.

.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL
-------------- --------------- -------------- --------


"O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful." [Noble Quran 9:119]

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." [Noble Quran 6:116]

Return to the QURAN only - the complete and final STAND-ALONE Divine Message which also contains the authentic sunnah of the beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)

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

I bear witness that NONE is worthy of worship except ALLAH, He has NO partner nor partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave and Final Messenger of Allah.

--------


Zainabs Lounge blog tracker

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Islam - how would you define it?

Recognizing and defining Islam as a religion of peace is primarily correct as it strongly prefers peace over violence. But to label it only as a "religion of peace" is insufficient. Islam is a religion of peace and a lot more. It is a RELIGION OF LIFE. It's a source of right guidance and a balance for all facets of life.

Referring to Islam as virtually nothing beyond a "religion of peace" amounts to limiting it, reducing it to a very defensive mould and constantly putting it on trial. It damages the unique and infinite beauty of this Faith. Unfortunately there are societies that are eager to change Islam to suit their own interests by taking away its comprehensive mould and lessening it into something without a voice. Of course, that's unacceptable.

Life is practical and 'turning the other cheek' unconditionally is seldom the right choice. Even those who preach it never practice the same. That's been observed more often than not. Islam is not a decorative philosophy of phrases for beautifying literature and speech. Islam is not any 'philosophy' at all. Rather, it is the most significant reality establishing the truth of Monotheism and accordingly providing the cornerstone of life. Islam is meant to be lived, and thus, for a believer there's no such ideology as separating Faith from life.

The Glorious Quran deals with the diversity of life realistically. It encourages the concepts of achieving peace, contentment and cordiality through civilized interactions based on justice and an atmosphere of mutual give & take, both within its community and outside of it. To grasp the goal of Islam, it's hugely important to prioritize its values with the right balance, without which the limitless and unsurpassable charm of this great Faith will be ignored.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Don't get confused between the words 'Islam' and 'Salam'

According to Arabic language dictionaries the meaning of the word 'Islam' is submission to God Almighty alone, humbling oneself and obeying His orders unconditionally. "Islam" is a verb, derived from the root word "aslama" meaning to submit or to surrender (to Allah Almighty only). The term 'Muslim' is a noun referring to those persons who submit or surrender their purpose to Allah. Both these words, "Islam" and "Muslim," are used in the Glorious Quran precisely in the context stated above. As with the noun, the prefix "mu" is added which signifies performing the act of submitting to Allah. Thus, it becomes "mu-islam" or simply "Muslim."

There are several Muslim writers who give a very incorrect interpretation of the word "Islam." They claim that 'Islam' is derived from the word 'salam' which means 'peace' and it's also a greeting. Indeed 'salam' means peace and it is a greeting incumbent upon all believers when they meet one another. This is a dictate of the Glorious Quran. But 'salam' is not associated with the word 'Islam.'

Both "Islam" and "salam" carry beautiful meanings, but they are two different terms with different definitions. The misinterpretation is sometimes a result of genuine ignorance. At other times, it is intentionally twisted to promote inter-faith dialogues and appease its participants.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Origin of the name 'Jesus Christ'

Along with all the changes introduced into Christianity, the actual name of Prophet Essa (on whom be peace) has also changed into something very different - 'Jesus Christ.'

'Jesus'
This term has originated from ancient Greek titles to elevate the position of a human being into something super human. The 'spiritual law-makers' have been so fixated on this aspect that they seemed to have forgotten Prophet Essa too had a name as a human being and an individual.

There is a chain of stories concerning the 'innovations' of the name of Prophet Essa (on whom be peace). It is claimed that his name was "Yeshua," from which evolved the name Jesus. The explanation goes as follows: The Bible was not written in English. What we read in English today are translations from other languages. The "New Testament" was written in Greek. Hence, the name "Jesus" is found nowhere in the Scriptures — it is a translation of the Greek name "Iesous" (pronounced "[ee]yeh-sooce"). "Iesous" came over into the Latin "Jesu" (pronounced "yehsoo") and finally into English as "Jesus."

Furthermore, it's said that the name 'Jesus' is an anglicized form of the Latin 'Iesus,' which itself is derived from the Greek name 'Iesous.' Iesous was the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name 'Yeshua' which itself was the later Aramaic form of the Hebrew name 'Yehoshua.'

Also, words that begin with the sound of 'Y' and 'E' in Arabic are often changed to the sound of 'J' in English. E.g. Yosef = Josef, Yakob = Jacob, Yasmin = Jasmin and so on. Thus, the name Essa (with periodical innovations) = Jessa, Jessu and finally Jesus.

[Sigh] Intricate, isn't it? !

However, as a monotheistic believer, one simply needs to know that the name of the messenger who came before the final messenger, Prophet Muhammad (SAAW), was Prophet Essa (SAAW). As always, the information given by the Glorious Quran is the simplest, easiest and most truthful.


'Christ'
The term 'Christ' is still more far-fetched. It is the English adaptation of the Greek word 'khristos' meaning 'the anointed'. 'Annointment' is supposed to be a ritual which means to grease with oil, animal fat or melted butter as a sign of purification or solemn commitment. In the New Testament, the term 'Christ' or 'khristos' replaces the Hebrew term 'messiah.' Messiah means 'one who is anointed.' It is said that in contrast to Christianity, the Jewish tradition understands the 'messiah' to be a human being. The followers of Essa became known as Christians after Essa was given the title 'Christ.'

So .. the term 'Christ' appears in English and most European languages, owing to the Greek usage of 'khristos' in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. However, it's noted that the spelling 'Christ' in English dates only from the 17th century when the spellings of certain words were changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, in old and middle English, this word was spelt 'Crist.'

This may give us a clue why many followers of the Christian and Jewish faith sometimes refer to Muslims as 'Mohammadens' - a term that's totally incorrect and a clear violation of the values of the Glorious Quran. Since the word 'Christian' has been derived from 'Christ,' with the same mindset the Christians and Jews in accordance with their steady chronological innovations presume that Muslims can also be called 'Mohammadens.' Unfortunately their knowledge of the Quran and history is too insufficient to make them realise the huge discrepancy of this thoughtless presumption. The term 'Muslim' is NOT at all derived from the name 'Mohammad.' 'Muslim' in Arabic, as stated in many Chapters of the Glorious Quran, means 'complete surrender to the Will of Almighty Allah.' Muhammad was simply the name of the last beloved Messenger who, at the behest of the Almighty Allah, brought His final Message to us. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace) followed that same Message of total surrender to the Will of Allah which all of his followers are told to do. Obedience to Prophet Muhammad is linked completely on conditions with the compatibility of his (pbuh) actions with the dictates of the Glorious Quran. And needless to say, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) meticulously adhered to the values of the Quran.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Ah! How much we trust the majority

It's profoundly inherent of human nature to follow misguidance more readily than guidance. That arises from the human desire to accept/obey other humans far more willingly than the Divine Power. History is witness to this. From the times of Prophets Abraham to Jesus, son of Mary (peace on them all), Divine Scriptures have been systematically altered and replaced by man-made laws which people found more convenient and beneficial in serving their motives. Regardless of principles, they erased or distorted the dictates of God Almighty and implemented their own rules and laws into the Divine Scriptures.

After the death of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be on him), Muslims began getting divided into sects and different schools of thought. Each of these groups wanted to construct/follow their own laws and interpretations. Some slipped back to idolatry. Some wanted to revive the old Jewish and Christian practices as mentioned in the altered Torah and the Gospel. Many who were 'Muslims' by title did not find the Quran beneficial enough to suit their selfish needs. However, they were unable to tamper with the Quran as per the promise of Allah Almighty to preserve His final Message. The Glorious Quran, in the words of Allah, is on a "guarded tablet." But this didn't stop the 'Muslims' from deviating from the right path. Being unable to change the Quran, they devised a separate channel to implement these interpolations -the Hadith. Hence, history repeated itself.

Allah mentions in the Quran throughout that when the idolaters were told to believe in One God, they would refuse on grounds that their ancestors had been idolaters for centuries. They felt that all of their forefathers couldn't be wrong. They preferred to follow their ancestors with blind devotion and trust, without reasoning and reflecting on the Quran. They were convinced that the majority could never be wrong over the generations.

Analogically, there's a striking ideological resemblance between the present Ummah and the pre-Islamic concepts of misguidance. The mainstream majority claim that all of their ulemas and scholars along with their disciples who accept and follow the Hadith (from which ensue Fiqh and Shariah) cannot be wrong. Therefore, idols and forefathers have been replaced with Hadith and the imams, respectively, displaying an identical mindset. Furthermore, from the practical view point they hold the Hadith above the Quran. Most of them refuse to read, understand or even accept the Quran as a standalone Book. Though the final Message of Allah is fully intact and original, it has been abandoned on the shelves. Wrapped with velvet covers, it's placed on the shelves as a piece of ornament but never opened and read for reflection, understanding and implementation. That's because the majority seek 'guidance' only from idolized clerics, a copycat tradition of the People of the Book where priests and bishops with long robes and caps are unquestioningly and uncritically venerated.

All Christian sects believe Jesus to be the son of God (AstaghfarAllah). There are, however, a few individuals among them who realize the huge violation of this misguided concept, and so they reject it. They rightly look upon Jesus, son of Mary, only as a Prophet and a human being. Such ones in the entire Christian community constitute a very small minority. But the minority is RIGHT. The majority is WRONG.

Considering all of the above, it's no new thing for those with a quest for truth amongst lovers of guesswork to experience defamation, isolation and at times complete ostracization. Thomas Paine, an excellent 18th century American author, and one of the founding fathers who contributed much towards nation-building in several spheres was a firm monotheist. He openly rejected the innovations introduced into Christianity. When he died in 1809, not more than six people attended the funeral of this very renowned and hardworking person. Reason? Paine was at odds with the Church for its untruthful values. Subsequently he was 'branded' a 'deviant' and the naive church goers blindly endorsed the opinion of the Church.

In our Muslim community if you publicly acknowledge that you follow the Quran alone (which is precisely what God Almighty instructs us to do), rest assured you will be officially labeled a "heretic" by our self-appointed leaders. And the common mainstreamers will unconditionally support the rhetorics of their condemnation, regardless of the humbug it may contain. Fortunately for a genuine truth-seeker neither earthly condemnation nor pampering are irrelevant. They are much too focused on real work and thus staying ready for the final Journey and its Destination.

"If you obeyed most of those on earth they would mislead you far from Allah's way." (Glorious Quran 6:116)

Monday, March 22, 2010

Triple divorce law - a willful misinterpretation by Shariah

Although the Glorious Quran is very cautious in matters of divorce, it's not unusual to hear or read stories about men screaming "I divorce you" three times at their wives and calling it quits. It's commonly referred to as the "immediate triple divorce" law. This originates from Shariah which has blatantly misinterpreted the Quranic law on divorce.

The following four verses of the Glorious Quran summarize all essential divorce laws.

"Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah. And if ye fear that they may not be able to keep the limits of Allah, in that case it is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself. These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Transgress them not. For whoso transgresseth Allah's limits: such are wrong-doers." 2:229

"O Prophet! When you (men) put away women, put them away for their (legal) period and reckon the period, and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord.   (65:1).

"And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He manifesteth them for people who have knowledge." 2:230



"Those who forswear their wives must wait four months; then, if they change their mind, lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 2:226


Triple divorce popular in the Sunni community with legal validity by so-called ulemas:
In various Sunni communities, against the dictates of the above verses, men are being allowed to divorce their wives by pronouncing talaq thrice verbally, in one breath. Because of this violation many homes and families have been destroyed. In modern times, some men use the immediate triple divorce practice even through telephones, emails or text messaging.

Discarded by Shiias:
However, the system of 'immediate triple divorce' is rejected by the Shiia jurisprudence. The Shiias deem divorce to be a procedure, NOT a verbal decision. That sounds a lot more correct.

Clarification of three divorces:
Verses 2:229-230 do NOT mean three verbal pronouncements of the word "talaq" in a single breath to confirm divorce. The procedure is cautious and slow.

It's very clear from the Verses quoted above, the three pronunciations of talaq or divorce have to be spaced over a period of 4 months.   We need to understand Verse 2:229 and 65:1 in sequence.  It's plainly indicated that after pronouncing divorce twice, if the couple are still undecided on reconciliation, there has to be a waiting period in separation for both of them to carefully make a decision.  Please note, a waiting period of four months.  That's a far cry for a speedy sentence of  "I divorce you"  repeated three times.   The mandatory waiting period of four months is stated in Verse 2:226.

 Unfortunately the Sunni Shariah law has totally twisted this Quranic commandment into something very different by allowing men to simply pronounce "divorce" three successive times verbally, and that's the end of the episode! The divorce is done. It seems a purposeful distortion aimed at spreading injustice and creating a totally male-dominated society as existed prior to Islam.

However, some Sunni jurists call this misinterpretation Talaq-e-Bidah (innovative form of divorce). This expression itself suggests that this distortion is not compatible with the Quran.

Legal status:
The immediate triple divorce is supposed to be banned by law in several Muslim countries like Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria and Indonesia.   However, it seems there are many in these countries who don't care for the ban and their clerics support them.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Pork, a forbidden food - an analysis

God Almighty plainly instructs in the Glorious Quran not to consume pork. Indeed, He knows the reasons for it, and with the passage of time, many alarming issues linked with the consumption of pork have been surfacing.

Accuracy of the Glorious Quran
Now, this is interesting. If you check Quranic verses 2:172-174 and 6:145, you will observe that the term mentioned with reference to pork is 'Rijis' which means 'unclean.' Thus, pork is harmful for the human body because it's unclean. Reuter News Service reported in September 1990 that the European Community veterinary experts visited the U.S. on their half yearly inspections. They found that the post slaughter hygeine conditions of the carcasses of pigs posed a distinct threat for causing Trichinosis, a disease discussed in detail in the following paragraph. Coming back to the Glorious Quran, the use of the word "Rijis" or "unclean" is an evidence of its correctness. The same concept was expressed by expert veterinarians centuries later.

Trichinosis and pork
The parasite causing Trichinosis was first discovered in the mid 19th century. Over the years that followed, a lot of information was gathered about this disease infecting humans. Undercooked or raw pork and pork products, such as pork sausage, are primarily responsible for causing Trichinosis in humans. It's an infection of the intestine that could get serious. Though is western countries they say it's now curable, it's a lot more threatening in other not so developed parts of the world. And, despite the cure, once infected, it can cause enough suffering. Trichinosis parasites, also known as roundworms, is a larvae which lodges in the flesh of pigs. It has huge potentials of damaging human body tissues. This illness has two phases - the initial stage when symptoms appear a couple of days after ingestion causing abdominal discomfort, nausea and diaarrhea. And the second stage that brings about symptoms like muscle ache, itching, fever and joint pain which happens two weeks (sometimes more) after ingestion. Even if such a disease is curable, it's a big reason to avoid its cause. Pork and Trichinosis - check the diagram

Cirrhosis and pork
Though the Western media has not given this news much publicity, as expected, in the mid 1980s two researchers from Ottawa General Hospital and University of Ottawa were convinced through various studies that the only other dietary factor linked with cirrhosis of the liver is consumption of pork. In those parts of Canada where pork consumption was the highest, incidents of people suffering from cirrhosis were the highest too. According to studies, both alcohol and pork are related to cirrhosis, and pork seems to have a still greater link to this disease than alcohol. The risk of developing cirrhosis on the slightly long term becomes highest when the consumption of pork and alcohol are combined. 'Pork linked to liver cirrhosis' - Canadian Science News

Pork, an environmental hazard
Western environmentalists nowadays seem to be complaining a lot about pig farms. Pig farming is becoming a serious threat to the environment. Robert Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, mentioned in one of his television appearances, that people don't want to buy houses within a few kilometers of a pig farm. Pig sheds are constructed differently compared to places used for accommodating other animals like cattle and sheep. In pig farms, the floor of the shed is made of iron bars with narrow spaces in between. The excrement of pigs passes through these bars underground and is then carried through pipes into a tank situated a little distance away from the shed. This tank is perpetually filled with pig feces that's periodically collected for processing. According to Robert Kennedy Jr., the strength of the stench that comes from this tank and the long distances it can travel is unbelievable. Residents living in houses that are situated within a mile of a pig farm, cannot keep their windows open even in summer. If you take a bottle of orange juice from the fridge, pour it into a glass, leave the glass on the dining table for only 10 minutes and then take a sip from it, you'll get a whiff of the stench of feces from that glass of orange juice. Crew members of aircrafts on domestic routes flying at lower altitudes complain constantly that many of their passengers get sick and throw up while flying over pig farms. The stench travels as high as that! Such are the drawbacks rampant in and around pig farms in North America and Western Europe. In countries like China, Far-East and Latin America etc. it's far worse. Problems like these have arisen purely because of the fault of humans, not the poor animals. In their greed to sell and eat, humans forget that pigs are animals that are naturally meant to live in the wild, not to be herded into sheds for breeding and slaughtering. Not to forget, swine flu is also an outcome of overcrowded sheds in pig farms.

No need to kill every animal at random for food
The types of animals slaughtered for food should be kept to the minimal. Eating the meat of an animal is not the same as plucking a fruit from a tree and eating it. This is one of the reasons we are required to mention the name of Allah while slaughtering a beast for food, which again, is one of the aspects that bring the concept of Halal meat. Read more on the purpose of eating Halal in my previous post here. This is necessary as a gesture of respect to the soul of that animal that's dying to serve us. We are permitted to consume as food - cattle, sheep, camel, poultry and sea-food. That's enough!! We don't need to go about killing every living being to satisfy our hunger, do we?

Let's try to learn the difference between pork and pigs
Most importantly, one needs to keep in mind that God Almighty has prohibited us from consuming pigs as food. But pigs have NOT been portrayed 'evil' as animals or living beings in the Glorious Quran. Having said that, we need to understand the difference between pork and pigs. While it is absolutely incumbent upon us to AVOID eating the meat of pigs, there is NO reason to mistreat or brutalize this animal because of its appearance. God Almighty gives us NO warrant in the Quran for such inhuman behaviour and cruelty toward any of His creation. In fact, I find the Quranic dictate of not consuming pigs as food to be very good news for them. Pigs are animals naturally suited to live in the wild like many other beasts, and that's where they should be left. Being an enthusiastic animal lover all my life, I frankly feel very sorry for the poor pigs. Many ignorant Muslims consider them 'evil' for no rhyme or reason and brutalize them by stoning, chasing or beating while in non-Muslm countries pigs are slaughtered mercilessly for food. Both practices are a violation. The Glorious Quran simply says to leave them alone.

The purpose of eating Halal

Believers are not permitted to eat pork. Even concerning animals that are allowed to be consumed as food, such as cattle, sheep, camel and poultry, there is a rule to be followed - mentioning the name of Allah while slaughtering a beast for food.

During the days of polytheism in the Arabian peninsula, the idolaters sacrificed animals in the names of other deities which they worshipped instead of Almighty Allah or which they associated with Allah. Such food is not permissible. Sacrifice must be made only in the name of Allah, the One and Only. Therefore, as a confirmation of discontinuing this old polytheistic tradition, it is incumbent to mention the name of Allah Almighty (alone) before slaughtering an animal for food.

It's also necessary to remember that animals are living beings and they too have souls like humans. At the same time, Allah has made animals subservient to humans. Thus, when an animal is being slaughtered for food, it is dying to serve us. As a gesture of respect toward the soul of the dying animal, it is mandatory to mention the name of Allah.

"And for every nation have We appointed a ritual, that they may mention the name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He hath given them for food; and your God is One God, therefor surrender unto Him. And give good tidings (O Muhammad) to the humble," (22:34) Al-Hajj

I quote the reflections of Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall on the above verse.

Quote:
In order that they may realize the awfulness of taking life and the solemn nature of the trust which Allah has imposed on them in the permission to eat animal food. Thus, must mention the name of Allah before slaughtering.
Unquote:

The following Verse from Surah Al-Anum is further evidence to respect the rights of animals.

"There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered." 6:38

It is for this reason that we are not allowed to eat the meat of animals that have been killed by beating, strangulating, goring by horns or falling from heights. Only those are Halal that are slaughtered in the name of Allah by the 'death stroke,' that is, as quickly and painlessly as possible. Please check the following verse.

"Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swineflesh, and that which has been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which has been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which you make lawful (by the deathstroke), and that which has been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that you swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination." 5:3

'divining arrows' (azlam which is plural of zalam), were thin wooden arrows having no heads. In the pre-Islamic period the idolaters would write on these arrows, what they considered permissible or otherwise, and then used the divination method associated with it to decide their affairs. 'divination' refers to the act of foretelling future events by means of augury - a very common practice among all pagans. Allah Almighty prohibits engaging in such an activity. It is a transgression.

From verse 22:34 it is also clear that prior to revealing the Glorious Quran, Allah had similarly commanded the Jews and Christians to mention His name over animals being slaughtered for eating. Though many of the Jews do adhere to kosher which is somewhat similar to Halal for Muslims, the Christians do not follow any dietary regulations based on Faith.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

'Judea and Samaria' - instruments for Zionist propaganda

Some vital facts of history have been downplayed, distorted or concealed altogether for a very long time. It might be worthwhile to devote a little time and expose some of those distortions.

Using history as an eyewash
The Zionists and their supporters cling to the propaganda that the Jews are the indigenous people of "Judea and Samaria", that this region was given to them by the Divine Power thousands of years ago. They claim Judea / Samaria were re-named 'Palestine' by the Arabs who came later. With such a preposterous story, the Zionists lie about God Almighty and they lie about history.

Contradiction!
First, the mind boggling issue concerning the contradictory values of the West. This contradiction is the official reason and the cornerstone for the creation of Israel. The Jews zealously assert that they didn't snatch Palestine but "God gave it to them," that it is their "God given right" to return to the Holy Land. The West, on the other hand, proudly brags to have embraced the doctrine of separation of state & politics from religion. Yet the very creation of Israel is officially based and strengthened on religious grounds, refuting the much talked about ideology of separation of state and religion.

Returning to history ..

What's Judea and Samaria?
According to Biblical history, Samaria is the biblical name for the area now referred to as the northern West Bank. Judea is the biblical name for the southern territory with its capital as Jerusalem. Thus, both Judea and Samaria refer to the West Bank. These ancient titles are now purposely being revived and utilized by the Zionists to justify their grip on the West Bank on religious grounds.

History in brief
After the united rule of Kings David and Solomon, these two united kingdoms of Israel (now West Bank) split into two independent kingdoms that occasionally went to war with each other. Judea, also known as the Kingdom of Judah, was a monarchy, inclusive only of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin over which the House of David enjoyed an unbroken primacy till the fall of Jerusalem. After Jerusalem fell, the southern kingdom of Judea continued being ruled by the kings of Judah while northern Samaria came under the rule of the Israelite kings in the north.

Zionist nonsense about Palestine being the same as Jordan
The ludicrous propaganda circulated by the state of Isreal is that there's no such place as 'Palestine,' there's no such language as 'Palestinian,' that Palestine is the same as the land of Jordan and it's a part of Jordan. The question that would arise in anyone's mind is: How did Palestine, the ancient land of that region with its ancient name 'Land of the Philistines' suddenly vanish and become a part of Jordan? The impertinent and silly answer provided by the 'Israel Science' website is as follows:

"In 1917 Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". In 1922 Britain allocated nearly 80% of Palestine to Transjordan. Thus, Jordan covers the majority of the land of Palestine under British Mandate. Jordan also includes the majority of the Arabs who lived there. In other words, Jordan is the Arab portion of Palestine."

Mark the staggering words! The Zionists claim that in accordance with the Balfour Declaration the "national home for the Jewish people" was established in "Palestine." In 1922, Britain gave away 80% of Palestine to Transjordan (now Jordan). That's straight from the horse's mouth. It was the imperialistic guile of a colonial power, its pressure, strength and force that subjugated a weak and helpless little country into being partitioned and ethnically cleansed of its Arab population to make room for the incoming Jews. Hence, Palestine was never the same as Transjordan or Jordan. This was simply a dirty game played as recently as the early 20th century. Not to mention, Transjordan itself was a young and puppet state, a brainchild of the Brits.

Looking at other issues ..

Monday, March 15, 2010

Is the multi-faith concept compatible with Islamic values?

One needs to be careful before joining the chorus of “all religions are the same.” It's only partly correct, NOT entirely.

We agree that the ethical values of all faiths are similar. But that cannot be said concerning their spiritual values. For instance, all religions profess that it is wrong to steal, to kill, to be dishonest, to commit adultery/fornication, to be unkind to parents, relatives, neighbours and humanity in general, etc. All such issues constitute the ethical side of every faith and may have a high degree of uniformity. But every faith does not portray the same ideology about God, and this constitutes its spiritual/religious side. Concerning spiritual and religious notions, Islam is different and is the final word for all those who adhere to the Glorious Quran. The Quran clearly asserts that we ought to follow only the path shown by Allah. If we consider other guidelines, we run the risk of being parted from His way.

“And (He commandeth you, saying) : This is My straight path, so follow it Follow not other ways, lest ye be parted from His way: This hath He ordained for you, that ye may ward off (evil)” (6:153) Al-An’am

“ ….. And set your faces, upright (toward Him) at every place of worship and call upon Him, making religion pure for Him (only). As He brought you into being, so return ye (unto Him).” (7:29) Al-Araf

“He it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.” (61:9)

“And cry not unto any other god along with Allah. ……..” (28:88)

And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. (3:85)

Say (O Muhammad): I am forbidden to worship those unto whom ye cry beside Allah since there have come unto me clear proofs from my Lord, and I am commanded to surrender to the Lord of the Worlds. (40:66)


The above verses (and many more) plainly imply that the path of spiritual conduct that Allah Almighty has commanded to be followed in the Quran is different from those of other faiths. As already mentioned, only certain rules of ethics are common between Islam and other religions. But the various spiritual factors are very different. Therefore, the ideology of life highlighted in the Quran in its entirety (ethical + spiritual) is DIFFERENT from those of other faiths. Accepting and implementing the rules of another faith in its entirety would definitely lead to a clash of values with the Quran at some point or the other.

Astonishing as it may sound, there are some so-called Muslims who have deviated from the Glorious Quran to such an extent that they do not doubt the theory of re-incarnation as accepted by various pagans. Allah Almighty says in the Quran, loud and clear, that every soul is responsible and answerable for its own deeds. This concept is one of the cornerstones of the Glorious Quran.

“And no burdened soul can bear another's burden, ……. He who groweth (in goodness), groweth only for himself, (he cannot by his merit redeem others). Unto Allah is the journeying.” (35:18)

“And guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, …” (2:48)


Also, Allah has inspired each human soul (separately) with a conscience and awareness of right & wrong. It’s the responsibility of every individual to select their path of conduct. Those who allow their conscience to grow are the successful ones in His sight, while those who keep it stunted are the losers.

“And a soul and Him who perfected it
And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it.
He is indeed successful who causeth it to grow,
And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it.” (91:7-10) Ash-Shams


Again, the above verses and many more clearly reflect that there is absolutely NO room in Islam for the acceptance of concepts such as the re-incarnation theory. Anyone who trusts the infallibility of Divine Justice would totally reject such a bizarre concept about a single soul being shared by several living beings as claimed by the theory of re-incarnation.

It makes me wonder that if such “Muslims” are acquainted with the spiritual dictates of the Glorious Quran, how do they reconcile their beliefs based on other sources with the established principles & norms of the Quran?

Allah has stated that the Quran is a continuation and reminder of the former Divine Scriptures which were corrupted and altered by its followers with the passage of time. Thus, Allah mentions in the Quran that all messengers and prophets came with the same basic spiritual message, that is, there is only ONE God, He has NO partners, and He is the sole Creator of the entire universe and the heavens, Who is All Powerful and All Knowing.

“And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. ………. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.” (5:48) Al-Maidah

Both Moses and Jesus, son of Mary, preached pure Islamic doctrine (i.e. surrender to One God). Later, the Jews and Christians deviated from strict monotheism because of their own interpolations and deviated beliefs. The Jews earned the wrath of Allah by worshipping the golden calf. Similarly, the Christians went astray by taking Jesus as God along with their belief of trinity.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Day of Resurrection - will it be a long wait?

Unthinking minds are of the opinion that they have heard much about the Day of Resurrection and waited long enough. Some get impatient while many become skeptics and deviate completely. Plenty of folks who practice Faith as a ritual presume that the Day of Resurrection is too far away and thus no need to worry nor think much about it. It's unfortunate that though humans have been bestowed with tremendous capacity to think and grasp the truth, yet somehow, there's no dearth of incorrect notions that keep rolling into their minds instead.

Almighty Allah has informed humankind that the day and time of the Day of Resurrection will remain unknown until it actually happens. Even none of the Prophets were given any information about it, except that it's bound to happen. It's exact day, time and year are known to Him alone.

A person who has firm faith in Allah and trusts every word of His will never consider becoming slack simply because the Day of Resurrection may seem far away. It's undisclosed time will never be an excuse for a genuine believer to trail behind. It will never be a reason for them to allow their trust in Allah to weaken. Whether or not the Day of Resurrection is close or far off is the concern of Allah only. The focus of a believer during earthly existence would be to strengthen their Faith and subsequently improve their conduct.

Coming to the truth of the matter, the only important factor one needs to remember while waiting for the Day of Resurrection is the ultimate reality of one's own death, that is, the last day on earth of every individual. The Quran has stated throughout that the duration from the time of death till we are raised again on the Day of Judgment - whether it be a single hour, a single day or 50million years - will seem to us like a day or two, or perhaps an hour. After death time is naught. And time is no more required during death.

Thus the Glorious Quran states:

"And on the day when the Hour riseth the guilty will vow that they did tarry but an hour - thus were they ever deceived." (30:55)

An appropriate analogy to explain this phenomenon is when a person undergoes surgery. From the time they are taken into the operating room, anesthetised and uptil the time they regain consciousness could be as long as three, four or five hours or more. Yet when they do regain consciousness, it only seems a few minutes from the time they were wheeled into the operating room. That's how deceitful our own senses can be.

The Day of the Tryst is just as certain as death itself. Working hard for that Day needs to be done with the firm conviction of the fact that as far as each individual is concerned, the duration between death and the Day of Resurrection will be a few hours, or a couple of days (at the most). And death is never too far. It can happen to anyone, anytime, regardless of age, gender or earthly status. It has already happened to so many right before our eyes.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Women's dress code as in the Glorious Quran

The Quran defines the dress code for both men and women. But as it ought to be, dress code for women is more detailed because a woman's body is made as such that it attracts greater attention with improper intent. This factor can neither be denied nor overlooked.

Therefore both men and women are commanded by Allah (or commanded by Allah through the Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)) in the Quran to adhere to modesty by not gazing or staring at people around them and by covering their bodies with decency.

Personally, I would interpret 'modesty' for men as not showing the body above their thighs, and concealing their lower chest and backs. For women it would mean adhering to modesty similarly as mentioned for men, plus, not exposing their bare arms, covering the entire chest below the neck (some may consider it necessary to conceal the neck as well), covering the entire back, thighs and legs upto the center of the calves or some may want to cover the legs in full.

Women must either wear the loose outer garment over their regular clothes (jilbab), or as in Western countries many Muslim women wear trousers, skirts, blouses, shirts or tops without the jilbab .. they need to make sure that these garments are loose so that they don't reveal the contours of the body, and of course, the garments must not be made see-through materials.

Individuals can have minor differences regarding the above interpretations, but in general regarding all vital issues of modesty, the above dress code and etiquettes must be adhered to by believing men and women as per the commandments of Allah.

Also, women in particular, are expected to take care not to attract unnecessary attention through their mannerisms e.g. walking noisily by purposely stamping their feet (refer Verse 24:31). Often such attention maybe be harmless. But sometimes it can attract the attention of people harboring offensive intentions. The purpose of this commandment is to stay safe and not take any chances of making mistakes by getting involved with the wrong persons.

Check the following verses for references.

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware {Al-Khabir} of what they do." (24:30)

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers ...... And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that you may succeed." (24:31)

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, that so they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful." (33:59)


Finally, we come to the issue of the veil (head covering) or hijab and face covering or nikab for women. This too can be discussed by taking into consideration the above verses. Even many of those people who have read the Quran often say that the Quran does not mention anything about the hijab or nikab. Many Muslims and non-Muslims claim that the Quran does not require women to wear veils. But this claim is debatable if we read the above verses of the Noble Quran carefully.

Allah Almighty says " ..... to draw their veils over their bosoms" It's important to analyse this.

There's a difference between the modern hijab and the one worn in the medieval times. If we try to understand the dress code of women as existed hundreds of years ago (and perhaps even now in certain parts of the world), we will observe that the veil or 'hijab' or khimar mean the same. A piece of the veil (or khimar in Arabic) would be attached to the larger headcover, folded and placed over the head, and it could be unfolded and pulled down across the face and over the bosom whenever desired. Thus, the veil or khimar would serve the purpose of a head cover (hijab), a face cover (nikab) and also a covering over the bosom. For a better understanding of this issue, check this picture of a village woman in Beersheba, Palestine. This is the closest illustration we can get of the kind of khimar worn in olden days. You can see the face covering attached with the headcover pulled down, coming over the face and bosom, though she's put it on her face so as to cover only a portion of her face. That's because the face cover is attached to the headcover only at a single point .. as can be seen. If it was attached to the headcover or khimar more firmly from one end to the other, it would cover the face and bosom fully when pulled down. This covering can also be folded and placed back over the khimar or hijab or headcover, whatever we choose to call it, in order to remove it from the face and thus only keep the headcover covering the hair.

By the way, it must be understood that veil (or hijab) has nothing to do with any strict seclusion of women as some non-Muslims misinterpret in connection with the hijab and nikab on the basis of certain incorrect practices by hardliners and cultures borrowed from ancient / orthodox Christian and Jewish ideologies of their clerics.

As mentioned, many Muslim and non-Muslim analysts strongly deny that the Quran requires women to wear head coverings nor face coverings. Political factors are also a motive behind such squabblings. Muslim traditionalists strongly assert that the Quran does require the same. The truth is, YES, the Quran does command women to cover their heads and bosom, and in certain circumstances also to cover their faces. The verses above are clear evidences of this fact. The social setup in Arabia and many parts of the world necessiated this dress code. Even today in many parts of the world it's necessary. However, concerning those Muslims living in the West who may consider wearing modest, loose and unrevealing clothing to be enough to make them look and feel modest and unconspicuous, that too would be acceptable from the Quran's rational view point. We must remember that this commandment of the Noble Quran on dress code of women is essential for specific circumstances, and can also be adjusted by staying within the required limits in certain societies as in today's West.

As Musims it's important for us to keep in mind the ideology of modesty as aptly fits into the society we live in, but only to the point it comfortably complies with the Quranic values. Also, it's just as vital as per the dictates of the Glorious Quran to nurture a clean & modest intent and decent behaviour which compliment and support the ideology of the modest dress code, without which, modest clothing might not carry too many blessings for us in the Sight of Allah Almighty.

Thus the Noble Quran says:

"O Children of Adam! We have revealed unto you raiment to conceal your shame, and splendid vesture, but the raiment of restraint from evil, that is best. This is of the revelations of Allah, that they may remember." (7:26) Al-Araaf

Thus, Allah Almighty makes it very plain that though He has informed humankind the importance to conceal their shame and observe modesty by wearing the right kind of clothes, yet what's even more important without which modesty of outer garments won't serve any purpose, is to adhere to proper conduct and avoid the forbidden acts through restraint and self-control.

The Quranic expression "right hand possesses"

There's a common misunderstanding in certain circles that the Quran allows a man to have concubines (same as mistresses). That's because some readers, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, are confusing the term concubine with the expression "right hand possesses" that appears in the Glorious Quran.

The expression "right hand possesses" refers to slaves, not concubines. There's a huge difference between the two. A concubine is basically the same as a modern day mistress - a woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him. She's a man as his secondary wife who has the right to quit anytime she pleases. At present in the permissive West, mistresses (as they don't like being called concubines) have substantial legal rights and a fairly high social status. In various other countries like China, Japan etc., they have very little or no legal rights with a low social status. However, nowhere is a concubine / mistress legally chained to the man she's living with.

Islam (Quranic laws) gradually abolished slavery, not radically in the form of a revolution as that would create its own kind of unrest. And history is witness to the fact that in the Arabian peninsula, slavery was gone from all Muslim circles in 23 years since the advent of Islam. During this transitional period, slave owners had to retain their slaves (including female slaves, some of whom had the same status as secondary wives of their masters, the only difference between them and concubines/mistresses being that the former unlike the latter could not leave at her discretion), with a set of rules for the protection of the rights of these slaves which are elucidated in the Quran.

Thus, a slave woman being lawful to her master in regard to physical intimacy was allowed ONLY as long as the culture & practice of slavery remained in the society. After a little more than 2 decades of the Prophet Muhammad's (on whom be peace) Call, when slavery hardly existed in that region, the practice of the 'right hand possessing a woman' also no longer existed.

Today slavery is history everywhere (though it still goes on in some places in the name of "feudalism" etc.) Thus, IN ACCORDANCE with the laws clearly stated in the Noble Quran, having a concubine (with the title of 'right hand possesses) would be a blatant violation.

Check the following verse of Surah Al-Maidah, one of the latest revelations when Islamic rules had almost total control in Arabia, including the abolition of slavery.

"This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter." 5:5

Does Satan know the secret thoughts of humans?

One may wonder if Satan is able to know the secret thoughts and ideas that cross the minds of humans (which is only known to Allah Almighty), and thus, invisibly whisper to such persons to tempt and misguide them. The answer would be that Satan does not know the secret thoughts / ideas of people, but he is aware of the general mindset of humans concerning their weaknesses and drawbacks. He has an idea of the type of temptations that generally lure the hearts of the human race as well as jinn. When he sees someone in a situation, where if tempted, that person may incline towards a sinful act, he tries to make that situation more glamorous (in a Haram way). And that's when that person's will-power and strength of their Faith are tested. If they have a strong Faith and Trust in Allah, they will not give in to Satan's temptations. In fact, such a person will understand Satan's guile and will protect themselves from being lured. But in the case of a person who does not have the thought nor fear of Allah in their heart, they will waste little time giving in to such temptations, making Satan succeed in his attempt to misguide them.

That's why the Glorious Quran says in Surah Saba about the dwellers of Sheba who disbelieved and were very ungrateful to Allah for all the good things He provided them with ..

"And Satan indeed found his calculation true concerning them, for they follow him, all save a group of true believers." 34:20

As we understand from the Glorious Quran, Satan stalks those who are spiritually and morally weak because he knows that his chances of success with them are high. On the contrary, if he finds someone truly devoted to Allah Almighty, someone who regularly remembers Allah, prays to Him and strives to obey Him .. Satan realizes he will not succeed in deviating such a person and thus he withdraws, knowing that his efforts would be wasted.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Divorce in the Glorious Quran

Divorce laws in the Glorious Quran are simple and easy to follow. So, let's not make it complicated by wavering from the contents of the relevant Quranic verses.

First read on your own, verses 1 to 7 and then go over the following contents of this blog entry.

Separation:

"O Prophet! When you (men) put away women, put them away for their (legal) period and reckon the period, and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord. Expel them not from their houses nor let them go forth unless they commit open immorality. Such are the limits (imposed by) Allah; and whoso transgresses Allah's limits, he verily wrongs his soul. You knowest not: it may be that Allah will afterward bring some new thing to pass." 65:1

The above Verse 65:1 mentions about separation, as the first step, in case of differences between spouses. "put them away" could refer as sleeping in different rooms of the same home, or living in different homes.  This legal period of separation which is generally followed after 2 pronouncements of divorce and before the 3rd, is for a period of 4 months.  It's basically a decision-making period as clarified as follows.

Verse 2:226 mentions the legal period for separation which is 4 months.

"Those who forswear their wives must wait four months; then, if they change their mind, lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 2:226 Al-Baqrah

After separation:

"Then, when they have reached their term, take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him," 65:2.

The above Verse 65:2 is self-explanatory.  When the 4-month decision making period is over, the couple are required to make a definite decision.  Either the husband must decide to take back his wife or decide upon a divorce.  In either case it must be done with respect and kindness.

After the marriage is legally dissolved, physical intimacy becomes illegal. Thus, the 3-month waiting period for the woman (Verse 65:4) serves the purpose of determining the paternity of the unborn child, in case the divorced woman is in the very early stages of pregnancy at the time of divorce.  Do not confuse or mix-up the 4-month separation before divorce and the 3-month waiting period after divorce.  These are two very separate issues.


Waiting period for women in case of divorce:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if you doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, He makes his course easy for him." 65:4

All divorced women are to wait for 3 months following the divorce and prior to re-marriage (if they so decide), excepting those who are pregnant. Divorced pregnant women can re-marry soon after they have given birth. This law has to be strictly observed in all divorce cases. The importance has been further highlighted in Verse 65:5

"That is the commandment of Allah which He reveals unto you. And whoso keeps his duty to Allah, He will remit from him his evil deeds and magnify reward for him." 65:5


P.S. This Verse 65:4 will be taken up again, later in this post, to explain another very essential point.

Responsibilities of the husband during separation:

"Lodge them where you dwell, according to your wealth, and harass them not so as to straiten life for them. And if they are with child, then spend for them till they bring forth their burden. Then, if they give suck for you, give them their due payment and consult together in kindness; but if you make difficulties for one another, then let some other woman give suck for him (the father of the child)." 65:6

"Let him who has abundance spend of his abundance, and he whose provision is measured, let him spend of that which Allah has given him. Allah asks naught of any soul save that which He has given it. Allah will vouchsafe, after hardship, ease." 65:7

Husbands must deal kindly and fairly with their spouses during such a period when their marriage is estranged and while they are in the process of making a decision. They are to keep their wives in their homes, not harass them and are responsible for their expenses according to their financial means. In case, the wife is pregnant, the husband has to be with her till she gives birth and must take full responsibility of caring for matters as is necessary in such a situation, according to his financial means. This includes hiring a female caretaker to breastfeed the baby, if necessary for whatever reasons.

AFTER DIVORCE, THE WOMAN CANNOT RE-MARRY HER EX-HUSBAND,UNLESS ..


"And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He manifesteth them for people who have knowledge." 2:230

If the decision to divorce is pronounced the third time after the 4-month period of separation, then divorce is final and there can be no reconciliations.  The wife cannot return to the husband even if he changes his mind and wants her back.   In such a case, she can only re-marry her former husband after she's married to some other man and divorced again. It's also important to mention that her marriage and divorce to another man must NOT be a set-up, done with a pre-planned intent to return to her former husband.

PROVISION MUST FOR WOMEN EVEN IF DIVORCED BEFORE CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE

"It is no sin for you if ye divorce women while yet ye have not touched them, nor appointed unto them a portion. Provide for them, the rich according to his means, and the straitened according to his means, a fair provision. (This is) a bounden duty for those who do good." (2:236)

"If ye divorce them before ye have touched them and ye have appointed unto them a portion, then (pay the) half of that which ye appointed, unless they (the women) agree to forgo it, or he agreeth to forgo it in whose hand is the marriage tie. To forgo is nearer to piety. And forget not kindness among yourselves. Allah is Seer of what ye do." (2:237)

"For divorced women a provision in kindness: a duty for those who ward off (evil)." (2:241)


"O you who believe! If you wed believing women and divorce them before you have touched them, then there is no period that you should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely." (33:49)

All the above three verses of Surah Al-Baqrah (Verses 2:236, 237 and 241) convey the message that though divorce is allowed before the consummation of the marriage, yet, even in such a case, the woman MUST be given some compensation as her portion. If the marriage breaks off before consummation and the husband has not yet decided a portion of money or gift for her, then he will have to decide to give her something at that time.

DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LIVES OF DIVORCEES AND WIDOWS

And when ye have divorced women and they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands if it is agreed between them in kindness. This is an admonition for him among you who believeth in Allah and the Last Day. That is more virtuous for you, and cleaner. Allah knoweth; ye know not. (2:232)

Such of you as die and leave behind them wives, they (the wives) shall wait, keeping themselves apart, four months and ten days. And when they reach the term (prescribed for them) then there is no sin for you in aught that they may do with themselves in decency. Allah is informed of what ye do. (2:234)


The above verses of Surah Al-Baqrah (2:232 and 234) confirm two aspects. First, divorced women are entitled to lead their own lives and re-marry of their own choice. Their ex-spouses or their families are not to interfere. Secondly, in case of widows, their waiting period before they decide to re-marry is 4 months and 10 days. Thus, the waiting period for widows is a bit longer than that required for divorcees, which is 3 months.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Does "Sahih al-Bukhari" explain the Quran?

The advocates of hadith are fond of saying that the hadith explains the Quran without which the Quran cannot be understood. In other words without hadith they will have to reject the Quran or at least ignore it. The scholars also say that the hadith they call "Sahih al-Bukhari" is the best hadith.

But it isn't difficult to prove that the hadith does NOT in any way explain the Quran, and "Sahih al-Bukhari" is not worth the paper it is printed on.

For evidence please refer to, and check all references of "Sahih Al-Bukhari" by Dr. Muhammed Muhsin Khan, Islamic University, Medina Al-Munawwara which is a nine volume encyclopedia. Vol. 6 of "Sahih Al-Bukhari" is supposed to contain the explanation of the Quran (Tafsir). The other eight volumes prescribe things like drinking camel urine to cure fevers (vol 7, hadith no 590), burning people and their houses if they do not go the mosque for Fajr and Isha, (vol.1, hadith no.626), dreaming of undressing women (vol 9, hadith no.139 and 140), using shoes to garland camels (Vol 2, hadith no 763), and other such UTTER NONSENSE.

Let us focus on vol. 6, the "explanation" of the Quran by Imam Bukhari. Although the Quran has 114 surahs (or chapters), Bukhari does not explain all the verses of all the surashs. Surah 2, Al Baqarah, has 286 verses, but Bukhari only provides hadith for about 50 verses. This is slightly over 20% of Surah Al Baqarah. Bukhari has left the ulemas groping in the dark over the remaining 80%.

Al Kauther (Surah 108) is the shortest surah in the Quran, only 3 verses. However Bukhari "attempts" to explain the meaning of just one word "Kauther" as sufficient to explain this entire Surah. Bukhari says; "Kauther" is a river in Heaven. But simply, "Kauther" means "good in abundance". (Translation by President of Islamic research, IFAT, Saudi Arabia). This also suggests that Imam Bukhari did not know Arabic. It is a fact that Bukhari was a Persian from Bokhara who spoke Farsi. The scholars have no records to show when Bukhari learned Arabic. More on this later.

The most surprising part of it is that 28 surahs of the Quran are NOT "explained" at all by Bukhari. The surah numbers are as follows; 23, 27, 29, 35, 51, 57, 58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 109. Bukhari puts it away as follows: "no hadith were mentioned here." According to the scholars the hadith is supposed to explain the Quran. But they are conveniently silent on the question why Bukhari ignored 28 Surahs of the Noble Quran!

The scholars insist that the hadith explains the Quran. Yet they have to do away with 28 SURAHS of the Quran because Bukhari did not bother to explain them.
Therefore, the boast by the scholars that those who uphold the QURAN only and do NOT depend on the hadith cannot understand the Quran, falls FLAT on its face. It's the poor scholars who are in a sad situation. 28 Surahs are missing and none of the other surahs are explained in full by Bukhari.

To revert to the earlier point that the Persian Bukhari may not have known Arabic, this is suggested by the way Bukhari has changed the names of certain SURAHS. By itself this is a strange phenomenon. The scholars themselves do NOT know why Bukhari did this.

Non-Arabs sometimes refer to a Surah by its first verse. This is because they may not have known the Arabic name for the Surah because they are not scholars of the Quran or simply because they are not Arabs. Bukhari displays the same characteristics.

The great importance of adhering to the Quran alone

In Allah's Quran, we find several verses posing questions about the sources of religious law other than the Quran.

- "Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?..." 6:114

- "Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?" 77:50

- "These are God's revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6


I am sure all Muslims believe that Hadith (including the works by Bukhari) is NOT from God. Given that this is the case, those Muslims who look to Hadith for guidance should ask themselves if they are on the right track or guilty of a serious violation in the Sight of God.

Surrounding the above verses are words like, "If you obey most people on earth then they will divert you from the path of God." and, "Woe to the rejectors!" So it's obvious that looking to any other source for religious guidance — including Hadith — is not considered favorable by the Most Gracious.

Hadith (including Bukhari's) contradict the Quran (God's word!) and are full of self contradictions as well. So why would anyone want to follow such an erroneous source?

Even if one was to concede that half of the Hadith was poorly translated, the other half would still be full of ridiculous rules and anecdotes never authorised by God Almighty. And, if there is even a single falsehood or contradiction, the WHOLE collection becomes tainted and untrustworthy.

Here's when we have to make use of our common sense and conscience. If we need to resolve an issue which is not specified in the Quran, we will have to go by our intuition which if correctly guided, should be in accordance with the basic values & guidelines provided in the Quran.

If we use Hadith (from which ensue the Shariah / Hudood) or the secular constitution of the country as a source of law, such sources cannot be put alongside with the Quran as all man-written laws are subject to errors. Only God's revelations are perfect. Furthermore, the Hadith does not follow the Quranic guidelines either.


When the reading in the Quran refers to the term 'Hadith,' it is not referring to any other books. The term 'Hadith' in the Quran refers to the reading itself - i.e. the QURAN IS the Hadith.

Now the amazing issue is, when people began collecting hearsay into books two hundred years after the passing away of Prophet Muhammad (SAAW), they called it 'hadith' which is the term with which God Almighty describes His Own Revelations. So the reading responds to the people in a prophetic manner - it almost predicts in a way that people will hold other 'hadith' other than the God's hadith - which is the reading itself.

Helpless angel of death - a blasphemy!

Bukhari: 2:423 Narrated by: Abu Huraira
'The angel of death was sent to Moses and when he went to him, Moses slapped him severely, spoiling one of his eyes. The angel went back to his Lord, and said, "You sent me to a slave who does not want to die." Allah restored his eye and said, "Go back and tell him (i.e. Moses) to place his hand over the back of an ox, for he will be allowed to live for a number of years equal to the number of hairs coming under his hand." (So the angel came to him and told him the same). Then Moses asked, "O my Lord! What will be then?" He said, "Death will be then." He said, "(Let it be) now." He asked Allah that He bring him near the Sacred Land at a distance of a stone's throw. Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) said, "Were I there I would show you the grave of Moses by the way near the red sand hill." '

I'm sure it will take you very little time to analyse the stupidity of the above narration. Yet, it's passed as "sahih" by our ulemas and the naive faithfuls read it with pride.

Prophet Moses slaps the Angel of Death and hurts, rather damages, his eye. Did Moses see the Angel of Death coming like people see each other? Are angels physical like humans who can be physically injured? Would the Angel be so helpless that it wouldn't be able to do anything to avoid gettin slapped? Most importantly, is there anyone who can dare to slap an angel while it is sent on its duty by Allah Almighty? In other words, by writing such a falsehood, Bukhari is trying to project that the commandment of the Almighty Allah is helpless against Moses. Such rude insults on Allah Almighty and His prophets can only come minds that are steeped in mischief and manipulation.

The Noble Quraan says:

"But to no soul will Allah grant respite when the time appointed (for it) has come; and Allah is well acquainted with (all) that ye do?" (63:11) - Surah Al Munafiqun

The word "no soul" applies to all humankind, including all prophets. It applies to all living beings.

I quote the response of Br. Hafeez Kazi to this Hadith:

Quote:

"He is the Omnipotent over His slaves. He sendeth guardians over you until, when death cometh unto one of you, Our messengers receive him, and they neglect not." (6:61) Al-Anam

"He it is Who hath created you from clay, and hath decreed a term for you. A term is fixed with Him. Yet still ye doubt!" (6:2) Al-Anam

"Allah created you from dust, then from a little fluid, then He made you pairs (the male and female). No female beareth or bringeth forth save with His knowledge. And no-one groweth old who groweth old, nor is aught lessened of his life, but it is recorded in a Book, Lo! that is easy for Allah." (35:11) Al-Malaika


The Angel of death never fails in its duty and it takes the soul of anyone on whom Allah passes the decree of death.

Slapping the angel means the angel failed in its duty, and it means Allah failed in His Decree and hence Allah became helpless and powerless against His own creature.

No one can live a day shorter or longer but must die on the determined period. If Moses did not die when Allah decreed him death and the angel failed to take away his soul, implies that the words of Allah in the Quran are not equivalent to His actions. This is downright blasphemy!

This Hadith is an open insult to the Power of Allah. It is an insult to His Might, to His Words, and to His Wisdom. Needless to say, this Hadith is a BLATANT LIE.

THEREFORE MOSES HAS TO DIE ONCE DEATH IS DECREED FOR HIM. THE ANGELS NEVER FAIL IN THEIR DUTY.

CAN ANY HUMAN BEING BE MORE POWERFUL THAN ALLAH AND HIS ANGELS SENT TO CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS? CAN ANYONE EVER AVERT THE DEATH DECREED ON THEM FROM ALLAH?

CAN ANYONE INCLUDING A PROPHET EVER DISOBEY THE WILL OF ALLAH?

Was Bukhari a witness to this incident?

Why should anyone beileve in such hearsay which blatantly CONTRADICT THE VERSES OF THE NOBLE QURAN.

Thanks.

Unquote:

The lies and myth about Buddhist religious tolerance

It's now time for the West to expose their politically treasured myth. There is no such thing as peace or religious tolerance in Buddhism. History is witness to that.

Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Chengis Khan, known as the world's most ruthless invader and murderer, was a Buddhist along with his big band of murderers, looters and arsonists that terrorized Central Asia, South Asia and the Northern Middle-East regions throughout the 13th century.

For thousands of years, the Buddhist majority in Japan have been bitterly persecuting minorities of other faiths living in Japan, mainly the Christian minority. The type of atrocities inflicted by Japanese Buddhists on the small Chrisitan population of Japan in the past is hair-raising to read. Uptil today, the Christian minority of Japan face brazen discrimination in all spheres of life and usually need to be secretive about their faith. But the suffering of the ancestors of this minority community is most appaling. Before the 20th century, the Christian minority were isolated and literally had to hide in remote areas of Japan from the Buddhist majority. Those Japanese discovered following the Christian faith were taken away by the authorities and put to death by being thrown in boiling water. It was very similar to the bitter persecution of non-Christians inflicted by the Catholic Church that swept across Europe for 600 years known as the Inquisition, when non-Christians were put to death by being burnt at the stake, quartered or thrown into boiling oil.

Since the initial transmission of Roman Catholicism in Japan in the 16th century, Christianity has generally been regarded as an intrusive force by the Buddhist majority of Japan. They commonly refer to Christianity as 'junkyo' or evil religion.

The history of conversions into Christianity in Japan abounds with stories of individuals being cut off from their families or isolated from communities. Refusal of the Japanese Christian converts to participate in Buddhist ancestral rites or community festivals frequently results in such isolations enforced by the majority.

The more modern view of Buddhists in Japan has shaped the perception that Christianity is a deviant religion connected to foreign powers with designs on Japan.

It is only since the last few decades that Japanese attitudes toward Christianity have become less violent, particularly among Japanese born and educated in the West in the postwar period, though the Buddhist majority of Japan still nurtures a lot of hatred toward non-Buddhists. Needless to say, the truth about Buddhism is a complete contradiction of the current media propaganda spreading the notion of Buddhism being a 'tolerant' faith.

The most appropriate example of Buddhist hypocrisy is the arch spy and liar, the Dalai Lama and his gang of Tibetan insurgents. Read more at Dalai Lama's Hypocrisy Exposed.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Gandhi - founder of terror in South Asia

Gandhi's much talked about "Quit India" Movement was anything but "non-violent." It would be appropriate to say that as a leader he was the pioneer of violence in South Asia.

As reported in History Politics by the UCLA

Quote --

At the outbreak of war in 1939 between Britain and Germany, India was also declared to be at war with Germany as it constituted part of the British empire. The Congress took the view that while it opposed fascism, it could render no support to the British either. Consequently, neutrality was the official policy of the Congress. In an effort to bring the British to the negotiating table, Gandhi launched his 'Quit India' movement in August 1942 and issued from a large meeting ground in Bombay the call to 'do or die.' Indians were to wage one last struggle to achieve independence, or die in that attempt. Elaborate plans were made to offer non-violent resistance. The 'Quit India' movement was followed, nonetheless, by large-scale violence directed at railway stations, telegraph offices, government buildings, and other emblems and institutions of colonial rule. There were widespread acts of sabotage, and the government held Gandhi responsible for these acts of violence, suggesting that they were a deliberate act of Congress policy. Gandhi resolutely denied these charges, but the deadlock was not to be resolved. It has been suggested by other scholars that though Gandhi himself did not authorize violence, he had grown skeptical of the efficacy of non-violence .... Others have suggested that the 'Quit India' movement was a failure in that it invited the government to unleash repression .. The 'Quit India' movement remains, in any event, among the most controversial episodes in Gandhi's life and modern Indian history.

Unquote --

And now, check the page: Which war did Gandhi support? All of them.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Getting married while in Ihram ??

This is one of those narrations in which Bukhari has stepped too far in lying, violating and insulting the Prophet (SAAW).

"It is reported from Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, married while he was in ihram. al-Bukhari, 4824 - chapter 70 - book of Marriage"

Being in Ihram (though necessity of wearing Ihram during Hajj is not contained in the Quraan) is a gesture of being in the midst of the process of Hajj. The Prophet wouldn't even conceive of marrying at such a time. And of course, history contains no such information.

Bukhari or the narrator apparently wanted to introduce the practice of allowing marriage during Hajj, just as they have introduced so many violations in the Muslim community through their writings. The easiest way to do this was to scribble a quick hadith to that affect.

It's also interesting to note how even the Hadith adhering Muslims secretly ignore a lot of impropriety that this literature contains. At present, according to the clerics, there's a huge list of things one isn't allowed to do during Hajj .. even some of those actions that needn't be disallowed are prohibited e.g. cutting nails, using perfume and more such irrelevant matters. I'm sure if you tell an imam or a sheikh that a hadith narration by Bukhari allows a person to marry while in Ihram, their jaws will drop and they'll stare at you in anger and disbelief, thinking you to be rude and cheeky. Their standard response would be that there's "no such hadith" or that it's an "unauthentic hadith." It's funny to note that a collection they call "sahih" (meaning 'correct') consists of so many ideas that are totally 'incorrect' yet no one sees the need for a spring cleaning session, if not trashing it altogether.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Reward of Women in Paradise

People often ask about women's reward in Paradise. I have heard much about the opinion of those who think that the Quran emphasises upon the pleasures of Paradise only from a man's perspective. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and to understand why, one only needs to read the Glorious Quran carefully and reflect a little.

The truth is that human existence in Paradise will be hugely different from our earthly life .. in a positive sense, of course. There will be no feelings of resentment, jealousies and hostilities. There will be no exhaustion from fatigue, no heat of the sun, no biting cold to cause discomfort and plently of nourishing food and drink to satisfy our taste buds.

It is also important to know that various earthly concepts, including the concept of beauty, differ vastly from the ones in Paradise. For instance, when Adam and Eve were dwelling in Paradise before their expulsion, they were naked without clothes. At that time, nakedness wasn't considered shameful because it was an accepted norm of that state of bliss. Their shame only became apparent to them after they were duped by Satan into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. Only then did their state of existence change as per the Divine rules, and the transformed state of existence was clearly similar to the earthly existence. That's when they experienced embarrassment and began to hide their nakedness.

Another example .. the "wine" as mentioned of being given to drink in Paradise will be completely different and NOT the kind of intoxicating drink one may presume according to earthly notions.

"There they pass from hand to hand a cup wherein is neither vanity nor cause of sin." (52:23)

"They are given to drink of a pure wine, sealed,
Whose seal is musk. For this let (all) those strive who strive for bliss" (83:25 & 26)


The purpose of the companions in Paradise is to promote the pleasantness of the surroundings, but not in the sexual sense for gratifying carnal desires as one would think concerning worldy life.

Most importantly, Paradise being a place without any hard feelings and jealousies, there are no concepts of gender superiority nor any competitive feelings / intentions. Similarly, the description of beauty of the hosts in Paradise do not carry the same connotation as it would in this world. Allah often describes them as "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes."

Rajam is NOT the penalty for adultery in the Quran

According to jurists and clerics, the punishment of Rajam (death by stoning) is for married men and women committing adultery. For unmarried ones guilty of the same offence, the penalty is lashes or stripes.

In the Glorious Quran the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes as mentioned in Surah 'An-Nur' (24:2). In verse 4 of Surah 'An-Nur,' 80 lashes is ordered for slanderers who accuse honourable women without bringing 4 witnesses to testify. In verses 6 - 10 of the same Surah, the system of Li'an is explained, which is basically (as I understand it) a system on pure trust on human conscience. Hence, from verses 2 - 10 of Surah 'An-Nur' the matter regarding adultery is discussed in greatest detail compared to all other Surahs. There are also certain other chapters where the ill consequences of adultery in the Hereafter are mentioned, e.g. Surah 'Al-Furqan' (25:68-70). But nowhere does the Quran mention two different punishments for married and single people. Death by stoning is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran.

According to historical evidence rajam existed during the pre-Islamic era in various communities including Europe. It was later introduced in the Gospel because the Gospel was altered by humans hands.

Needless to mention, this law of rajam is derived direclty from the Hadith, an institution which is notorious for its unreliability and fabrication by the imams and ulemas.

A 'scholar' at Islamonline.net has struggled to explain the existence of rajam as follows:

Quote:
"According to jurists, the verse commanding capitol punishment for married men and women was revealed in the Qur'aan. Later it was verbally abrogated but its ruling is still binding. One may ask, 'What is abrogation?' Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather all its teachings and rulings were set gradually. In addition, while abrogating the words of a verse but not its ruling, this serves as a reminder that not all the Divine messages are to be through one channel, i.e. a direct revelation. Rather, a part of these messages is to be conveyed & clarified through the practice and tradition of the Prophet sent to deliver the message ........."
Unquote:

As any discerning reader will sense, the above explanation is full of holes and question marks.

How did the jurists conclude that Rajam was previously mentioned in the Quraan? How did they come to the conclusion that 'abrogation' can involve just the removal of the text and not the ruling? Not to mention, does their understanding of 'abrogation' correctly correspond with reality?

Monday, March 1, 2010

Abu Hurairah or 'Paul'

AUTHOR'S NOTE:
FIRST:  THOSE WHO WANT TO COMMENT ARE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THEIR COMMENTS MUST BE BASED STRICTLY ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS ARTICLE.  YOU MUST QUOTE THE AUTHOR AND THEN DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC POINTS WITH REFERENCES TO THE QURAN OR HISTORICAL DATA OR LOGIC.  YOUR REFERENCES MUST NOT INCLUDE ANOTHER HADITH.  ONE HADITH CANNOT TESTIFY FOR ANOTHER HADITH JUST AS ONE THIEF CANNOT TESTIFY FOR ANOTHER THIEF IN A COURT OF LAW.  THAT WOULD BE FELONY.

SECONDLY:  ANY COMMENTS DIRECTED PERSONALLY AT THE AUTHOR OR THEIR COLLEAGUES WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY AT MODERATION.  NO SUBSTANDARD APPROACH INVOLVING PERSONAL ATTACKS OR PERSONAL ACCUSATIONS WILL BE TOLERATED.  YOU MUST KEEP YOUR QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARTICLE WITHOUT BEING ANTAGONISTIC TO INCITE A ROW.  IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND YOUR IMAMS OR HADITH NARRATORS, THEN YOU MUST REMAIN SILENT.  PERSONAL COMMENTS, INSULTS OR THREATS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AS ALTERNATIVES.



Ever heard of that name, Paul, in connection with the New Testament?

Paul (or Saul of Tarsus) was a pharisee and a very controversial person. He belonged to Tarsus in the Eastern Roman Empire (probably Greece). It is said that he lived during the time of Jesus, possibly born between 3 to 5 B.C. but no one knows his precise date of birth. Paul is known to have bitterly persecuted the Jews and Christians, and then reportedly (and suspiciously) converted to Christianity after seeing a "dream." After that, somehow, his name changed to 'Paul' and he literally became the founder of an altered version of Christianity, the one practiced at present by the Christians. Paul is regarded as the most important interpreter of Jesus' mission. The gossip goes that he explained in a way that Jesus himself didn't. Paul claimed that he was commissioned by Jesus to preach Christianity. But Christians today openly acknowledge that other than Paul's own claim that he was commissioned by Jesus, there is no proof at all that he was. In fact, majority of the Christian sources are of the firm opinion that Paul never even met Jesus. Yet, every word of his was considered law and he was never questioned nor required to confirm his credibility concerning whatever he claimed. Thus, he was responsible for laying the foundation of altered Christianity. He began being recognized as the most important source of Christian laws which had nothing to do with the original Faith as preached by Jesus, son of Mary. We can well imagine how many Christians have so far deviated from their true roots in preference to the phoney stories and whispers of this man, in the name of faith.

Unfortunately, history was to repeat itself. The Muslims have a duplicate of "Paul" named Abu Hurairah. He is the master of the Hadith literature (which is the counterpart of the altered Christian & Jewish Bibles), having narrated the most of Hadith narrations by spending the least number of years in the company of Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) in Medinah. In his own words: "There is none among the companions of the Prophet who has narrated more Hadiths than I except 'Abdallah bin Amr (bin al-'As) who used to write them and I never did the same." Narrated Abu Huraira (Hadith No.1.113). Apart from the nonsensical contents of his narrations, uptil today hardly any Muslim has raised the question that how could a man who spent barely a couple of years as the Prophet's contemporary, have narrated many more Ahadith than even the Prophet's closest family members and friends?

Stories of his being a "close companion" of the Prophet (SAAW) have just one source -the Sunni imams. There's no other evidence to indicate that Abu Hurairah had any links with the Prophet (SAAW), let alone being a "close companion."

Shiias aren't too enthusiastic about Abu Hurairah. They only accept his narrations if a similar Hadith is narrated by some other sahabah or member of the Prophet's family.

However, don't forget, Hadith is Hadith. No matter who narrates what, the entire Hadith institution is tainted with deep suspicion and controversy.


FOR HOW LONG WAS HE THE PROPHET'S (SAAW) CONTEMPORARY?

Abu Hurairah spent LESS than three years in al-Medinah during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAAW) about which Huraira himself testifies in one of his narrations: "I enjoyed the company of Allah's Apostle for three years."

After less than three years with the Prophet (SAAW), he kept his Hadith narrations to the minimal during the era of the four righteous Caliphs, that is, Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). Abu Hurairah's Hadith narrations started in full swing from the reign of the first Ommayad ruler, Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan. This was more than 30 years after the Prophet (SAAW) passed away. Logically, this would mean that Abu Huraira kept almost 40,000 Hadith narrations secretly in his mind until the Ommayads came to power. There is also a very important historical report which discloses that Abu Hurairah was asked much later in life, of the consequences if he had narrated that many Hadiths in the days of Caliphs Umar and Uthman? He replied that he wouldn't dare to, and if he had, he would have got a beating.

Now listen to this. Abu Hurairah is supposed to have narrated some 40,000 traditions during his lifetime. Dividing such a number of traditions to (less than) three years of his so-called companionship with the Prophet (SAAW) will result to 40 traditions per day !!!