Politics: U.S. Media

The United States has to be the biggest troll on the face of the planet.

The Problem with Sunnism

...is that their religion is based entirely off countering Shi'a Islam. Their translators purposely manipulate the Qur'an and even their own hadith to support their cause. Their fatwas are published for the sole reason of admonishing Shi'a acts.

Ask Muhammad abd al Wahab the change he wanted to see in the world (and which he sadly got). It's to see and end to every opposition to Sunnism -- not to spread Allah's deen, kitab, or rasa2lah for the betterment of mankind.

Why else would he side with the British in destroying the once great Ottoman Empire?
Why else would he side with the greedy Sauds?

Their religion is based off of hate and opposition.
What kind of [objective] religion is that?

What is the difference between Islam-Shi'a and Sunnism?

I. Shi'a Islam existed before any political strifes, murders, or battles ensued. In fact, the term "Sunnism" didn't begin to appear until years after Shi'as referred themselves as "Shi'at Ali" (at the time, they were "Shi'at Uthman / Muawiyah" but they won't tell you that :p).

II. Shi'a Islam was not influenced by any other figures of history than that of the first thirteen infallibles (Prophet Muhammad, Lady Fatima, Imam Ali, and the rest of Imams who have preceded us).

Abdullah ibn Saba is a fabrication created by Wahabbites, and expanded through Sunnites, to demean the Shi'i name. Many scholars deny his significance in any form of Islam.

III. The problem of succession leading up to the martyrdom of Imam Hussain are what made Shi'a Islam more manifest. At the death of Imam Hussain, Shi'as realized that they could no longer respectfully integrate themselves with the actions of the so-called "Islamic" Caliphate.

IV. The problem was much more fundamental. It was a question of how to interpret Islam, and only two approaches were constructed:

• Zaheri - meaning exoteric, or the idea that knowledge of Islam is objective, can be learned by anyone and acquired by anyone. Therefore, any leaders (or Imams) are justified if they claim to be so.

The problem for Zaheri thought, as can be seen in Sunnism, is that a large number of madhhabs came into existence -- each for Shari'a alone, Sufism, and Sunnism.

Yet somehow, all of the differing interpretations brought along by those less qualified are somehow expected to be considered "one" and represent Islam.

Despite the contradictions.
Despite the fallacies.
Despite the obvious incongruousness with the standards set by the Qur'an al Kareem.

The SECOND interpretation approach was...

• Bateni - which means esoteric in English, and states that knowledge of Islam can only be harbored by some. This is where the Imamate was justified. It has been a transcendental theme throughout the history Islam (starting from the very first prophets/messengers) and was especially crucial after the Prophet Muhammad, since he is the last prophet of Islam.

The Imamate has been justified through many sources and is logically competent on its own.

V. Hence, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the question wasn't **who** would be his successor, but what the function, qualifications, and nature of such a person should be...i.e. a man of Ahl al-Bayt.

The Status of Non-Arabs During the Ummayad Dynasty: Part I

Muslim and Sunnite perspectives on racism:

*al-Qur'an 49:13}

• O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). 

*al-Bukhari}

• "An Arab is no better than a non-Arab. In return, a non-Arab is no better than an Arab. A red raced man was not better than a black one except in piety. Mankind are all Adam's children and Adam was created out of clay."

However, these guidances seemed to have eluded a "knowledgable" sahabi such as Muawiya.
The evidence goes as following-

I. Western Historian's Opinions

Patrick Clawson, a prominent Islamic scholar, states, 

• "The Iranians chafed under Umayyid rule. The Umayyids rose from traditional Arab aristocracy. They tended to marry other Arabs, creating an ethnic stratification that discriminated against Iranians. Even as Arabs adopted traditional Iranian bureaucracy, Arab tribalism disadvantaged Iranians."
  

The conquest of Persia and beyond was thus seemingly intended to raise new revenues.

Naturally, the native population did not appreciate this exploitation. Many Arab Muslims under the Ummayad Dynasty believed that Iranian converts should not clothe themselves as Arabs, among many other forms discrimination that existed.

II. Muawiyah and the Banu Ummaya's Opinion of Non-Arabs

In his famous letter to Ziyad ibn Abih, Muawiyah stated,

• "Be watchful of Iranian Muslims and never treat them as equals of Arabs. Arabs have a right to take in marriage their women, but they have no right to marry Arab women. Arabs are entitled to inherit their legacy, but they cannot inherit from an Arab. As far as possible they are to be given lesser pensions and lowly jobs. In the presence of an Arab, a non-Arab shall not lead the congregation prayer, nor they are to be allowed to stand in the first row of prayer, nor to be entrusted with the job of guarding the frontiers or the post of a qadi."

 Source:

1. "Ansab al Ashraf" or "Futuh al-Buldan" by Baladhuri. p.417 

 Note: Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri was a Sunnite Persian historian who spent most of his life in Baghdad, Iraq. He is one of the most eminent Islamic scholars and is regarded as extremely reliable by modern day scholars. Although he is Persian, he has always maintained strong sympathies for Arabs -- hence there is no evidence for his bias in his description of Muawiyah's regime.

Mistreatment of Persians and other non-Arabs during early Islam is well documented. To begin with, the Umayyids did not recognize equal rights of a Mawali and believed that only "pure Arab blood" was worthy of ruling.
Neither did they make any effort to mend relations with the Mawali after making declarations like,

• "We blessed you with the sword (referring to the conquests) and dragged you into heaven by chains of our religion. This by itself is enough for you to understand that we are superior to you."

Source:

1. ممتحن ، حسینعلی ، نهضت شعوبیه جنبش ملی ایرانیان در برابر خلافت اموی و عباسی ، تهران : باورداران ، چاپ دوم ، 1368

 The Mawalis were even prohibited from having Kunya nomenclature!

• "During the early centuries of Islam when the Islamic empire was really an 'Arab kingdom', the Iranians, Central Asians and other non-Arab peoples who had converted to Islam in growing numbers as Mawali or 'clients' of an Arab lord or clan, had in practice acquired an inferior socio-economic and racial status compared to Arab Muslims, though the Mawali themselves fared better than the empire's non-Muslim subjects, the Ahl al-dhimma ('people of the book'). The Mawali, for instance, paid special taxes, often similar to the jizya (poll tax) and the kharaj (land tax) levied on the Zoroastrians and other non-Muslim subjects, taxes which were never paid by the Arab Muslims."

Source:

1.  زیدان، جرجی، تاریخ تمدن اسلام ، ترجمه علی جواهرکلام، تهران: امیرکبیر ، چاپ نهم

The Ummayid even killed those who did not speak Arabic,

• وقتی قتبیه بن مسلم سردار حجاج، بار دوم بخوارزم رفت و آن را باز گشود هرکس را که خط خوارزمی می نوشت و از تاریخ و علوم و اخبار گذشته آگاهی داشت از دم تیغ بی دریغ درگذاشت و موبدان و هیربدان قوم را یکسر هلاک نمود و کتابهاشان همه بسوزانید و تباه کرد تا آنکه رفته رفته مردم امی ماندند و از خط و کتابت بی بهره گشتند و اخبار آنها اکثر فراموش شد و از میان رفت
  • "When Qutaibah bin Muslim under the command of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomever wrote the Khwarazmian native language that knew of the Khwarazmian history, science and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing and hence their history was mostly forgotten.

Source:

1. Biruni. From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية)

Western Commentary on Islam: Leo Tolstoy

Islam: Western Perspectives of the Sunnite-Shi'a Split

Spend your time reading the following reviews for this book (upon which I happened to stumble) -

Amazon

My favorite: "If you don't know the background of the Sunni-Shi'a split, it seems to be a strange custom.

The reasons cannot be told in sound bites. Their sadness results from the disrespectful treatment of the Prophet's family for two generations. The complex series of events culminates in extreme cruetly at Karbala."

Politics: Ayatollah Khomeini

Radi Allah anhu

Warning: the things which you're about to read and discover may bring you to one terrifying realization: it is probable that everything you've ever read about Khomeini and Iran was written by people who didn't bother to read what the Imam himself actually wrote about the revolution he led.

No man in history has been ever so systematically slandered than this man.

Your typical Western reader will approach Khomeini with one standard -- an exclusive comfort to political theories which are only concerned with questions of sovereignty, exception, and checks + balances on abuses of power. Hence, such a reader will automatically interpret Khomeini's Islamic Platonism as, in essence, extremely dangerous.

No doubt, the Islamic Revolution has since marked its failure within his era -- but there is a lot to be optimistic about.

Khomeini was very egalitarian; within the political, social, and even economic facets of his nation. At every turn, he tried to reject sectarianism and willfully attempted to include Sunnites, Jews, and Christians in his revolutionary plan.


He was also incredibly democratic. The ulama were not in place because they were some kind of dynasty -- established through hierarchy (such as the House of Saud) -- but rather through prestige, merit, respect, and taqwa. And subsequently, the need for "checks and balances" diminished with such a trustworthy cabinet.


Khomeini wrote about relinquishing the Shah from a scholarly point of view; the Shah was incompetent and, quite frankly, very foolish. Khomeini sought to battle opposites with opposites, and in doing so, he sought to enlarge the role of intellectualism in society.

You'd be shocked at how rich Khomeini's ideals were. How it lacked the moral bankruptcy that ever so marks the politics of the Ba'ath (Iraq) and the Wahabbis (Saudi Arabia).


"Everything," Khomeini writes, "is in the name of Allah."

Islam: Sunnite or Shi'a -- why Muhammad al-Wahab would still hate you

What many people fail to realize about this man, Muhammad al-Wahab, is that despite the fact that you or anyone else may support, follow, or worship admire him, it's very likely that he will deem you as an untrue Muslim --

• Reason 1}

al-Wahab professed that any idea added to Islam after its third century of existence (i.e. ~950 CE) was bid'aa. That automatically rules out Shi'aas and Sufis. Also those who admire any of the following men are also promoting bid'aa:
al-Ghazali
ibn Sina (Avicenna)
al-Kindi (Alkindus)
ibn Tufail

• Reason 2}

al-Wahab passionately countered modernity, secularism, and the Enlightenment -- three topics which are inevitable influence on just about any human being (Muslim or not).

--If you live in the west, you are a munafiq

--If you brush your teeth with a toothbrush instead of a miswaak, you are a munafiq

--If you actually think for yourself instead of blindly following mullahs, you are a munafiq

--If you resist their violence against you or your masjids, you are a munafiq

--If you are a woman and go out to the store on your own, you are a munafiq

--If you don't love Yazid, Muawiyah, Abu Sufyan, or Hind, you are a kaafir

• Reason 3}

al-Wahab compares the world outside of his extremism to era of Jahiliyah, and therefore many of us are not "true Muslims at all."

Yes, that's right, you're no better than the pagan Arabs to whom the Prophet was sent; Wahab ironically compares himself to the Prophet by exaggerating his struggle to revert this jahil world back to righteousness -- sounds like shirk, n'est-ce pas?

• Reason 4}

al-Wahab stated that it is indeed halal to kill the "untrue" Muslims, as defined by reason three. Hence, you, your family, and probably many of your friends (Muslim or not) deserve to be killed.

And if you are not killing for the sake of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, then you are also a munafiq.

• Reason 5}

If you are not a Wahabbi and do not follow the way of the Salafs to the strictest / extremist standards, then you're basically screwed in the hearafter and...oh yeah...a munafiq.

• Reason 6}

al-Wahab stated that those who remain passive to their unIslamic authorities (whether you live in a Muslim country or not) are also jahil until the day they choose the exterminate all of the untrue Muslims and overthrow their governments in favor of a Wahabbist administration.

Are you doing any of that?

If not, then you are a munafiq.

Oh you who believe!...do not kill yourselves

Allah is merciful with you.

If they are right, then why all the murders, corruption, and hate?

I am not feeling it.
I can tell you this now, they -- the ubiquitous they -- have imitated Christians almost to the point where they surpass them.

Why the death?
Really, compiled all together, they should be termed genocides.

But neither the West nor the East care. That's the saddest part of it all.

People wonder why the Ayatollah Khomeini was like the way he was. It's because he became paranoid -- both sides were out to get him.



Who could have blamed him?

Islam: Should Sunnites take responsibility for Wahabbism?

There is no such thing as "extremist Islam."

There is only Wahabbism.

There is no such thing as Islamofascism.

There is only Wahabbism.

And Sunnites condone every bit of it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

And that's exactly what Sunnites do -- nothing...some Wahabbis (also go by Salafi) clerics have chosen to justify suicide bombing as a extreme, yet necessary form of Jihad. As you may or may not know, in their minds, their fatwas > Qur'an.

Some Wahabbis also have found it necessary to put radi Allah anhu after the accursed Yazid. As you may or may not know, in their minds, their sahaba > Ahl al-Bayt.


There is no such thing as Wahabbi Islam.


There is only Wahabbism.

Islam: An atheist perspective on Wahabbism

His words:

Too many critics of Islam, including atheists, fail to appreciate just how diverse and varied Islam can be. There are things you can say that apply to all or most Muslims, as is the case with Christianity, but there are many more things which only apply to some or a few Muslims. This is especially true when it comes to Muslim extremism because Wahhabi Islam, the primary religious movement behind extremist Islam, includes beliefs and doctrines not found elsewhere.
It would be a mistake and unethical to criticize all of Islam on the basis of doctrines particular to Wahhabi Muslims. Modern Islamic extremism and terrorism simply cannot be explained or understood without looking at the history and influence of Wahhabi Islam. This means that it's important from an ethical and an academic perspective to understand what Wahhabi Islam teaches, what's so dangerous about it, and why those teachings differ from other branches of Islam.
 

Origins of Wahhabi Islam

Name: Wahhabism, Wahhabi Islam
Founder: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792) was the first modern Islamic fundamentalist and extremists. Wahhab made the central point of his reform movement the principle that absolutely every idea added to Islam after the third century of the Mulsim era (about 950 CE) was false and should be eliminated. Muslims, in order to be true Muslims, must adhere solely and strictly to the original beliefs set forth by Muhammad.
The reason for this extremist stance, and the focus of Wahhab's reform efforts, was a number of popular practices which he believed represented a regression to pre-Islamic polytheism. These included praying to saints, making pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, venerating trees, caves, and stones, and using votive and sacrificial offerings.
These are all practices commonly and traditionally associated with religions, but they were unacceptable to Wahhab. Contemporary secular behaviors are even more anathema to Wahhab's successors. It is against modernity, secularism, and the Enlightenment which current Wahhabists do battle — and it is this anti-secularism, anti-modernism which helps drive their extremism, even to the point of violence.
 

Wahhabi Doctrines

In contrast to popular superstitions, Wahhab emphasized the unity of God (tawhid). This focus on absolute monotheism lead to him and his followers being referred to as muwahiddun, or “unitarians.” Everything else he denounced as heretical innovation, or bida. Wahhab was further dismayed at the widespread laxity in adhering to traditional Islamic laws: questionable practices like the ones above were allowed to continue, whereas the religious devotions which Islam did require were being ignored
This created indifference to the plight of widows and orphans, adultery, lack of attention to obligatory prayers, and failure to allocate shares of inheritance fairly to women. Wahhab characterized all this as being typical of jahiliyya, an important term in Islam which refers to the barbarism and state of ignorance which existed prior to the coming of Islam. Wahhab thus identified himself with the Prophet Muhammad and at the same time connected his society with what Muhammad worked to overthrow.
Because so many Muslims lived (so he claimed) in jahiliyya, al-Wahhab accused them of not being true Muslims after all. Only those who followed the strict teachings of al-Wahhab were truly Muslims because only they still followed the path laid out by Allah. Accusing someone of not being a true Muslim is significant because it is forbidden for one Muslim to kill another; but if someone is not a true Muslim then killing them (in war or in an act of terrorism) becomes licit. It would be hard to underestimate the importance of this principle to modern terrorists and extremists.
Obviously, Wahhabi religious leaders reject any reinterpretation of the Qur’an when it comes to issues settled by the earliest Muslims. Wahhabists thus oppose the 19th and 20th century Muslim reform movements which reinterpreted aspects of Islamic law in order to bring it closer to standards set by the West, particularly with regards to topics like gender relations, family law, personal autonomy, and participatory democracy.
 

Wahhabi Islam & Extremist Islam Today

Today, Wahhabism is the dominant Islamic tradition on the Arabian peninsula, though its influence is minor in the rest of the Middle East. Because Osama bin Laden comes from Saudi Arabia and is Wahhabi himself, Wahhabi extremism and radical ideas of purity have obviously influenced him considerably. Adherents of Wahhabi Islam do not regard it as simply one school of thought out of many; rather it is the only path of true Islam — nothing else counts.

Even though Wahhabism is a minority position overall in the Muslim world, it has nevertheless been influential for other extremist movements throughout the Middle East. This can be seen with a couple of factors, first of which is al-Wahhab’s use of the term jahiliyya to vilify a society which he does not consider pure enough, whether they call themselves Muslim or not. Even today, Islamists use the term when referring to the West and at times even to their own societies. With it, they can justify overthrowing what many might regard as an Islamic state by essentially denying that it is truly Islamic at all.

Politics: American Propaganda

I find it especially droll when Americans add the emotional element to all their "objective" world views. In general, Europeans are much less biased in the sense that they do not use certain...erm...vocabulary to emphasize something beyond its scope...at or beyond the line separating fact and fiction.

Examples:
1."Hamas and Hizbollah are considered terrorist organizations."
Reasoning: because they defend themselves against the United States' precious, yet illegally established, Israel. Not once have these two organizations threatened to attack that which is not threatening them -- a significant aspect which sets them off from true terrorists such as al-Qaeda / the Taliban. But following on their logic, if either of the two said organizations are terrorists, then I implore they dub Israel as terrorists too.

In any case, why would the European Union refuse to classify them as such?

2. "The situation in Darfur is a genocide."
Due to lack of perspective (out of ignorance or sheer refusal), America has dubbed a civil strife in a Muslim nation like Sudan as a -- *gasp* -- genocide. Again, why hasn't the United Nations -- who hold direct ties with the situation and published several reports on them -- refused to adhere to America's terminology?

Islam: Racism in al-Kaafi?

Yet another conspiracy...

I. Usul al-Kafi, Hadith #2542, Chapter 119 (Hadith #2)

" 'Ali bin Ibrahim narrated from his father from Ibn Abu 'Umayr from Hisham bin Salim, and Durust bin Abu Mansur from Abu 'Abdullah (sixth Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq): 'The Messenger of God has said, 'Whoever practices racial discrimination or it is practiced for him has removed the collar of belief from his neck.' "

II. Usul al-Kafi, Hadith #2547, Chapter 119 (Hadith #7)

" 'Ali bin Ibrahim narrated from his father and 'Ali bin Muhammad al-Qasani from al-Qasim bin Muhammad from al-Minqari from 'Abd al-Razzaq from Mu'ammar from al-Zuhri who said: 'Once, 'Ali bin Husayn (fourth Imam) was asked about racist feelings. He said, 'The racist feeling that is a sin is the one that makes a person consider the evil-doers of his own people to be better than the virtuous individuals of another people. A man's loving his own people is not racism, but it is a sin to help one's own people to commit injustice."

Islam: Nikah al-Mut'ah in the Qur'an

What many Sunnites fail to grasp is that by denying Qur'an verse 4:24 as a reference to an-Nikah al-Mut'ah (temporary marriage), they are consequently presenting many contradictions within their hadiths and even the Noble Qur'an itself.

I. Qur'an Surat An-Nisa, Verse Twenty Four:

II. Sunnite Tafsir and Translation:

{Sahih International translation}
"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."

{Mohsin Khan tafsir}
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise."

[Source: http://quran.com/4/24]

III. Implications:

According to both Sahih International's translation of the Qur'an as well as Mohsin Khan's tafsir, the word istimta'tum -- "to enjoy" -- is therefore an allusion of sexual relations, or consummation of marriage.


Therefore, Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) instructs the believer to pay the mahr post consummation of the marriage. 


IV. Contradictions with Sunnite Literature:

Sunnite literature seems to be at odds with this rule of thumb, as evidenced by the following hadith--

{Sunan Abu Dawuud Book 11:2121} 

Narrated a man from the Companions of the Prophet: Muhammad ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Thawban reported on the authority of a man from the Companions of the Prophet: When Ali married Fatimah, daughter of the Apostle of Allah, he intended to have intercourse with her. The Apostle of Allah prohibited him to do so until he gave her something. Ali said: "I have nothing with me, Apostle of Allah." The Prophet said: "Give her your coat of mail." So he gave her his coat of mail, and then cohabited with her 

[Source: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2121] 

V. Sunnite "Refutations":

Interestingly enough, to "solve" this evident contradiction, Yusuf Ali -- who held many ties with the Wahabbite fascist regime of Saudi Arabia -- provides his own interpretation:

{Yusuf Ali translation - Qur'an 4:24}
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. 

Hence, Yusuf Ali conveniently interprets the ayah as a general sense of (non-lustful) benefit from the overall marriage -- for which the mahr is prescribed.

So the question yet remains for Sunnites -- which is the correct interpretation?