Suu Kyi Go Back

Aung San Suu Kyi wants to celebrate Diwali in India.
She is the Burmese leader courted by the west.
An epitome of some ideal - democracy to be more precise.
But yours truly has some other things on his mind.
Like the government abated genocide of Rohingyas in Burma.
She will be celebrating.
India will be celebration.
BBC is already celebrating.
But not those who feel for Rohingyas in Burma.
Yours truly is one of them.
So dear Aung San Suu Kyi please go and celebrate your Diwali elsewhere because you have not taken a clear stand on a genocide under way.

What the Bleep We Know - 1

Part 1

This is a 2004 documentary exploring the interface of religion science.
The word bleep is a substitute for slang word.
It has been reviewed at various other places but we shall take it up on our own and will take up the other reviews later on.
The first part begins by asking whether soul and science are coming together or they are still far away.
Then there are comments about Sumarian and Greek mythologies.
As with the title the attitude is irreverent. Serious enough lacuna from a Muslim perspective.
Many people in the west, some societies more than others, do not think that there is anything wrong with this.
Cynicism, skepticism, irreverence all are alright. For them there is nothing wrong with this.

Then there is the comment about rise western Church power to supreme levels.
Science moved forward.
Copernicus: Earth is not at the center of the universe.
Galileo: Earth moves.
Both under heavy hand of the Church.
Tragedy does not stop science progress.
De Carte proposed dualism. Church (Unseen) - Science (Seen). Materialism born.
Uneasy truce.
Scientists: We are merely machines.
Church : You are consigned to hell hole.
Darwin : We are just meaningless.
Science and Church hitting the wall : Is God the Holy Creator?
Scientists find huge energies deep in matter and hidden mysteries.
We are all connected. Physical is non physical. Time and space are just consequence of this non-materialness.
Conferences for meeting of scientists and religious people.
20th Century blew the mechanical world-view.
Will 21st blow the wall between the Church and the laboratory?
How deep you want to probe the world - how deep you want to go into the rabbit hole?
Physics is a new way to understand the world - experimental investigation is different from revelation or meditation.
It is unlikely that religious people will change their views because of the out comes of scientific results.
Mostly people do not take the Book of Genesis as a CNN report of creation of universe but some do like James Ussher or Ireland.
There should be a scientific explanation for spirituality.
Good one did not exist till recently.
Proto-morality exists Platonically, geometrically and influences us.
Science says that we are genetic mistakes.
We have genes that are using us to propagate themselves.
We are lonely mistake on a lonely planet in a lonely universe.
This paradigm or separateness is wrong - we are all one and together.
At the very basic level we are connected.
Now what are its implications?
We got to make sense of ourself - old monarchy way is dead, scientific way is dead.
Bury it.
Quantum physics can help us in a new direction.
Consciousness is real and has impact.
We have to create a new paradigm.
Observer matter interaction is changing the reality around you - creating it.
Intricacy of cells, billions of them working for us, tell us that there is more to reality than we perceive.
Every moment we are immersed in experience.
We know nothing about reality - it is filtered by our senses.
***
Phew!
***
Comments to follow.

Nature Arabic Edition

This incredible and this is true.
Nature magazine has started its Arabic language edition!
This is a science magazine par excellence. Nay, it defines science magazine. It is a research journal but it carries its own science news. Production quality is the best available. American onslaught of science progress could not do anything to this British publication. Now the new edition clearly heralds coming of age of Arabic language in scientific matters. Scientific American has been publishing its Arabic edition for ages. Nature is a significant step forward.

Sorry for spoiling the party but where are our Urdu lovers and those who care and worry about Urdu?

Thank You, Kulsum

This is an Islamic Republic- You Got That Right.

So what happened that irked the Islamophobes liberals in Pakistan, offsetting a spark of condemnation of poor Ronald- the "Islamist"? (Blacklisted shortly after Haqqanis).

I think I should maybe start off by reminding moderates that well, there's no such thing as 'Moderate Islam' (There, I dropped the bomb). The country is called an 'Islamic' Republic (there, there..easy), not the 'Moderate' Islamic Republic (FYI: Pak FO is working on visa relaxations with India). Oh and McDonald's reserves the right to decide how it seats its' customers.

Now that we've gotten the obvious tidbits out of the way let's go back in time and remember the Espresso incident. This lady got barred from praying.. At a high-end cafe.. Inside the Islamic republic of Pakistan.. And all the liberals swarmed like flies to support the Manager's decision because "Espresso has the right to decide where it draws the line between religion and coffee". And because of course, they have the "Freedom of expression/speech etc." So why are liberals backtracking? Why are they accusing McDonalds Pakistan of being "extremists"/"Islamists" (No, I am actually being very serious here)?

So let's look at how the fuss started..This married couple from abroad walks into a Pakistani McDonald's for the first time ever, decides to sit together, an arm around the other. Out of nowhere the nasty extremist mullah-cum-waiter politely asks the guy to move across the table, as it is "against McDonald's policies for couples to sit too closely as it disturbs the family environment". BAM! The guy decides he's been violated by the crazy McDonald Jihadis and takes it up with the Manager. Once the manager graciously entertains the couple's tragic incident, the guy figures it's not enough. He MUST blog about it. And ALL liberal fascists MUST come out and condemn the heinous act against all tolerant moderates. Condemnation isnt enough, the blogger realizes, all liberals MUST start a nationwide movement against McDonalds extremism!

And he's got proof against McDonald's too! The fast food joint, he writes, "let's parents slap their children" for being spoilt brats, without interfering! *Gasp* yes! How dare they allow children to be terrorized and clamp down on couples doting on each other? So what if it's a family restaurant? Ever heard of freedom of expression!

To anyone who's been to McDonald's one of the most annoying and cringe-worthy experience may be being seated near a couple, who oblivious to the surroundings are eye-locked.. hand-locked..foot-locked(?) Away from their families, they'll spend long hours just being downright chichoray simultaneously repulsing all families and couples with impressionable children. I mean, if we wanted Miami, we'd fly out there, right? or maybe tune into HBO (kiddin, try Bollywood)..know im sayin?

You know you've seen them. The cheesiness is revolting, and the shamelessness outright despicable. And yes, I've heard worse tales about these hormonal idiots in the past. Comes as no surprise Management's decided to set guidelines and save us all from public eye infections. So yes, I for one, among thousands of others, welcome McDonald's family policy. In fact, all restaurants should run the same policy, even the beaches! Anyhow, not like McDonald's can tell who's married and who isnt, and even if a couple's married, no reason to flaunt it in public places (PDA=NOT COOL). One policy for all makes sense to me. And heck, it's the Islamic republic of Pakistan, I repeat, it is NOT the Dominican Republic. Okay?

Source : Troll News

AMU Brand of Intellectual

Why don't we have AMU brand of intellectual?
The Indian intellectual scene is dominated by JNU brand intellectual.
Then the strident Sangh Parivar activity saw the mushrooming of the BJP brand of ideologues.
Latter are still around but they sort of have had their innings.
Indian Muslim population is large enough to have their own view about how the national issues should be worked out. Population of nearly all European countries is smaller than Indian Muslim population.
Living in a democracy it is incumbent upon them to have a view and a voice, united one, of their own.
In democracy your rights are not delivered to you. You have to work for them.
This observation does not come from the classic manuals of democracy - if there are any. It comes from our experience of last one century.
It is high time that Muslims of India wake up to this reality.

Of course the responsibility to be careful enough, so that the existing ideological establishments do not get a roller coaster ride over you, lies on you.

And when yours truly says AMU brand intellectual then one thing is excluded - the residual Marxist intellectual stream. That is JNU brand itself. Mass migration of Muslim intelligentsia to Marxism in the beginning and mainly in the middle of last century was a tragedy of gigantic proportions for Muslim Ummah. No smaller than the tragedy of partition - and for this we Muslims of present India are not responsible in any way at all.

So dear Aligs, stop pulling each other's leg and get down to some serious work. Yours was the first movement for modern education for Muslims and you should have been at the forefront of Muslim intellectual thought. The question is are you at the forefront? And if not then why? Collect your wits quickly, make your amends quickly and get down to work.

Aligarh Military University

When General Zamiriddun Shah too over the reins of the Aligarh Muslim University he got down to work - we mean brass tacks. In the first phase the top brass of the university is all military. And yours truly is enjoying it. Yours truly, by the grace of Allah (SWT) lives amongst academicians and does not fancy an academician Vice Chancellor any more. Yours truly is vociferously for the university as an academic institution but the fact can not be changed that it is a charged institution. Ours is not to complain but to submit to the Will of Allah (SWT). So once we accept that this is a charged institution in a way let us cope with it as such. Civil servant Vice Chancellor? Alright. Armed Forces Vice Chancellor? Alright. As long as it remains Academic Muslim University it has my full support to become Aligarh Military University. Administration - Army. Object - Academics.

Muslim Perspective on Psychology

Are there Muslims in our communities that are dealing with psychological, social, and family problems? Obviously that is a rhetorical question because of course there is. So is there a need for Muslim counselors who can try to help them with these issues? I say there is a need and as a Muslim psychologist you have an advantage which non-Muslim teachers and students don’t have which is a penetrating insight into the true nature of the human being as revealed by the texts of the Kitaab and Sunnah. Islaam identifies the diseases of the heart and provides the true cure for them. The psychologists from the behaviorist school see us as nothing more than animals responding to stimuli. So if that is the case they have a pill for every ill that cut off receptors in the brain. They are trying to turn off the valve as it were. But who knows what the long term effects of these pills are and what other problems they can make. Then there are psychoanalytic and Freudian theorists but as al-Suyuufi pointed out that is certainly not the end all be all to psychology. I was just looking at a book on juvenile delinquency theory and the author listed many problems with psychoanalytic theories in that field. So Freud and the neo-Freudians are not without harsh criticisms from other psychologists. But that doesn’t mean all that they say is necessarily wrong, I would say there is some truth to a lot of what is found in the books and have been used as effective tools against the masses such as with advertising and propaganda. But there are multiple brands of psychology for example the cognitive school which I find most fascinating despite my little knowledge of it.

So there is truth found within these schools and benefits that can be used but certainly much falsehood as well but what we want is Islamic psychology. In the book recently published Psychology from the Islamic Perspective by Dr. Aisha Utz, she writes, “An alternative definition of psychology from the Islamic perspective would include: the study of the soul: the ensuing behavioural, emotional, and mental processes; and both the seen and unseen aspects that influence these elements.

This description stems from the notion that the soul is the basic element of life. It drives the behaviour, emotions, and mental processes of the human. The human psyche is not purely psychological; its essence is spiritual and metaphysical. The fitrah (the natural inclinations instilled by Allah, which will be discussed in detail below) and the covenant of monotheism are inscribed on each soul, whether the person is Muslim or not.

Since its true nature is spiritual, the soul requires a spiritual connection to its source, the Creator, just as the body requires food and water to survive. Without this vital nourishment, the soul will suffer anxiety, depression, and despair. Many humans who currently experience mental health problems are suffering from ailments of the soul, not of the mind. The soul is calling out for its food, but instead of getting the real food that it requires – submission and closeness to Allah, it is fed junk food in the form of various psychotherapies and medications. For this reason, the soul continues to call out.

In the Islamic conceptualization of psychology, aspects of both the seen and unseen world may influence humans. In general, the focus of contemporary psychological theories is the seen world, which includes parents and other family members, peers, teachers, communities, media, and so forth. Islamic psychology incorporates additional aspects of the unseen world to explain human nature: Allah, with His power and omnipotence, as well as the angels and the jinn. This does not negate the concept of choice and free will but places it within a context.” (34-35)

Then as Umm DJ-N pointed out that knowledge of human psychology can possibly make a person a better Da’ee. You can learn to communicate with others effectively and how to deal with difficult people. In that regard it will probably make you a better businessmen as well ask any salesman about their tricks of the trade and you can see psychology. It is like the real estate agent who bakes cookies in the oven before an open house so when people walk in and smell the aroma it reminds them of grandma’s house LOL. Or the car salesman, “You are really going to look good in this car.” A good appeal to narcissism and you can get the fish to sign ya dig LOL. So there are many advantages to it but let the Qur’an and Sunnah be your foundation and let that be the scale in which you judge.

Some recommended readings in the English language:

Psychology from the Islamic Perspective by Dr. Aisha Utz
Contemplation; An Islamic Psychospiritual Study by Malik Badri
Disciplining the Soul by Ibn al-Jawzi
Purification of the Soul Concept, Process and Means by Jamaal al-Din M. Zarabozo
How to Achieve Happiness by Abdur-Rahman as-Sa’di
Don’t Be Sad by Aaidh al-Qarni
Preventative Measures Against Shaytan by Mustafa ibn al-‘Adawi
Jinn & Human Sickness by Dr. Abu’l-Mundhir Khaleel ibn Ibrahim Ameen
(Two other books I have seen but not read that you might want to check out are Healing Body & Soul by Amira Ayad and Therapy from the Qur’an and Ahadith by Dr. Feryad A. Hussain).

Muhammad bin Salih al-Munajjid gave some recommendations in the Arabic Language Islam Question and Answer - Psychology: Recommended Reading

May Allaah guide you to making the best decisions for yourself and direct you towards the good in this life to lead to good in the Hereafter.

Source : IA

Colour of Love

Poet by Adeeb Raipuri (RA):

BBC on Jihad

The literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or effort, and it means much more than holy war.
Muslims use the word Jihad to describe three different kinds of struggle:

• A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
• The struggle to build a good Muslim society
• Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.
However there are so many references to Jihad as a military struggle in Islamic writings that it is incorrect to claim that the interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.

Jihad and the Prophet

The internal Jihad is the one that Prophet Muhammad is said to have called the greater Jihad.
But the quotation in which the Prophet says this is regarded as coming from an unreliable source by some scholars. They regard the use of Jihad to mean holy war as the more important.

Top

 The internal Jihad

Learning the Qur'an by heart is considered engaging in Greater Jihad © The phrase internal Jihad or greater Jihad refers to the efforts of a believer to live their Muslim faith as well as possible.
All religious people want to live their lives in the way that will please their God.
So Muslims make a great effort to live as Allah has instructed them; following the rules of the faith, being devoted to Allah, doing everything they can to help other people.
For most people, living God's way is quite a struggle. God sets high standards, and believers have to fight with their own selfish desires to live up to them, no matter how much they love God.

The five Pillars of Islam as Jihad

The five Pillars of Islam form an exercise of Jihad in this sense, since a Muslim gets closer to Allah by performing them.
Other ways in which a Muslim engages in the 'greater Jihad' could include:

• Learning the Qur'an by heart, or engage in other religious study.
• Overcoming things such as anger, greed, hatred, pride, or malice.
• Giving up smoking.
• Cleaning the floor of the mosque.
• Taking part in Muslim community activities.
• Working for social justice.
• Forgiving someone who has hurt them.

The Greater Jihad controversy

The Prophet is said to have called the internal Jihad the "greater Jihad".
On his return from a battle, the Prophet said: "We are finished with the lesser jihad; now we are starting the greater jihad." He explained to his followers that fighting against an outer enemy is the lesser jihad and fighting against one's self is the greater jihad (holy war).
This quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars. They regard the use of jihad as meaning 'holy war' as the more important.
However the quotation has been very influential among some Muslims, particularly Sufis.

Top

Holy war

When Muslims, or their faith or territory are under attack, Islam permits (some say directs) the believer to wage military war to protect them.
However Islamic (shariah) law sets very strict rules for the conduct of such a war.
In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War.
And there is a long tradition of Jihad being used to mean a military struggle to benefit Islam.

What can justify Jihad?

There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-defence is always the underlying cause.
Permissable reasons for military Jihad:

• Self-defence
• Strengthening Islam
• Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
• Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a tyrannical ruler
• Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
• Putting right a wrong

What a Jihad is not

A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:

• Force people to convert to Islam
• Conquer other nations to colonise them
• Take territory for economic gain
• Settle disputes
• Demonstrate a leader's power

Although the Prophet engaged in military action on a number of occasions, these were battles to survive, rather than conquest, and took place at a time when fighting between tribes was common.

Top

The rules of Jihad

   In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War .
A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate.

• The opponent must always have started the fighting.
• It must not be fought to gain territory.
• It must be launched by a religious leader.
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
• Innocent people should not be killed.
• Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped.
• Enemies must be treated with justice.
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
• Property must not be damaged.
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

The Qur'an on Jihad

The Qur'an has many passages about fighting. Some of them advocate peace, while some are very warlike. The Bible, the Jewish and Christian scripture, shows a similar variety of attitudes to war.

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur'an 2:190

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.
Qur'an 22:39

Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Qur'an 4:90

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Qur'an 8:61

Source : BBC

Our Frontiers

A senior alumni of yours truly's Alma Mater avers, in the context of current demonstrations against silly US film portraying beloved Prophet (PBUH), that we are not aware of our real frontiers. "Fontiers of our battles should be against illiteracy, backwardness & social evils", he asserts. And then others from the same community have gone into a good drive about the appropriateness of these words of wisdom.

These too are frontiers of our battles.
And then there are other frontiers too.
The frontier that learned senior wants to divert attention from is also a frontier.
We really do not realize that defending the honour of beloved Prophet (PBUH) is also a frontier.
There is a reason behind that.
The dominant ideas at any time are the ideas of dominant economic powers of the day.
That is west till the moment of writing.
And the prevalent ideas in the west at present have no counterpart of honour of a Messenger of God (AS).
For a few centuries they have been taking liberty with religion.
Atheism is rife in that society and its bad effects are there for all to see but they are incapable of analyzing it - they have lost guidance. Breakdown in family as well as social structure is no mean price to pay.

This is the society that is usually at the back of mind of our western educated class when they deliver admonitions to Muslims.

That society, let us admit for the time being, has overcome illiteracy.
They have made economic progress too - hope that is the opposite of backwardness.
But they are in economic down turn - let us accept that.
But whether we have more social evils than them is a very debatable question.
In fact the situation is more in favour of our own society.

And this really evens out the things between us and the model society that honourable senior has in mind.
This makes any preaching a risky proposition.

And indeed we should, with whole heart, fight against illiteracy, backwardness and social evils.
And we should keep asserting before the west that insulting our beloved Prophet (PBUH) is neither liked nor tolerated in these quarters. Yours truly has a vague feeling that they might start listening - or may be they are already listening.

Mufti Desai Sahab (DB) on Mufti Desai Sahab (DB)

Some asked Mufti Ebrahim Sahab Desai (DB) about the sometime harsh tone of reply employed by Mufti Abdul Sadiq Sahab Desai (DB). Former replied:

Concentrate on the actual issue pointed out rather than focus on the style and tone.

Source : SF

US Decline and Fall

This time it is BBC talking.

Rahul Gandhi Puzzle

What are his thoughts?
What are his motivations?
What are his ambitions?
What are his capabilities?
The Economists thinks that:

The suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not know.

But, then, the Economist is a nasty publication, as far as east is concerned.

Western Operations in Afghanistan

US/NATO forces had their big toy games in Afghanistan - at the cost of Afghans.
Of course Afghans had little bit help from rest of their brothers.
Now that west is going out one question remains - did they win or did they not?
They do not know the answer.
In fact no one is even asking the question.
If killing Osama Bin laden was the purpose then that that indeed was accomplished but that can not be tagged as a victory.
If killing an unspecified number of able bodied male Afghans is concerned then that too has been accomplished but no one will give a certificate of victory on that. In fact soon this specter will return to haunt the US and UK society.
We do have reports from US about the presence of this spook. Former US soldiers are killing themselves in increasing numbers. This is not a good sign of victory - if there has been one.
As far as the world opinion is concerned then that can be considered as a diplomatic victory if the world opinion was turning in favour of America. This we already knew that the world overwhelming wanted end to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts and that is why election of Obama has a sort of global blessing.
But we know about Obama turning into a veritable Al Capone, as one commentator put it, personally supervising the kill list of the day. The Kosher reason for that action was to eliminate any spurious killing but the President forgot one very crucial ingredient - dilution of responsibility by distribution of action between executive, legislature and the armed forces.

In any case this only further complicates the answer to the original question.

Since we do not know who won in Afghanistan one can safely conclude that no one should be announcing the celebrations.

It is in this context that we again come to the conclusion that UK should not be making a push to rehabilitate Rushdie.

Sinking In of Reality

Perhaps the reality is sinking.
The context is of the West in Afghanistan.
A BBC headline asks : What lies behind Afghanistan's insider attacks?
Now that is a right question to ask.
Then is the report header:

 A string of deadly insider attacks has been one of the defining features of the latest phase of the conflict in Afghanistan.

Once again a very pertinent observation.
But why did it take them all this long to ask these question?
The least that can be said about western troops present in Afghanistan is that they were never wanted there.
Let us keep the western perspective out of the way - it obscures the view.
Afghans never wanted the NATO forces in Afghanistan.
And it si also no secret that the problem is not Afghan problem - it is Muslim problem.
And the moment one accepts that Afghans are the unwilling party to the western action in that country then there is no further analysis is required to understand what is happening there.

Of course one more conclusion can be drawn from the western experience in Afghanistan.
West thinks that Russia was not defeated in Afghanistan - it a deception.
West does think that US defeated Russia in the Cold war.
Two things can not be reconciled.
So if one asserts that Russia was defeated then it was defeated in Afghanistan.
And that brings us to US/NATO operations in Afghanistan.
If, because of 9/11 events, Osama Bin Laden was the target of operations then it does not make much sense because latter was always on the fringe as far as US/NATO operations were concerned.
In fact elimination of Osama was damp squib.
And that leaves us with what the western forces did in Afghanistan.
So what did they do there?
Even if we introduce the pet western terminology - war against terror then one is left with equal number of questions.
Have they killed all the able bodies Afghans?
And even if the answer is no it still leaves us with the genocide question.
Among the latest news coming out of Afghanistan is the news of western forces training Afghans so that they can take over their defense once the western forces leaves.
The heart breaking aspect of the training scenes is that the western operatives can find only (sundry?) middle age illiterate villagers to train.
And that says a lot about what west has done to that country.

Mufti Saeed Khan Sahab on History of Spain

I have translated a relevant portion of a lecture which addresses the OP's thread title. it is part of the History of West and what East has given to West series of Mufti Saeed Khan DB. A great Muhaqqiq of our times. The lecture is titled 15. Brief History of Spain (Download link -> http://www.seerat.net/Audio/Media/Ea...ast2West-O.mp3)

15. Brief History of Spain (total runtime 56:23) - From 38:40 onwards

A question may arise in your minds that how did this great civilization (of the Spanish Muslims) get destroyed. What and why has this happened to the Muslims (of Spain). There are numerous causes and reasons for this.

And this is not our topic (of discussion). We wanted to bring forth the contributions of the Muslims to the world at large. We were speaking on how to establish a welfare state? You have till now listened to everything (related to establishing a welfare state) as we have mentioned many viewpoints, discussions and about utopia. It would be inappropriate to discuss Europe’s much advancement, the quest for utopia, different states and Plato, (without discussing) the link between all of this were Muslims and their reference could not be left out. It would be inappropriate to only mention the rise of Science in Europe and brutality of the Church to suppress it; it is incumbent for us to know how Science arrived in the West before the brutal suppression of the Church.

A topic is due for discussion (continued in another lecture) on the Original philosophy of Christianity (the pure teachings of Isa alayhis salam). It is to be noted that the Spain of the Muslims was so accommodating that they did not convert any European forcibly to Islam. They maintained and exhibited great tolerance. Christians would come to the Muslim scholars of Europe to learn the text of the Bible. They were also Muslim scholar.

Today, in mosques it is announced that the learning of Bible is forbidden, Rasulullah when he saw Umar ibn Khattab (with the text of the Ahl al-Kitab) and his face showed signs of anger. This hadith which is mentioned (by many), we have done a detailed discussion on this Hadith (in an article or a book). When we don’t read or researches then (naturally) people are stopped from the same. They (Muslim Scholars of Spain) were also Muslims, they were also Scholars, and didn’t these narrations (of not learning the previous scriptures) pass through them.

Why did they teach the Bible to the Christians? There were many Christians (at that time) who did not let go of Christianity but they adopted the Muslim culture. The word ‘Mozarab’ can be looked up in the dictionary, Arabs refer to them as Musta’rab. (Again) Mozarabs were those people who were Christian (in belief) but they adopted the culture of the Muslims. This was absolutely unacceptable to the Church. The Church helplessly saw the Muslim efforts to spread Islam in Spain which eventually was weakening and reducing Christianity at a very fast pace.


To counter the Muslims, they made use of this extreme (will be mentioned in the next few passages) measure. We hereby, refer you to two books on this topic. An extremely critical and delicate topic. You can look up Encyclopedia Britannica and the History of the Arabs to find the references of what we are going make mention of now. You can find (all) the proofs and evidences therein. Please don’t become angry and emotional and please listen (attentively) to what (extreme) measures did they (the Church) take to remove the Muslims from Spain.

There is a phrase ‘Voluntary Martyrdom’. Please look up this phrase (in the two books mentioned above) and what does it mean. It means to present oneself voluntarily for martyrdom. When the Church observed that these Muslims are so tolerant that they do not coerce any one (Muslim or Non-Muslim), nor do they oppress any one (Muslim or Non-Muslim). In every nook and corner of Muslim Spain there is peace, contentment, learning centers of science and Arabic and other amenities (these facilities were provided to each every citizen of Muslim Spain, be Muslim or Non-Muslim, rich or poor etc. the Shaykh makes mention of it in the earlier part of this very lecture), the Christian masses were themselves drawn towards Islam and were embracing it willingly and whole heartedly.

The Church looked to find out the easiest way to inflame the Muslims with anger leading to a tense situation of violence in Muslim Spain. The leaders of the Church convened and deliberated on this issue and they identified that the raw nerve of the Muslims (dukhti rag) was to insult their Prophet Muhammad . The Muslims cannot stand anything against their Prophet and when you will insult him then the Muslims will definitely kill you.

We need to train such Christian youths who can do this (despicable) act of insulting the Prophet of the Muslims and when he meets his (ugly) fate, we shall proclaim that the youth has attained martyrdom voluntarily on behalf of the Christians ie. Voluntary Martyrdom. This will bring a bad name to the Muslims and they we will start to defame them in front of their fellow Christian countrymen. That look what these Muslims have done to our Youth, for such a small thing they have killed him. It is from the great favours of Allah that we do not speak without clear proofs.

This unique attack was proposed and started by the Bishop of Spain, Eulogius. In Qurtuba ( Cordoba) the Christians started to rise and insult the Prophet in the most vile, disgusting and despicable manner. The Maliki jurists unanimously passed the ruling to execute them. The result was that on 11th March, 859 violence erupted in the State and genocide took place. The Bishop himself ‘sacrificed’ his life for this. But he left his evil legacy behind him. Every few days, a youth would rise and insult the Prophet , the State would award him capital punishment. This was in the 9th Centruy CE and the Christians succeeded in their plans. When the Christian masses witnessed the killings of their youth, this erased the affection they had for Islam and the Muslims and hatred started to take root in their hearts and it strengthened day by day. The Enclycopedia Britannica mentions ‘This persecution provoked by the Christians themselves took a toll of 53 victims’. This was the unpleasant environment engineered by the enemies to take unfair advantage of the raw nerve of the Muslims.

When 53 Christian youths were killed, then the Chritians of Spain united against the Muslims and the Chruch declared that it is obligatory on each one of us (Christians) to attack the Muslims and expel them from Spain. Thus the forces were mobilised to get rid of Muslims from Spain

Source : SF (Courtesy brother At-Tayyab)

Reza Pankhurst on Freedom to Insult

Source : SF

The American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claim that she finds the anti-Muslim film which has led to protests erupting across the Middle East against American diplomatic missions “disgusting” is a worthless gesture as far as the culpability of the American government for this affair goes, as well as an expression of the fear the US administration has regarding the impact on US interests from the powerful response from the ‘Muslim street’. It is worthless because in the same statement she also made clear that the US does “not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be”. In other words, I don’t agree with the film’s content, but I don’t disagree with allowing it to be produced and promoted in the United States to the World.

This is the same point that was made by President Obama when he claimed that the death of four American staff in Libya were “a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy – sometimes even the freedoms we take for granted – they’re only sustained because there are people like those who were killed, who were willing to stand up for those freedoms, who were willing to fight for those freedoms, in some cases to lay down their lives for those freedoms”.

It is quite clear that this is an issue of principle for the American government – linked to the claim of “freedom of expression” that is enshrined in their own holy text, the US constitution, and the normal refrain of Western politicians and media when it comes to excusing anything that insults Islam and inflames Muslim sentiments.

Given that this is the case, it is disingenuous for the US government to simultaneously claim it is not responsible for the film while maintaining the legal environment that allows such materials to be freely produced and promoted. It is plainly hypocritical to celebrate the freedom of expression that permits the movie, while trying to wash their hands of any culpability for it.

It could be pointed out that the concept of freedom of expression is not upheld unconditionally in the West. For example, in the past a number of suspected communists were jailed in the United States in the heated environment created by Senator Joe McCarthy, while today it is illegal to deny the holocaust in some countries and at the same time across the West many Muslims have been imprisoned on charges of “glorifying terrorism”, purely related to expression.

So it is not illogical for Muslims to believe that “freedom of expression” is used against them when justifying the denigration of their beliefs, and left to one side when it comes to individuals from the Muslim community expressing themselves against Western foreign policy for example.

However, the issue is more fundamental than the hypocrisy displayed in the application of “freedom of expression” – which is that the idea of unrestricted speech is not in agreement with Islamic doctrine, and is considered a destructive concept which destroys harmony in the society.

The examples of this in Islamic law are many – one example would be the law mentioned in the Quran that someone who accuses another of fornication and then does not produce four eye witnesses to the act is to be publicly punished, thus protecting peoples’ honor and reputation. Another would be that it is forbidden to insult the Prophets of God, such as Moses, Jesus and the final Prophet of Islam Mohammad.

In others words, while the American government celebrates the “freedom” it guarantees in this case to allow people to provoke Muslims by insulting their Prophet in a cheap, hate-filled and slanderous manner, Islamic belief rejects such behavior as depraved and illegal.

The reality is that allowing the insulting of the Prophet Mohammad is a red-line that cannot be crossed for Muslims. Many of these protesters around the World can see that this film, innocuously entitled “The Innocence of Muslims”, has been produced and is being promoted under the protection and legal framework of the United States – whose government has expressly confirmed their right to do so – and hence quite fairly hold the American government ultimately responsible for it, irrespective of whether or not the Secretary of State personally agrees with its contents.

This leaves us with the question of why offended Muslims feel the need to protest at the site of the American embassy, which can end up in violence spiraling out of the control and, in the case of the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi, the unjustified killing of the staff there (the killing of ambassadors is expressly forbidden in Shari’a law), an unfortunate consequence of what began as a protest for the sake of Islamic values.

The reason for this is that across the Muslim world, there is no single government that represents Islam internationally and would take suitable actions such as open condemnation of the film and requesting the American government to remove it from circulation. Of course, the American government could refuse this on the grounds of “freedom of expression”, which could then be met with whatever sanction they were able if their request were not complied with such as the cutting of diplomatic and economic ties between the two. The point being – there would be a government which is representing the Islamic viewpoint regarding these issues, and people would look to it to take firm stances in their interests, and it can be dealt with at a state level. In the absence of such a government, people take to the streets to express their anger, a sight that is likely to become more visible in the new Middle East without the same Western backed dictators such as Hosni Mubarak around anymore to keep them in check.

If such a government – representing Islam and Muslims rather than a nominal nation state – did indeed exist, the issue of relationship with the American government would be a moot point in any case. With American troops on the ground in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and predator drones killing “terrorists” (which according to the US government is any Muslim adult male who happens to be in the path of one of their missiles) with impunity in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and yes – in Libya – it is unlikely there would be any room for friendly relations until American behavior radically changes. While Obama fools himself into thinking that the US is the World’s “indispensible nation”, many of its innocent victims would beg to differ.

Reza Pankhurst is a political scientist and historian, specialising in the Middle East and Islamic movements. He has a doctorate from the London School of Economics, where he previously completed his Masters degree in the History of International Relations. He was a political prisoner of the previous Mubarak regime in Egypt, spending almost 4 years in jail between 2002 and 2006. His forthcoming book is entitled “The Inevitable Caliphate?” (Hurst/ Columbia University Press 2012) and is available at Amazon and other retailers. He can be contacted at rezapankhurst@newcivilisation.com

http://www.newcivilisation.com/home/...o-insult-islam

Demonstrations All Over

Man like well being excessively.
Man would not like to suffer monitory loss.
There is another commodity, invisible one, that man does not like to loose.
This commodity consists of ideas and points of view.
West decided long ago to give up religion.
So that stopped being upset with mockery of religion.
And that is what they expect from others - not to be upset when religion is being made fun of.
They stopped being upset long back and find it difficult to digest that some one might be upset when a religious figure is mocked at.
They have an idea :  it is alright to insult religion.
They find it difficult to give up that idea.
They want Muslims to be like west.
Muslims have been pliable for so long.
Now they are refusing to be pliable.
Another idea that is difficult to accept, for the western people.

Residual Communism Melting?

Ed Miliband is a Labour Party leader in the UK.
After collapse of the erstwhile USSR any communism can only be counted as residual.
The main show is over.

After that, if Ed Miliband says that capitalist is the best worst economic system then confusion is the best thing he can create. Is the residual communism melting. What else you can make out of a equivocal statement from a significant politician from a marginally significant country?
Communist ideology is less significant everywhere else.

And remaining confusion too can be cleared.
The query whether communism or capitalism is better is dubious just like the query whether you have stopped beating your wife.
Ed Miliband has made an attempt to answer question and the answer is worthless because query is phony.

Betrayel by Godfather

John Wright has put the finger on the pulse:

When Obama was elected in 2008 hopes for a new approach by Washington to the Arab and Muslim world were great.

But the things went wrong, very wrong:

Yet four years on the first black president has proved less a reincarnation of Martin Luther King as Al Capone, with his weekly kill lists and regular drone attacks on suspected militants in Pakistan slaughtering hundreds of innocent people - men, women, and children - while maiming and terrorizing many more. Judicial murder, the violation of sovereignty, and a blatant disregard for the lives and human rights of innocent people in Pakistan's tribal areas is the Obama administration's contribution to peace during its first term in office.

Portrait of a President as mafia don is very pungent and chilling because of the truth it contains.