There Are NO Islamic Terrorists!

Ignorant media, ignorant or hate-mongering "scholars" are busy in coining terms and propaganda of falsehood. Islam and its teachings are defined by the God, Almighty and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w.) and no one else!

A widely used term is "Islamic terrorists". Sorry, but there are NO Islamic terrorists. It is true that some with Muslim names have committed acts of murder and terror, but then there are governments, groups and individuals all over the world, some Muslim and some non-Muslims, engaged in such evil activities. When you use the word "Islamic", you associate it with the Islamic teachings. Islam does not teach evil. Islam asks for Faith, submission and obedience to God and God alone. Take it or leave it. Choice is yours. False definitions of Islam and propaganda of falsehood can only come from disciples of terror. Don't be one.

Now, let us read the following report:

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Media Briefing

AI Index: POL 10/026/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 135
23 May 2006


Report 2006: Address by Irene Khan, Secretary General,
Press conference, Foreign Press Association, London

 

    Covering 150 countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, Amnesty International Report 2006 is a commentary on the state of the world’s human rights. It covers a range of issues and the responsibilities of governments - big and small - armed groups and business. But the overarching message that comes through is that:

    Powerful governments are playing a dangerous game with human rights.

    Those with power and influence – the US, European Union members, China and Russia – have been either complicit or compromised by human rights violations in 2005 at home and abroad.

    Governments continued to sacrifice principles in the name of “the war on terror”.

    A year ago, almost to the day, here in this room, on behalf of Amnesty International (AI), I called for Guantánamo prison camp to be closed. What was then AI’s lone voice has now become a large and influential chorus, including opinion leaders in the US, religious figures, key governments and UN entities, including the UN Committee against Torture. The US Administration reacted strongly to our call, but in a recent interview on German TV, even President Bush said that he “would very much like to close Guantánamo and put the prisoners on trial”. We in AI strongly urge him to do that or to release them immediately.

    A year is a long time in politics – but it is an even longer time if you happen to be a prisoner without charge, trial, or prospect of release in Guantánamo. Some 460 people of around 40 different nationalities remain in Guantánamo. Their desperation is evident in the large numbers of suicide attempts, in one case more than 12 times, and hunger strikes. Last Friday’s incident of the attack on prison guards was yet another sign of the desperate situation. Guantánamo is a pressure cooker waiting to explode.

    Guantánamo is only the tip of the iceberg of a large network of detention centres in Iraq, Afghanistan and secret locations around the world where the US and its allies are holding thousands of prisoners without charge or trial. Last week the UN Committee against Torture asked the US delegation whether the US maintains secret detention centres, the delegate responded: “No comment”.

    Duplicity and double speak have become the hallmark of the war on terror.

    Senior US officials – including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and President George Bush – gave assurances that the US does not practice torture. Yet, our research over the past year has shown evidence of widespread torture and ill treatment in the US-controlled detention centres. Our research also shows that the CIA has forcibly transferred prisoners to countries where they have been tortured. The IT industry outsources software development to India – the US outsources torture to countries like Morocco, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

    A new aspect of the “war on terror” in 2005 was the concrete evidence that European governments are partners in crime of the US in rendering or transferring prisoners forcibly to countries where they have been tortured. At least seven European countries have been implicated in the rendition of fourteen individuals – but so far only one country (Italy) has opened criminal prosecution against the CIA.

    Public outrage has forced accountability, with investigations by the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and some national institutions, into renditions and US-run secret prisons.

    Public institutions refused to undermine the prohibition on torture. The UK House of Lords rejected the argument of the government that it is lawful to introduce evidence in court proceedings that has been extracted as a result of torture by foreign agents abroad.

    The US Senate adopted a law prohibiting the torture and ill treatment of prisoners in US custody anywhere in the world.

    Sadly, instead of accepting and welcoming the efforts of courts and legislatures to reinstate respect for human rights, some governments found new ways to deny or dodge their international obligations

    Bending to Republican pressure President Bush signed the bill prohibiting torture, but attached a statement effectively reserving the right of the executive to bypass the provision on national security grounds.

    The UK professed to uphold the prohibition against torture but then, negotiated diplomatic assurances from countries that have a record of torture so that it could freely return people, including persons who had been tortured there previously. Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, Egypt, Algeria are all countries with which the UK has obtained or is in the process of obtaining such guarantees.

    The position in international law is clear. Nothing can justify torture and ill treatment. Just as we must condemn terrorist attacks on civilians in the strongest possible terms, we must resist claims by governments that terror can be fought with torture. Such claims are misleading, dangerous and simply wrong – you cannot extinguish a fire with petrol.

    When the US government ignores the absolute prohibition on torture and fails to investigate abuses by its soldiers, when the European governments bury their collective heads in the sand and refuse to question their own record on renditions, racism or refugees, they damage their ability to champion human rights elsewhere in the world.

    Not every human rights abuse can be attributed to the war on terror but there is no doubt that it has given a new lease of life to old fashioned repression in some parts of the world.
    In 2005 it provided an effective smoke screen for governments in the Middle East and North Africa to carry on with arbitrary detention, torture, unfair trial, suppression of political dissent, ethnic persecution, for instance of Kurds and religious minorities. These governments today do with greater confidence what they did in the past with fear of criticism. The war on terror has seen the rehabilitation of Libya, formerly considered a terrorist state, with the US re-establishing diplomatic ties, and the UK negotiating diplomatic assurances. On Sunday a Swiss Amnesty member in Tunisia was expelled, and yesterday a Tunisian member was arrested and then released – just two cases among many of harassment of human rights defenders.

    But the real cost of the war on terror has not only been in the curtailment of civil liberties but in the lives and livelihoods of the poor.
    2005 saw the biggest ever mobilization of civil society and public support to eradicate poverty. But in response, the UN Summit showed governments miserably failing to match promise to performance on the Millennium Development Goals. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and riots in France, 2005 was also a year which showed the glaring disparity, discrimination and alienation in the heart of richest countries of the world.

    Women’s human rights have been another hidden casualty of the war on terror. March 2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the Beijing Platform of Action for Women – but rather than building on the progress, it was spent resisting the backlash from conservative forces who have gained new lease of life in the current security environment. War on terror gets attention – the war on women goes unnoticed, with hundreds of women, for instance, in Mexico and Guatemala being killed with impunity; or 25% of women globally facing sexual abuse at the hands of their partner.

    At a time of unprecedented globalization, with barriers to goods and capital being dismantled, 2005 saw the building of borders against refugees and migrants. Ignoring the economic exploitation of illegal migrants, governments focussed instead on building borders – whether against Burmese workers in Thailand, or African migrants in the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, and now in the US.

    The security agenda of the powerful and privileged hijacked the energy and attention of the world from serious human rights crises.
    Social development was not the only casualty. The forgotten conflicts in Africa, Asia and the Middle East took their toll. Israel and the Occupied Territories also slipped off the international agenda in 2005, deepening the distress and despair of Palestinians and the fear of Israelis.

    Powerful governments squandered their resources and spend their capacity in pursuit of military and security strategies that reaped a bloody harvest.
    The score card of continued conflict and mounting human rights abuses are there for all to see in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The failure to investigate or prosecute abuses committed by their own soldiers or private security contractors undermined the claims by the Multi National Forces (MNF) that they were restoring the rule of law in the country. The current strategies of the Iraqi government and the MNF are clearly not working. When the powerful are too arrogant to review and reassess their strategies the heaviest price is paid by the poor and the powerless: in this case ordinary Iraqi women, men and children.

    Governments, collectively and individually, paralysed international institutions and squandered resources and capacity in misguided military and security strategies.

    Darfur was the saddest case in point in 2005. Two million people have been displaced, over 200,000 have died, thousands have been raped and the atrocities continue unabated. Intermittent attention and feeble action by the United Nations and the African Union fell pathetically short of what was needed in Darfur. China and Russia paralysed the UN Security Council to protect their oil interests and arms trade with Khartoum. The US was keen but its capacity was sapped by Iraq, and its moral authority tarnished by the war on terror.

    In a year in which the UN spent much of its time discussing reform and membership of the UN Security Council, it failed to give attention to the performance of two key members – China and Russia – who have consistently allowed their narrow political and economic interests to prevail over human rights and responsibilities domestically and internationally.

    Russia’s behaviour sent a strong message on human rights to its close neighbours. Its hostility to its own human rights defenders did not go unnoticed by other states with similar desires to clamp down on civil society. Russia supported Uzbekistan when it refused to allow an independent investigation into the Andizhan killings. Russia’s own approach to Chechnya was based on impunity for the abuses committed by its own security forces.

    China’s rise as a global economic power places upon it greater responsibility in international relations. But China continued to show little concern for human rights at home or abroad, entering into economic partnerships with some of the most repressive regimes around the world, and continuing to restrict human rights at home.

    2005 has been a year of contradictions – with signs of hope wrestling against failed promises and failures of leadership.

    The overall number of conflicts worldwide has been decreasing, thanks to international conflict management, prevention and peace-building initiatives, giving hope to millions of people in countries like Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

    In Nepal, resistance by human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders, on the one hand, and firm pressure from allies abroad on the other, forced the King to hand power back to Parliament.

    Despite the shortcomings of national judicial systems, the fight against impunity continues to gain new strength with steps being taken to bring Augusto Pinochet, Alberto Fujimori and Charles Taylor to justice. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first indictments against leaders of armed groups in northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    The much discredited UN human rights machinery was overhauled and a new Human Rights Council has been established.

    And in 2005 we saw an extraordinary display of solidarity and resistance across borders of human rights activists and ordinary people. From indigenous groups rallying in Latin America, to women asserting their rights in Asia, to mass demonstrations of migrants in US cities, the human rights idea – and the world-wide movement of people that drives it forward – is more powerful and stronger than ever.

    More and more, governments are being called to account: before legislatures, in courts and other public forums. Lines, however fragile, are being drawn. Voices are being raised. This offers hope for a more principled approach to human rights and security in the future. In the long-term, this growth of civil society and mass action bodes well for the protection of human rights. There is real potential here for change.

    As we look forward to 2006 it is clear that there are both opportunities and risks – through our campaigns we are putting four challenges.

    First, Guantánamo must close. President Bush should keep his word. His credibility will be held hostage until he ends this shameful symbol of US abuse of power. The US and its allies must disclose the names and locations of all others held in secret detention – the detainees should be prosecuted or released.

    Second, small arms are the real weapons of mass destruction. They fuel conflict, poverty and human rights abuses worldwide. The UN Review Conference this June is an opportunity for governments to agree to an Arms Trade Treaty. We call on all governments to support it.

    Third, the new UN Human Rights Council machinery will meet for the first time next month. It must not be tainted with old power games. It must insist on equal standards by all governments, whether in Darfur or Guantánamo, Chechnya or China.

    Finally, the killings, rape and displacement in Darfur must stop. The Darfour Peace Agreement contains strong human rights provisions that offer a way ahead, if properly implemented. But for it to work, the UN Security Council must urgently deploy UN peacekeepers, and must not allow itself to be manipulated by the government of Sudan. Pending their deployment, the African Union monitors must be supported by the international community to carry out their work. There is a particular responsibility on the Arab states to encourage Sudan to concede to the UN operation. Arab leaders do a disservice to themselves and their people when they use solidarity as a shield to avoid their human rights responsibilities.

    More than ever the world needs countries with power and influence to behave with responsibility and respect for human rights. Governments must stop playing games with human rights.



 

Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

Analysis: More than Bad Rulers and Corrupt Societies

Analysis: More than Bad Rulers and Corrupt Societies

By Khalid Baig

In the past centuries the Muslim world was much more integrated than we realize. It was one social, cultural, religious and economic domain. Its language, system of education, currency, and laws were the same.

 

When British journalist Robert Fisk said that in the face of disaster Arabs act like mice, he was being polite. He could have said that the Muslims act like mice. The question is why?

It is easy and customary to blame the current Muslim rulers for this sorry situation. No doubt the Iraq invasion would not have been possible without their acquiescence and support. If they refused to open their lands, waterways, and airspace to the invasion, it could not have taken place. Neither would the slaughters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosova, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine have been possible if the Muslim rulers had their act together. But was it only because the Muslim rulers happened to be immoral, coward, and unscrupulous characters? Is the 1.2 billion strong Ummah suffering only because there are fifty-four corrupt persons who are ruling it?

These rulers do not carry out all their plans personally. They have armies of compliant soldiers, bureaucrats, and other staffers at every level of government that do the dirty work. Further the societies at large produce, nurture, and sustain the corrupt machinery of the corrupt governments. As we continue our investigation, we find that our problem is corruption; not only of the rulers but also of the ruled. Today we have strayed from the Shariah in our personal lives; we lie, cheat, steal at a higher rate than ever before; we exploit and oppress in our small spheres. In short, our problems are caused by our moral corruption.

But there is something more. And it is getting scant attention in the Muslim discourse.

Islam teaches us the correctness of belief is even more important than correctness of deeds. There is an implied message here: The corruption of ideas is far more devastating than the corruption of actions. This may be happening here. We complain about the particular tribal leaders that happen to be there today but forget about the tribalism that sits at the root of all this. This tribalism of the nation-states has been enshrined into the constitutions, legal structures, bureaucracies, and the entire apparatus of government in every Muslim country. Its language and thinking, though anathema to Islam, has gained widespread acceptance. While we condemn its outcome, we do not sufficiently examine or challenge the system itself.

We complain about the particular tribal leaders that happen to be there today but forget about the tribalism that sits at the root of all this

 

We constantly talk about the Muslim brotherhood and the need for Muslim unity. We assert that Muslims are one Ummah. Simultaneously --- and without much thought --- we embrace the symbols, ideas, and dictates of its exact opposite. We have lived under our nation-states, celebrated our national days, and sang our national anthems all our lives. As a result the realization that the gap between the idea of the nation-state and that of one Ummah is wider than can be patched with good leaders of individual nation-states does not occur easily. We do not realize that we may be trying to simultaneously ride two different boats going in opposite directions.

So let us consider some real life situations. In Pakistan, the provinces of Sind and Punjab share the Indus River. Available water is less than their combined needs and Punjab is situated upstream while Sind is downstream. Quite naturally, there is constant bickering over the distribution of water. The conflict is resolved by the presence of a central government and by the realization that both provinces belong to the same country. Now imagine that the two provinces had been transformed into two separate countries. We can be certain that the small issue that no body in the world knows about or cares about today would become a big international conflict. And it may matter little whether they were called Islamic Republic of Punjab and the Islamic Republic of Sind! The logic of a sovereign country is very different and once you embrace that there are consequences that good intentions and good people alone cannot overcome.

When completed Turkey's Southeast Anatolia Project, (GAP in Turkey) will reduce water supply to Syria by 50% and to Iraq by 90%, selling it instead to Israel through the so-called Peace Pipeline. A comparable situation would be Punjab denying water to Sind and then selling it to India.

 

To understand that let us move from the Indus basin to the Furat-Dijla (Euphrates-Tigris) basin. What is presented as a hypothetical situation in the former has been turned into an unfortunate reality in the latter. Both Dijla and Furat originate in Turkey, pass through Syria, and end up in Iraq where they join to form the Shat-al Arab that then discharges into the Persian Gulf. Mesopotamia means the land between the two rivers, the two rivers having been the source of civilization since the ancient times. Add the artificial international borders between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, and the same life giving water turns into an explosive that could rock the area. In 1974 there was a near war between Syria and Iraq as Syria began to fill the reservoir that has become Lake Asad, decreasing the flow of the river to Iraq to as little as 25 percent of the normal rate. Armies were moved and threats were exchanged, though finally diplomatic activity by the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia defused the situation. In 1990 tensions ran high as Turkey stopped all flow in Furat for one complete month as it started to fill the Ataturk Dam.

Today Turkey's Southeast Anatolia Project, (GAP in Turkey) is promising a much more serious conflict in the days to come. The multi-billion dollar GAP includes more than 20 dams and 17 electric power plants, which will reduce water supply to Syria by 50% and to Iraq by 90% when it is completed in another twenty years. Even more bizarre is the plan Turkey has for part of the water that it denies to Syria and Iraq seriously endangering their agriculture and economies; it will sell it to Israel through the so-called Peace Pipeline that will run through the Mediterranean. The agreement with Israel was signed in 2001. "We have declared that we can sell water to whichever country needs water, regardless of its language or flag," said Cumhur Ersumer, Turkey's energy minister at that time. "It looks like Israel will be the first country to buy Turkey's water." That is the logic of the nation-state as articulated by Suleyman Demirel: "Neither Syria or Iraq can lay claim to Turkey's rivers any more than Ankara could claim their oil. This is a matter of sovereignty."

We can be sure that accountants in Turkey can show that Turkey will benefit economically by doing what it plans to do. And even a so-called Islamist party in Turkey will be driven by those calculations pledging, as it does, allegiance to "Turkish national interests." A comparable situation would be Punjab denying water to Sind and then selling it to India. No matter how corrupt leaders in Pakistan become (if they have not already reached the limit) it is just impossible to imagine that outcome. And yet the same situation is not only possible, it is there in the other case. Such are the wonders of the corrupt ideology of nation-state!

Conflicts of interest between any two entities are normal and natural. What is crucial is the mechanism and structure for resolving them. Islamic laws of inheritance highlight this fact. Conflicts could develop even among close relatives over distribution of inheritance. Since Islam values very smooth relations and does not like even the slightest bickering there, the Shariah has provided the detailed rules for this distribution. Neither the people involved, nor the government can override this distribution. Thus a solid mechanism has been provided for resolution of these conflicts.

In case of two provinces of the same country, the mechanism for the resolution of their conflicts remains in the form of the central government as well as firm realization on the part of everyone that they are riding the same boat. However when they turn into independent countries, both of these are lost.

How the definition of the self-interest can change with a change in the frame of reference can be seen through another example. When the US gave the Pakistani ruler the choice of either joining the invader or joining the target he did not hesitate for a minute to choose the first option. It can be criticized as much as one wants, but the fact remains that under the frame of reference under which Pakistan and all Muslim countries operate today, that was an option. But can we imagine the US demanding, or Pakistan conceding the support for attacking Baluchistan? This would clearly be seen as preposterous by everyone. As far as the Shariah is concerned, the two situations are exactly alike. But in the system of nation-states they are not.

The gap between the idea of the nation-state and that of one Ummah is wider than can be patched with good leaders of individual nation-states

 

That the opposition to what the Pakistani president did was manageable is also a reflection of the fact that Muslims the world over have generally and unwittingly bought into the philosophy of this nationalism.

The imposition of embargo on Afghanistan and Iraq is another example of the clash between Islam and the nation-state. Islam teaches that it is not a believer who eats while his neighbor goes to bed hungry. The system of the UN on the other hand, ordered its member-states not to supply any food or medicine to those dying of hunger and disease in Iraq. Again, the fact that Muslim countries have complied with the latter without any consternation or serious opposition is a reminder of our subconscious acceptance of the nationalist ideology.

We can see why world Muslims acted like mice in the face of disaster. The Qur'an warned us not to engage in disputes and infighting or we would become weak and powerless. But we have not only done the exact opposite, we have given a permanent structure and legal cover to the arrangement for that infighting in the current political organization of the Muslim domain.

This exposition of the ideology of nation-state invariably faces a mental block; namely that all this is impossible. This argument runs like this. We had a Khilafah centuries ago. Since then we have had a checkered history of nominal Khalifah, Sultans, and Nawabs running their own kingdoms and fiefdoms. Today we have fifty-four states and there is no way we can change that in our life times. Yes and no. While we had more then one centers of political power for centuries, the Muslim world was much more integrated then than we realize. It was one social, cultural, religious and economic domain. Its language, system of education, currency, and laws were the same. There were no restrictions on travel, or movement of capital or goods. A Muslim could take up residence and start a business or get a job anywhere. Ibn Batuta traveled from Tunisia to Hijaz, East Africa, India, Malaya, and China, covering 75000 miles without traveling the same road twice. During the twenty-five year journey he took up residence where he wanted to; got even government assignments as Qadi and even as ambassador in China for the Sultan in India. If that was possible then, it should be easier now because of the huge advances in the communication and transportation technologies alone.

The corruption of ideas is far more devastating than the corruption of actions.

 

No one is suggesting that we can dismantle the fifty-four Muslim governments overnight and replace them with a Khilafah. But we can gradually breakdown the barriers between the Muslim states in travel, trade, and all exchanges at personal levels. With free flow of people, goods, capital, and ideas throughout the Muslim domain, a quite revolution can begin. We could realize that this domain is much more self-sufficient and strong then we have ever realized. That its various parts complement each other's needs and strengthen each other. That it is the artificial borders between Muslim lands drawn by colonial powers that have terribly weakened it!

While we recognize that the barriers to that vision are real and very serious, we must also realize that the most serious barriers are mental and psychological. We must break through the mental straitjacket and realize that another world is possible. Only then we will begin to see how to get there. It may take a generation or many generations. But we will never get there if we do not know that is where we want to go. Today sometimes Muslims say out of frustration that Muslim governments should form their own United Nations. The suggestion does capture our deep desire for unity as well as our deep running confusion about it. For it has one s too many. The Islamic discourse should be about a United Nation of theirs and not United Nations.

Reference url: http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/corrupt_societies_rulers.shtml

Trust in Allah


  

Trust in Allah, the Glorious, the Exalted

Muhammad (s.a.a.w.) preached to the people to trust in Allah (swt). His whole life was a sublime example of the precept. In the loneliness of Makkah, in the midst of persecution and danger, in adversity and tribulations, and in the thick of enemies in the battles of Uhud and Hunain, complete faith and trust in Allah (swt) appears as the dominant feature in his life. However great the danger that confronted him, he never lost hope and never allowed himself to be unduly agitated. Abu Talib knew the feelings of the Quraish when the Prophet (s.a.a.w.) started his mission. He also knew the lengths to which the Quraish could go, and requested the Prophet (s.a.a.w.) to abandon his mission, but the latter calmly replied,

"Dear uncle, do not go by my loneliness. Truth will not go unsupported for long. The whole of Arabia and beyond will one day espouse its cause." [Ibn Hisham, Sirat-ur-Rasul]

Read more...

Competing in Sin

 

If there is a phrase that can describe the world today, it has to be "Competing in Sin!"

Many Muslim governments, groups and individuals have taken an un-Islamic path and are trying to do what non-Muslim governments, groups and individuals are doing. It is a competition in sin and Muslims are losing. About fourteen hundred years ago, one of the most beloved person of the Muslim ummah, Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote a letter to a military commander and said:

Sin is even more dangerous than the ruses/tricks of the enemy. Amirul-Momineen bids upon Mansur that instead of taking fright of his enemy, he should fear transgressing the limits of Allah T’ala. We overcome our enemies in the battlefield only because of their vices and sins, for, had it not been so, we would not have had the courage to face them. We can not deploy troops in the same numbers as our enemies can do, nor do we possess the equipments they have got. Thus, if we equate ourselves with our enemies in misdeeds and transgressions, they would undoubtedly gain a victory over us by virtue of their numerical superiority and strength.  

Competing in Sin!

{tab= 1. Outline} 

Outline

  • Surah Al-Teen
  • Comments on asfala safeleen
  • A careful analysis of Current world crises and the state of the Muslim Ummah is needed.
  • One of the letters of Umar bin Abdul Aziz to his military commander may give us an understanding.
  • Statistics
  • The sentences from the letter again
  • Ayah on unjust killing


 

 

سورة التين - سورة 95

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

1.     وَالتِّينِ وَالزَّيْتُونِ

2.     وَطُورِ سِينِينَ

3.     وَهَذَا الْبَلَدِ الْأَمِينِ

4.     لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ

5.     ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِينَ

6.     إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ فَلَهُمْ أَجْرٌ غَيْرُ مَمْنُونٍ

7.     فَمَا يُكَذِّبُكَ بَعْدُ بِالدِّينِ

8.     أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِأَحْكَمِ الْحَاكِمِينَ

THE FIG, THE FIGTREE, CHAPTER NO. 095

With the Name of Allah, the Merciful Benefactor, The Merciful Redeemer

095.001 By the Fig and the Olive,

095.002 And the Mount of Sinai,

095.003 And this City (Makkah) of security,-

095.004 We have indeed created man in the best of moulds,

095.005 Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low,-

095.006 Except such as believe and do righteous deeds: For they shall have a reward unfailing.

095.007 Then what can, after this, contradict thee, as to the judgment (to come)?

095.008 Is not Allah the wisest of judges?

 

Yes Indeed!

 

This Surah tells us, among other things, that if a person does not have the true faith (Eiman) and is not striving for righteous deeds (amal-us-saleh), using The Holy Quran and Sunnah as The Guidance, then even though every person is created by the best of moulds, that person becomes the lowest of the low!   Asfala Safileen.

Islam is taken as a complete way of life. Righteous deeds therefore are not limited to prayers, Zakat and fasting.

{tab=2. An African Boy & a Vulture} 

The world we live in todayis filled with great number of occurrences of brutalities, blood baths and destructions caused by people. So many by Muslims, but so many more by non-Muslims. So if I can give a topic to this article, it is Muslims “Competing in Sin” with non-Muslims.

Our spiritually living hearts are feeling great pain at the sufferings of humanity caused by many governments, deviant groups and individuals. Today, a man may feel safer in a jungle surrounded by wild beasts than in many human societies. Wolves are claiming to be shepherds and they are complaining that the sheep is bad.

 

Look at the picture below very carefully:

 

 

In this 1994 Pulitzer Prize winning photograph, an African boy, nothing but a skeleton, was trying to crawl towards a U.N. Food Shelter, about one kilometer away. Behind his back, a few yards away was a vulture waiting for the boy to die to feast. The vulture did not attack the living boy. It could have. But it has God-given law that it follows. Even the animals have law of God that they obey. Not the man. So many governments, groups and individuals have become worst than the vultures!

{tab=3. Umar bin Abdul Aziz}

Umar bin Abdul Aziz (r.a.)

One way to understand the current world crises is by what Umar bin Abdul Aziz (r.a.) said in a letter he sent to one of his military commanders named Mansur. His words show his deep understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. You will see how it is so applicable today, even though he said so about 1400 years ago.

In his letter, he says that “sin is even more dangerous than the ruses/tricks of the enemy. Amirul-Momineen bids upon Mansur that instead of taking fright of his enemy, he should fear transgressing the limits of Allah T’ala. We overcome our enemies in the battlefield only because of their vices and sins, for, had it not been so, we would not have had the courage to face them. We can not deploy troops in the same numbers as our enemies can do, nor do we possess the equipments they have got.

Thus, if we equate ourselves with our enemies in misdeeds and transgressions, they would undoubtedly gain a victory over us by virtue of their numerical superiority and strength.”

About fourteen hundred years ago, Umar bin Abdul Aziz told us that when we compete in sins, we loose! We loose in the Akhirah and we loose in this world. And certainly, the loss in the Hereafter is far greater than any loss in this world!

{tab=4. Some Statistics} 

SOME STATISTICS:

To understand this point further, I want to give you a brief on some statistics, especially from the twentieth century. These statistics come from an article, titled, “Christian versus Muslim Violence in History.”

 

We can look at the start of Christianity and see how millions of Christians were tortured and killed by Christians, but let us just pick a few major events from the history.

 

The Crusades

The European armies were saying, as they slaughtered Jews and both Christian and Muslim Arabs: “Kill them all, God will know his own.”

Europe's Reformation and Counter Reformation Era

Two thirds of the Christian population of Europe was slaughtered by Christians

The African slave trade

Claimed the lives of 10 million

The Colonial Conquests

Estimates for the number of Native Americans slaughtered by the Europeans in North, Central and South America run as high as 20 million within three generations.

The 20th century's Western Civilization took warfare to new extremes

A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20th century at more than 250 million. Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these! The greatest death totals come from World War I  and World War II. In World War I, about 20 million killed, at least 90% of which were inflicted by “Christians”. In World War II ( 90 million, at least 50% of which were inflicted by “Christians,” the majority of the rest occurring in the Far East).

In the 20th century alone

 

Western and/or Christian powers have been responsible for at least twenty times more deaths than have Muslim powers in the whole of Islamic history.

In the 20th century, Rawanda, 1994

Witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian

1992-1995 Bosnia

The genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on these and other events, the article draws a conclusion:

“The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Even so, Muslims will never associate this violence and blood bath with the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him).”

When we look at recent brutal events, we find that Muslims killed Muslims in Iraq-Iran war and Iraq-Kuwait war. Additionally, certain deviant groups of Muslims caused the tragedy of 9/11, hijacked planes, killed innocent civilians, and some of which is still going on.

These are events as if these people and groups are trying to compete in sin!

As a result of some of these evil events, non-Muslim governments and groups have killed several hundred thousand people in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

{tab=5. Conculding Remarks}

CONCLUSIONS:

As far as unjust killings are concerned, let us remember what the Holy Quran says:

 

Speaking about the first murder committed by a son of Adam, Allah T’ala says in Surah 5, Ayat 32:

 

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ

 فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاء تْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا

 بِالبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ

5.32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

This ayah teaches us that ONE unjust killing is one too many!

This commandment applies to the Israelites, to the followers of Jesus (a.s.) and to Muslims.

 But who is following it?

Muslims should, even if no one else does.

 

Islam is a message for the salvation of humanity. It is to save not to destroy people. Islam is not terrorism. It is not for self revenge. It is not hate, it is love. Law of Islam is based on The Holy Quran and Sunnah. It is not what others do. There is a strict code of Law even in wars.  [Read at http://www.islam101.com/rights/hrM4.htm ]

 

Those Muslims who go against the teachings of Prophet Muhammad(s.a.a.w.) and commit crimes against humanity have to face Allah T'ala one day and answer to the Almighty. We all do! There is a Day of Judgment for all mankind! Let us be true followers of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w.). Let us not compete in sins!

Ishaq Zahid

Sept. 1, 2006

{/tabs}

Concept of Lord God by the Pharaoh and his People

User Rating:  / 6
PoorBest 

 

Concept of Lord God by the Pharaoh and his People

Next, we come to the Pharaoh and his people, regarding whom there are even greater misconceptions than in the case of Namrud and his people. The view generally held is that the Pharaoh not only denied the existence of God but himself claimed to be God, that is, that he had become so misled as to presume to be the creator of the heavens and the earth, and that his people too were so bereft of reason as to unquestioningly subscribe to such claim. The Holy Qur'an and history both show, on the contrary, that there was little difference between his people and those of Namrud in regard to their beliefs about God as both the Ilah and the Rabb. The only difference was the existence of a racial bias against the Bani-Israel which prompted the Egyptians to refuse, to openly acknowledge God as the Ilah and the Rabb, although they knew that He existed, as do also many a professing atheist in our own day.

The facts are that, after being vested by the king with high authority, Hazrat Yousuf (on whom be peace) had striven to the utmost to bring the people to the path of Islam, and the impact of his efforts had lasted right down to the time of Hazrat Musa (peace be upon him). Even though everybody had not come to embrace the true faith, there was nobody after Hazrat Yousuf's time entirely ignorant of God's existence or of His being the sole Creator of the heavens and the earth. Not only that, but Hazrat Yousuf's teachings had also inculcated in everybody the notion of His being both the, ilah and the Rabb in the supernatural sense, so that there was none who denied His existence. As to those who had stuck to their beliefs, even their error consisted in associating others with Him. And the impact of these teachings had not quite died out even till the time of Hazrat Musa (Moses, on whom be peace) [If one were to believe in what is slated in the Old Testament, it would appear that about one-fifth of the population of Egypt had come to accept, over the course of time, the faith of Hazrat Yousuf (on whom be peace). The total number of the Israelites who left Egypt with Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) is stated to have been about two million, while the total population of Egypt armor at that time have been more than a hundred million. Unfortunately all these two million are referred to, in the Old Testament as the children of Israel, which seems impossible because, surely, the descendants or the twelve sons of Hazrat Yaqoob (Jacob, on whom be peace) cannot have risen to two million even in about four centuries. The only plausible inference one can draw from this is that a large number of non-Israelis too had accepted the religion of the Israelis-which, of course was, essentially, the religion of Islam-and had left the country along with the Israelis. (The number, incidentally, shows pointedly the extent of the tabligh work done by Hazrat Yousuf and his successors). A. A. Maududi]. This fact is clearly proved by the speech made by a Coptic noble at the court of the Pharaoh, who had become a Muslim but had not declared his faith openly and who, on learning of the Pharaoh's determination to have Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) put to death, protested boldly in the following words:

Would you people kill a person for the reason only that he says that his Rabb is Allah alone, and despite the fact that he comes to you with manifest signs from your Rabb? If he lies, then upon him be his lies. And if be should be telling the truth, then surely some of what he warns you against is bound to smite you. Verily, Allah does not guide aright any who exceeds all limits in lying. True, my people, the land is yours, but who will save us if Allah's chastisement should come down upon us? I fear grievously that you may suffer a fate the like of that which overtook, mighty nations before, like the people of Nuh, the Aad and the Thamud, and others after them (who wont wrong)... And there was also the time that Yousuf came to yon with clear signs (from God) but you continued to harbor doubts , but when he died you said that Allah would not send another prophet after him. .. And, is it not strange, my people, that while I call you to the path of salvation you call me to the one which leads to (the) fire (of Hell)? What you would have me do is to commit kufr in regard to Allah, and to associate those with him regarding whom I know not for sure that they are His associates; My call to you is that you turn to the One (God) Who is the Mighty and the Oft Forgiving ! (Quran 40:28-40)

This whole speech bears witness that despite the passing of several centuries, the impact of the great personality of Hazrat Yousuf (on whom be peace) had persisted and, due to his teachings, the Egyptians had not yet sunk so low in ignorance as to be entirely unacquainted with the existence of God or to not know Him as being the Rabb and the Ilah, or that He is the Lord and master of all Nature and that His wrath is something to be feared. The last sentence in fact clearly shows that they did not deny God's being the Ilah and the Rabb totally but that they erred in associating others with him.

The only thing which might tend to cast doubt on the above explanation is that, when Hazrat Musa use (on whom be peace) had announced to the Pharaoh that he and his brother Hazrat Haroon (Aaron, peace be upon him) had been sent to him as the messengers of the Rabb-al'aalameen (the Lord of the worlds), He had countered with the question, "And who might this Rabb-al-'aalameen be?" He had also ordered his minister, Haman, to build him a skyscraper that he might look at Hazrat Musa's Ilah from its heights, had threatened to put Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) in jail if he took anyone other than him (the Pharaoh) as his Ilah had caused it to be proclaimed to all the people throughout the land that he was their supreme rabb (obviously lest their beliefs be affected by Hazrat Musa's teachings), had told his nobles that he knew of no-one but himself to be their ilah, and so on. Utterances like these might no doubt give the impression that he denied the existence of God altogether, had no conception of Rabb-al-aalameen, and regarded himself as the only ilah (in the world).

The fact, however, seems to be that his whole attitude was inspired by his racial prejudices. Hazrat Yousuf (on whom be peace) had not only been the cause of the spread of Islam, but the prestige of his high office had also been instrumental in the Israelis' coming to occupy a dominant position in the land which they had held for three or four hundred years. Then germs of Egyptian nationalism had begun to sprout, until at last the Israelites were dethroned from their position and a nationalist Egyptian dynasty became the ruler. The new rulers did not stop at merely downgrading the Israelites. They also took deliberate steps to wipe out all vestiges of the times of Hazrat Yousuf (on whom be peace) and to revive the civilization and culture of their own former Age of Ignorance. Therefore, when against this background Hazrat Musa, an Israeli, presented himself as messenger from God, they naturally apprehended that the Israelis might recover their former prestige and dominance and they themselves lose their newly retrieved authority. It was because of these fears and the Egyptian's nationalist and racial prejudices and the consequent natural hostility between the two peoples that the Pharaoh attempted repeatedly to confuse and perplex Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) so as to abort his mission. When, for example, he asked, "And who might this Rabb-al-'aalameen be?" It was not that he did not know what the words meant or Who was referred to. He certainly did know, as his own words on other occasions show. For example, once, in trying to reassure his own people that Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) was not a Divine messenger, he raised the objection:

(And if he be a prophet), why have not golden bracelets been sent down for him, or why did not angels follow him in procession? (Quran 43:53)

Can such words have been uttered by a person devoid of any notion of God or the angels? On yet another occasion, the following words passed between him and Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace):

Then said (the Pharaoh) to him: "I can only think that you have lost your reason." (To which) Musa replied; "You know very well that it is none other than the Lord of the Worlds Who has sent down these manifest, signs, and I (on my part,) believe that you, O Pharaoh, are doomed." (Quran 17:101-102)

In another place in the Qur'an God describes the mental state of the Pharaoh's people in the following words:

And when our signs became absolutely manifest to them, they said: "This surely is magic." Inwardly, their hearts had become convinced (that it was not magic but the Truth), but they refused to acknowledge this out of sheer mischief and willful rebellion. (Quran 27:13,11)

Also:

Then Muss said to them: "Woe unto you; Forge not a lie against God; for (if you do) He will destroy you by chastisement; and whoever has committed forgery has only suffered frustration. On hearing which they began to dispute among themselves and held secret counsels, wherein it was said: "This surely is a pair of magicians aiming at driving you away from your land and doing away with your cherished traditions and way of life." (Quran 20:61-63)

They could only have begun to dispute, on being warned of Divine chastisement and of the punishment for forging lies, because there still endured in their hearts some remnants of the notion of God's greatness and might and some fear of Him. But when the ruling racist nationalists spoke of a possible political revolution in case they adopted the faith of Musa (on whom be peace) and raised the specter of fresh Israeli domination over Egypt, their hearts became hardened once again, and they unanimously decided to defy both the Prophets.

This point having been settled, we can now easily get at the real basis of the dispute between Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) and the Pharaoh, see wherein lay the latter's error and of his people, and in what sense did he claim to be ilah and rabb. In this connection, the verses in the Qur'an which appear to be relevant, are set out below:

1. On one occasion the war-mongers among the courtiers asked the Pharaoh:

Would you give Musa and his people free rein to spread disruption in the land to give up your ilah? [Some commentators have read the word aalihatika in verse 7:127 as ilahatika on the supposition only that the Pharaoh himself claimed to be the Lord of the world, and have interpreted the word ilaha to mean worship. In other words, they translate the verse to mean "to give up yourself and your worship". However, in the first place, this reading of the word is rare and contrary to the general reading. In the second, the very supposition on which it is based is wrong ab initio. In the third, ilaha can, besides worship, mean goddess also, and this word was in fact used in Arabia in the Age of Ignorance for the sun. We know that to the Egyptians it was the sun which was the supreme god, whom they called Ra, and the word Pharaoh actually meant descendant, or incarnation, of Ra, so that the Pharaoh, claimed to be incarnations of the Sun god Ra. A. A. Maududi] (Quran 7:127)

As against this, the one who had affirmed belief in Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace), said to the others What you want is that I deny God, and associate those with Him regarding whom I have no valid proof (of any divine status). (Quran 40:42)

When we study these verses against the background of what we know from archaeological research, we can only conclude that both the Pharaoh himself and his people associated some of their gods with the One God who is the only Rabb, in the first and second senses of rububiyyah, and gave their worship to them on that basis. Obviously, if the Pharaoh had claimed to be god in the supernatural sense, that is, if he had presumed to be the ruler of the entire universe and believed in none other than himself to be the ilah and the rabb of the earth and the heavens, he would not have needed to worship any god at all.

2. The Qur'an also reports the Pharaoh to have said:

(i) To his nobles: "(As for me) I know of no ilah for you except myself." (Quran 28:38)

(ii) To Hazrat Musa (peace be upon him): "If you take anyone other than me to be your ilah I shall surely throw you in prison." (Quran 26:29)

These words do not mean that the Pharaoh denied the existence of any ilah but himself. He meant only to reject the call of Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace). This call was to God not only as the Ilah in the supernatural sense but also as the Supreme Sovereign and the ultimate Law-giver in all matters whether political, cultural, or social. The Pharaoh on the other hand held that there was no ilah but himself in political and cultural and social matters, and at the same time threatened Hazrat Musa that if he took anyone else as his ilah in this sense he would find himself in prison.

These verses also show, and this again is borne out both by history and archaeological discoveries, that the Pharaohs of Egypt did not stop at claiming absolute sovereignty but, by claiming kinship with gods, had also pretensions to a special sanctity, so as to further strengthen their holdover men's minds and hearts. In this, of course, they were not exceptional, because there have been many dynasties which too have, besides assuming absolute sovereignty, laid claim to a measure of divinity, and made it incumbent, on their subjects to perform various acts of worship before them. However, this was actually something of secondary importance only, because the real purpose was always to consolidate their own authority and the claim to possess a degree of divinity was only a means towards that end. And that is why the godhood of all these dynasties came forthwith to an end, in Egypt and elsewhere, the moment their temporal rule ended. If at all, the spiritual over lordship was transferred to the new occupants of the throne.

3. The Pharaoh's real claim was not to godhood in the spiritual, but in the political sense. It was in the third, and fifth senses of rububiyyah that he claimed to be the overlord of Egypt and its people, to be master of the country and all that there was in it, to the exclusion of all others and to have the absolute right to rule as he pleased. His alone was the supreme authority, and he alone the fountain-head of all cultural and social life in Egypt. None else had the right to speak in these matters, and to say what people might do, and what they might not. The basis for the claim, according to the Qur'an, was as follows:

And the Pharaoh proclaimed throughout Egypt: "Am I not the lord of this land? And do not the rivers in this country flow under me? Do you not all see this (and believe in what) I say!" (Quran 43:51)

This was the same basis on which Namrud had rested his claim to be a rabb-"(He having pretensions of his own) disputed with Ibrahim as to He Whom the latter regarded as his Rabb and on the basis only that Allah had bestowed him with kingship"-and on the same basis too had the king who ruled Egypt during the time of Hazrat Yousuf (on whom be peace) held himself out as the rabb of his people.

4. The real dispute which lay between Hazrat Musa, (on whom be peace) and the Pharaoh and his nobles, etc., was that the former called the people to believe in no-one as being in any degree an ilah or a rabb, in any sense of these terms, except Allah, the Lord of the Worlds (Rabb-al-'aalameen), Who alone was the Ilah and the Rabb in the supernatural sense and in political social and cultural matters too. He alone was worthy of worship, and His Word alone was the Law. Hazrat Musa (on whom be peace) also announced that it was none other than Allah Who had sent him to the Pharaoh and his people as His representative, to make known His Commandments through him. The reins of authority should therefore be in his hands and not in those of the Pharaoh (who, be it remembered, was a rebel against God). And this led the Pharaoh and his nobles, naturally, to claim that the two brothers (Hazrat Musa, and Hazrat Haroon, may peace be upon both) wanted to dispossess them of their authority and to rule over the land themselves, to root out the existing creed and culture, and install their own:

And We indeed sent Musa with our Signs, and clear tokens of authority to the Pharaoh and his nobles but the people obeyed the word of the Pharaoh, though he (certainly) was not in the right. (Quran 11:96-97)

And We had previously put Pharaoh's people through a test; a noble prophet had come to them, and said to them: "Make over authority over Allah's creatures to me; 1 am to yon a Divine Messenger and worthy of all trust, and so be not arrogant against God, for I come to you with authority (which is) manifest." (Quran 44:17-19)

(And, O people of Makkah:) Verily We have sent to you a messenger, who will bear witness over you, in just the same way that We sent a messenger to the Pharaoh; then the Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger, and (for this) We seized hold of him most woefully. (Quran 73:15-16)

The Pharaoh asked: "(And, if you do not acknowledge either our gods or the Royal family to be your rabbs, then who, after all, is your Rabb?") "The same," replied, Musa, "Who gave everything in creation its own peculiar structure, shape, and qualities, and then taught man how to put them to his use." (Quran 20:49-50)

The Pharaoh asked, "And who might this Rabb-al- 'aalameen (Lord of the Worlds) be?" And Musa, replied: "The Lord of the heavens and the earth, and whatever is between them-if you were only to believe." Do you hear?" the Pharaoh asked those around him. "The Lord of all of you," added Musa, "and of all your predecessors too." "This (self-styled Divine) messenger," remarked the Pharaoh, is verily a mad person." "The Lord of the East and of the West," retorted Musa, "and of all that is between them if you only had the true understanding". To which the Pharaoh could only reply, "Take heed, O' Musa If you dare take anyone other than me as your ilah, you certainly shall find yourself in prison." (Quran 20:23-29)

The Pharaoh asked. "Have you come to us that you should drive us out of our land, with (the help, or the threat of the use of) your magic, O Musa?" (Quran 20:57)

And the Pharaoh said "Let me do with Musa as I wish - to have him put to death-and then let him call to his Rabb to save him, for I very much fear that he will change your creed or disturb the peace of the land." (Quran 40:26)

They (the Pharaoh's nobles) said: "They (Musa and Haroon) are both (nothing but) magician, who wish to drive you out of your land by the force of their magic, and to do away with your most excellent way of life." (Quran 20:63)

The above verses bring out clearly the fact that in the land of the Nile too there prevailed the very same misconception with regard to rububiyyah as had existed among other peoples of old, and that the message of Hazrat Musa and Hazrat Haroon (on whom both be peace) to the Egyptians was also the same as of the prophets before them to their own respective people.

Short Quotes

Mercy

"And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to mankind" (The Holy Quran, Al-Anbiyah, The Prophets 21:107)