THIS WAS DONE BY THE JESUITS AND THEIR SLAVES THE ZIONISTS.
AT ONE TIME, THE JEWS WERE THE GREAT ENEMIES – BECAUSE THE JEWS WERE BLAMED FOR THE CRUCIFIXION. SO THE PROJECT WAS THAT OF ANTI-SEMITISM. Even the Protocols of the Zionist Elders were written by Jesuits, but blamed the JEWS!
Today, the project is to smear Islam with this “terrorism” brand. Many of the bombingswere done by some innocent people who are not aware that they carry bombs that are detonated by Jesuit agents using remote control. And the news quickly point to the Muslims.
Bali micronuke was done by Jesuit-CIA-Mossad agents. The bomb pointed to micronuke, not C$ or potassium chlorate stuff. It formed a crater and produced a mushroom, and it pulverizes concrete a few hundred feet away. But the blame went to the Muslims.
I have researched all these, and I discovered the HIDDEN HANDS, but the blame goes to the Muslims.
WE MUSLIMS ARE THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE. SO WHY SHOULD THE CHRISTIANS, THE MIGHTY NATIONS, THE AGRRESSIVE NATIONS – GET HELP FROM JESUS? YOU DO NOT NEED HELP! YOU HAVE ALL THE WEALTH, THE MONEY, THE WEAPONS, THE IN DUSTRY.
THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST WERE EXECUTED BY JESUITS/VATICAN – and the Khazar Jews were used in mind control experiments in concentrations camps.
The Nazi mind control programmers were brought to the US through the Vatican ratlines (operation paperclip) – and in the US they set up CIA and other government agencies – and the continued mind control programming there until today.
Many children were taken through the orphanages – many children were stolen from war zones. These are used in mind control programmes to create MPDs/DIDs.
These children are sent to mind control centers in the US.
The end time project is to build THE THIRD TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. The Vatican wants Jerusalem badly – and they are the ones who created Zionism for that purpose. The Vatican is behind all these Freemasonry, Illuminati, Knights stuff. They want to be THE KING OF THE WORLD. THIS IS A VERY VAST SUBJECT!
There is the Blue Beam project – you will see signs in the sky – and voices in your head – all the religious stuff. Don’t be fooled.
THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST. BUT THE CHRISTIAN-JEWISH ELITE WILL STAGE A FAKE SECOND COMING!
I HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY, BUT I STOP HERE FOR NOW, OR FOREVER.

Meet more Angela.

MUSLIMS IN CHINA

2010-05-09T00:57:00.000-07:00

The Muslims of China are a colorful, cosmopolitan people - more varied than the Muslims of any other nation. Where the Muslims of Saudi Arabia, for example, are mainly Saudi Arabs, and those of Turkey mainly Turks, the Muslims of China belong to 10 different ethnic groups: Hui, Kazakh, Kirgiz, Sala, Tajik, Tatar, Tungxiang, Paoan, Uighur and Uzbek, whose customs and cultures add still more flavor to what is already one of the most fascinating countries in the world.

Ancient, vast, evolving, The People's Republic of China had, according to the last official count, one billion, 130 million people - 1,130,000,000! Of them, ethnic Chinese, or Han, are thought to make up 93 percent of the total, with the remaining millions divided among 55 groups referred to in China as "minority nationalities." Although relatively small in number - the largest of the 10 Muslim groups, the Hui, is said to total only 7.2 million people - these minorities are politically significant because they occupy more than half the country, including such sensitive borders as those of the Soviet Union, Vietnam and Afghanistan. These regions, moreover, are rich in natural resources vital to the economic development of modern China.

Totaling 14.6 million - according to official statistics - China's Muslims live mainly in the rugged mountains and desert basins of the northwest, on the central Yellow River Valley plains, in the southern province of Yunnan and among the city populations of the east (See map, pages 10 and 11).

Some Muslims, notably the Hui, are either descendants of Chinese converts to Islam or of Chinese intermarriages with Muslim immigrants; their appearance, language, and other cultural characteristics, therefore, are distinctly Chinese. Farmers and merchants, they live in compact communities scattered throughout China and doggedly resisting assimilation by the Han.

The rest of China's Muslim minorities are mostly Turkic peoples living in the vast Xinjiang (Sinkiang) Uygur Autonomous Region of northwest China, formerly Chinese Turkestan. Descendants of the nomadic "hordes" of Central Asia, many of them are related to the minority peoples of the Soviet Union.

The Persian-speaking Tajiks also live in Xinjiang, which covers one-sixth of the total land area of China, while the Mongol Tungxiang and Paoan inhabit small enclaves in Gansu (Kansu) Province. In Xinjiang, the Uighurs (5.9 million people, according to the government) are the predominant people, and give the region its name. Once the rulers of Central Asia, they are distributed over the chains of oases in the Tarim Basin and in the former trading cities of the old Silk Road.

The Kazakhs (907,000) and Kirgiz (114,000) live in Xinjiang too: in the rugged mountains of the northwest, close to the border with the Soviet Union - from which they fled after major rebellions in 1916 against Russian rule. Descendants of Turkic and Mongol tribes, the Kazakhs of China still live a semi-nomadic life, driving their herds into the mountains in summer in search of pasture, and retiring to their camps in the valleys when winter comes.

The Kazakhs:

The origin of the Kirgiz is obscure, but they were apparently forest people from the upper reaches of the Yenisei River. In 840, the Kirgiz burst onto the Central Asian scene and abruptly overthrew Uighur rule in northwest Mongolia - only to be driven out themselves a century later and relegated to the backwaters of history.

"Kazakh," a Turkish word meaning "man without master," is an appropriate name for the last of the once-powerful nomadic nations of Central Asia to put up any real military resistance to the Czar.

The Kazakhs, in fact, yielded to no one until the middle of the 19th century when, trapped between the expanding Russian and Chinese empires, they were forced to accept Russian rule. And even then the Kazakhs were only temporarily quelled. In 1916, they rebelled briefly against Russian rule and in 1917, faced with forced settlement on cattle-breeding collective farms, those with herds fled east to China.

In 1949, with the Communist takeover in China, some Kazakhs set off again, this time on an epic journey that took them south to Tibet - which refused them entry - then northwest to Kashmir. Of the 40,000 who set off, only 3,000 made it across the 'Roof of the World," and these were eventually resettled in Turkey.

For those who remained in China, a separate political division was set aside for them in the Tian Shan in northwest Xinjiang - the 111 Kazakh Autonomous District, with its capital of Kuldja - as well as two autonomous districts at Mori and Barkol in eastern Xinjiang. There, today they maintain their traditional nomadic lifestyle, migrating seasonally in tribal groups in search of pasturage for their sheep, goats and cattle.

In summer, the Kazakhs pitch their dome-shaped felt tents - known as yurts - on the grassy upper slopes of the Tian Shan range, which, with their forests of fir, cascading waterfalls and permanently snowcapped peaks, resemble the Swiss Alps. In winter they stay in the valleys, living, with their livestock, in long, low log cabins, faced with mud to keep out the cold.

Although the outside of their yurts - with the exception of the brightly-painted wooden door - are drab, the interiors are remarkably cheerful and cosy: the collapsible wooden frame, which supports the felt covering, gaily decorated, colorful bed rolls stacked against the walls and a cheery stove - its chimney sticking through a flap in the roof - sitting in the middle of the felt carpet-strewn floor. In some cases, such as those of newly-married couples, there may also be a four-poster bed, with colorfully embroidered curtains, standing against the wall.

Although they have all but abandoned their colorful traditional dress - predominantly-red layered skirts, padded jackets and plumed pill-box hats for young women, white embroidered smocks for young men - most Kazakh women still dress in bright colors, and men still wear velvet skullcaps usually decorated with a gold or silver-colored symbol similar to a fleur-de-lis.

The Kazakhs are often confused with the Cossacks who played an important military role in medieval Russian history, but there is no real connection. Turkic-speaking, Mongol-looking, the Kazakhs are an ethnic group descended from Turkic and Mongol tribes that occupied the Kazakh Khanate of Central Asia, now the Kazakh Republic of the USSR.

Expert horsemen and women, the Kazakhs, even today, delight in showing off their riding skills to visitors - thundering across the grasslands on their short, but sturdy chargers in reenactment of traditional sports such as ulak tartish - in which men try to seize the carcass of a goat from each other - and kiz kholashi, an ancient form of Kazakh courtship. In kiz kholashi, women pursue men and, if they catch them, beat them with riding whips.

More at home on horseback than on foot, the Kazakhs of China, with their semi-tribal, still-nomadic ways, are one of the last vestiges of the ancient nomadic empires of the steppe.

Among the other Muslim minorities are the Uzbeks (12,400) and the Tatars (4,100) - both of which, like the Kazakhs, have tribal links within the Soviet Union.

The Uzbeks take their name from Khan Uzbek, the ruler responsible for the conversion of the "Golden Horde" to Islam at the beginning of the 14th century. In the 16th century, the Uzbeks held sway overall of Transoxania, and were the last of the Central Asian khanates to submit - peaceably - to Russian rule, in 1920.

The Tatars were the first Muslims to come under Russian rule - in 1552 - and despite efforts to forcibly convert them to Christianity, they remained firmly Muslim - eventually playing a crucial role in establishing Islam in Central Asia, where they served as teachers and administrators in the newly-won eastern territories of the expanding Russian Empire.

The Uighurs:

All these peoples have rich histories, but the Uighurs probably have the richest: their nomadic ancestors once ruled Central Asia, built its first walled cities, created its first literate civilization and "wrote," according to one scholar, "one of the brightest chapters in its history."

Today, by contrast, the Uighurs are largely a sedentary, village people - their habitat the network of oases in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang. And although relatively well off by modem Chinese standards - on average Uighur farmers earn more than city dwellers to the east - they no longer enjoy the living standards of their predecessors, described by one scholar as "unparalleled in (medieval) Central Asia."

In the year 745, the Uighurs emerged victorious from a power struggle among the tribes of the Turkic Empire. Their victory, however, also marked the end of unity among the nomadic Turkic tribes of Central Asia; subsequently, the larger tribal coalitions migrated to the Russian steppe and the Middle East.

At its zenith, the Uighur empire stretched from the Altai Mountains to Lake Baikal, and was governed from the city of Karabalghasun. Tamim ibn Bahr, a Muslim traveler who visited the city around 821, speaks in admiring terms of this fortified town lying in a cultivated country - a far cry from the barbarian image of Mongolia.

The Uighurs proved more accommodating to the Chinese than their predecessors, who had constantly harassed China's borderlands and repeatedly threatened its trade. In fact, Uighur troops helped the Chinese recapture the imperial city of Ch'ang-an (today Xian) in 757 during the An Lu-shan rebellion, and after 822 were instrumental in driving the Tibetans out of the Tarim Basin - through which passed the old Silk Road.

In 840, another Turkic people, the Kirgiz, put an abrupt end to Uighur rule in Mongolia and fleeing Uighur groups settled on the Chinese border in Gansu Province and the Turpan region, a Uighur protectorate since the end of the eighth century. In these regions they set up a capital at Gaochang (Karakhoja), and created a remarkably stable and prosperous kingdom that lasted for four centuries. It was called Khocho.

The Uighur kingdom of Khocho, multiracial and multilingual, permitted the peaceful coexistence of many religions, though the majority of Uighurs adopted Buddhism. During their rule literature and art - particularly fresco painting - flourished.

When the Mongol conquests came, the Uighurs, realizing that resistance was futile and would only lead to the destruction of their country, submitted voluntarily to Genghis Khan. Indeed, Uighur officials and scribes wert the first "civil servants" of the Mongol empire and transmitted to it much of their cultural heritage.

Today, the Uighurs are still the predominant people of Xinjiang, where they maintain their own political leadership - Xinjiang is an autonomous Uighur region - as well as their own language, an ancient form of modern Turkish written in the Arabic script, and their own religion: Islam, which they adopted in the 14th century.

Among the chief Uighur cities are Kashi (Kashgar) an ancient center of trade near the Sino-Soviet border, and Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang; the world's most landlocked city, it is farther than any other from the open sea.

Urumqi is a modern metropolis with apartment buildings, factories - and even a roller-skating rink. Kashi too is rapidly changing, but the oases of the Tarim Basin still have a distinctive Central European - and faintly Middle Eastern - flavor. Donkey carts are still the main form of transportation, women still cook on open fires in the walled courtyards of their mud-brick homes and men still gather in large numbers at the mosque to pray - afterwards pausing to exchange gossip.

The centuries-old system of underground irrigation tunnels - karez - still carries melted snow from the Tian Shan (Celestial Mountains) to the rich grape-growing oasis of Turpan, which at 154 meters (505 feet) below sea level is the lowest place in China - as well as one of the hottest. In summer, families still sleep in open-air bedrooms roofed with cooling vines. And the occasional group of Uighur horsemen can still be seen crossing the Tarim Basin's gravel plains.

Other links with the past survive too. Uighur men still wear the richly embroidered skullcaps and Uighur women can still be distinguished from the Han Chinese who have moved into the area, not only by their features, but by their brightly colored chiffon head-scarves. But as with the Mongols, the Uighurs have learned to coexist with the region's new rulers; one young girl recently seen sitting by the roadside in Turpan, for example, wore her traditional chiffon scarf underneath a cap with a red star.

The Huis:

The largest of China's Muslim minorities, the Hui, is racially Chinese rather than Turkic; and though classified by the government as a "national minority," is not really a "nationality." Generally indistinguishable from the Han Chinese in physical appearance, similar in social and familiar form and speaking only Chinese, the Hui are classified as a "nationality" largely on religious grounds. According to some observers, this is recognition that Islam is a powerful religious force within China today - and may be an attempt by the Chinese Communists to allow Muslims to play a part as a nominally autonomous group within modern China.

The Hui are descendants of either Chinese converts to Islam or Muslim immigrants who intermarried with the native Chinese: Arab warriors who came to China to help various Chinese emperors resist enemies, or Arab and Persian merchants who got to China via the Indian Ocean or, later, along the Silk Road.

Because of the diverse routes by which the Muslims entered China, the Hui today are scattered throughout China. They make up, for example, one third of the population of Ningxia Hui, an autonomous region of central China on the edge of the Mongolian plateau. The Hui are also a substantial part of the population of Yunnan Province on China's southwest frontier, bordering Burma, Laos and Vietnam. They also form sizeable communities in the coastal cities of the East and the oasis towns of the West.

One of the largest Hui communities in eastern China is in Beijing: a total of 180,000, according to community leaders, 30,000 of whom live in the Niu Jie district of the capital just a few blocks southwest of the symbol of China's imperial past - the Forbidden City - and its Communist present - the 40.5-hectare (100-acre) Tian'anmen Square, the largest plaza on earth - flanked by the Great Hall of the People and the Mao Zedong Memorial Hall - and spacious enough to hold over one million people.

In the west, the Hui live in separate, but co-existing communities among the predominantly Turkic Muslims of Xingjiang - where they add to the already exotic mix of colorful Central Asian nationalities.

Originally, the Muslims in China were called Ta-shih. They called themselves by that name because, according to some scholars, this was the name given by the Chinese to the glorious Golden-Age culture of the Abbasids which was well known and imitated by the T'ang Dynasty; it was natural, therefore, that the Arabs and Persians who settled in China later would, for prestige purposes, identify themselves as members of that glorious empire. But with the Mongol conquests, the Abbasid, or Ta-shih, empire disappeared as a political power and so the Muslims in China adopted the new term "Hui."

Under the Mongols, nevertheless, Chinese Muslims were given special status, and Muslim migration from Central Asia and the coastal cities of the East carried Islam to all corners of China, laving the foundations of the communities of today and attaining what some modern Chinese Muslim writers call the "Golden Age of Chinese Islam."

Then, at the time of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), their position began to deteriorate. They lost their special status and under the Ch'ing, or Manchu, Dynasty were so oppressed that they rebelled repeatedly - most notably in the Panthay Rebellion which lasted from 1855 to 1873, but was crushed with great cruelty.

Because of such repression, the Hui developed a strong sense of community spirit, living in segregated enclaves usually focused on a single mosque. The victory of the atheistic Communist Chinese has further heightened the Hui's ethnic awareness and strengthened their religious bonds.

No one seems to know the exact origin of the term "Hui." The French scholar Deveria, in his book Origine de l'Islamisme en Chine, suggests that it began purely as a nickname. "Certain Chinese [Muslim] authors of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have attempted in vain to find the origin and explanation of the term Hui," writes Deveria. "It appears to me to be only a nickname, based on an Arabic word which repeatedly occurs in the common speech, and which would specially have struck the Chinese during their first contact with the Arabs. My learned colleague M. Houdas, suggests to me that the word might be khouya (my brother), plural akhawa [which could have sounded to the Chinese like hu-wee and a-ha-wee]. These terms have been employed from time immemorial in common Arabic. In support of my hypothesis, I recall that during the occupation of Tientsin by the Anglo-French troops in 1860-61, the Chinese nicknamed the French 'dis donc,' and the English 'I say.'"

Yet another Turkic - and Muslim minority, the sala (69,100) in Gansu Province, a strategic corridor of land linking Xinjiang - it means "new dominion" in Chinese - to China proper. The Sala are believed to have immigrated to Gansu from the Samarkand region of Central Asia during the reign of the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty at the close of the 14th century. A warlike community, much feared, it was said, by their Chinese neighbors, the Sala now live peaceably in a small enclave south of Lanzhou.

Gansu is also the home of the Tungxiang (279,400) and the Paoan (9,000) minorities, both Mongol peoples who converted to Islam, though most Mongols were traditionally Lamistic Buddhists. The Tungxiang and Paoan also live in small enclaves on the fertile Yellow River Valley plain south of Lanzhou.

Of all the Muslims in China, however, the Persian-speaking Tajiks (26,500), who live in western Xinjiang, have practiced Islam longer than any other: 1,200 years. The original Iranian population of Afghanistan, the Tajiks were the heirs to the sedentary culture of the Iranian plateau, and transmitted it to Central Asia. They built villages of flat-roofed mud or stone houses and cultivated irrigated fields of wheat, barley and millet, and gardens famous for melons and a variety of fruits. They were also skilled craftsmen and traders, and their settled way of life was copied by many of the nomadic peoples with whom they came in contact.

Whatever their origins, however, the Muslim minorities help to solidify and strengthen a presence in mainly atheistic China that reflects the past glories of Islamic military victories and the enduring vitality of the faith.

Written by John Lawton - Saudi Aramco World