Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
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?
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?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 IslamFounder: 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 ignoredThis 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.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
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?
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?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
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."
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."
Monday, September 13, 2010
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
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)