Monthly Archives: January 2012

Islam Is Islam, And That’s It – “the Arab Spring”

‘Islam Is Islam, And That’s It’
The Arab Spring was not hijacked


The tumult indelibly dubbed “the Arab Spring” in the West, by the credulous and the calculating alike, is easier to understand once you grasp two basics. First, the most important fact in the Arab world — as well as in Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other neighboring non-Arab territories — is Islam. It is not poverty, illiteracy, or the lack of modern democratic institutions. These, like anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and an insular propensity to buy into conspiracy theories featuring infidel villains, are effects of Islam’s regional hegemony and supremacist tendency, not causes of it. One need not be led to that which pervades the air one breathes.

The second fact is that Islam constitutes a distinct civilization. It is not merely an exotic splash on the gorgeous global mosaic with a few embarrassing cultural eccentricities; it is an entirely different way of looking at the world. We struggle with this truth, which defies our end-of-history smugness. Enthralled by diversity for its own sake, we have lost the capacity to comprehend a civilization whose idea of diversity is coercing diverse peoples into obedience to its evolution-resistant norms.

So we set about remaking Islam in our own progressive image: the noble, fundamentally tolerant Religion of Peace. We miniaturize the elements of the ummah (the notional global Muslim community) that refuse to go along with the program: They are assigned labels that scream “fringe!” — Islamist, fundamentalist, Salafist, Wahhabist, radical, jihadist, extremist, militant, or, of course, “conservative” Muslims adhering to “political Islam.”

We consequently pretend that Muslims who accurately invoke Islamic scripture in the course of forcibly imposing the dictates of classical sharia — the Islamic legal and political system — are engaged in “anti-Islamic activity,” as Britain’s former home secretary Jacqui Smith memorably put it. When the ongoing Islamization campaign is advanced by violence, as inevitably happens, we absurdly insist that this aggression cannot have been ideologically driven, that surely some American policy or Israeli act of self-defense is to blame, as if these could possibly provide rationales for the murderous jihad waged by Boko Haram Muslims against Nigerian Christians and by Egyptian Muslims against the Copts, the persecution of the Ahmadi sect by Indonesian and Pakistani Muslims, or the internecine killing in Iraq of Sunnis by Shiites and vice versa — a tradition nearly as old as Islam itself — which has been predictably renewed upon the recent departure of American troops.

The main lesson of the Arab Spring ought to be that this remaking of Islam has happened only in our own minds, for our own consumption. The Muslims of the Middle East take no note of our reimagining of Islam, being, in the main, either hostile toward or oblivious to Western overtures. Muslims do not measure themselves against Western perceptions, although the shrewdest among them take note of our eagerly accommodating attitude when determining what tactics will best advance the cause.

That cause is nothing less than Islamic dominance.

‘The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism,” wrote Samuel Huntington. “It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture.” Not convinced merely in the passive sense of assuming that they will triumph in the end, Muslim leaders are galvanized by what they take to be a divinely ordained mission of proselytism — and proselytism not limited to spiritual principles, but encompassing an all-purpose societal code prescribing rules for everything from warfare and finance to social interaction and personal hygiene. Historian Andrew Bostom notes that in the World War I era, even as the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Ataturk symbolically extinguished the caliphate, C. Snouck Hurgronje, then the West’s leading scholar of Islam, marveled that Muslims remained broadly confident in what he called the “idea of universal conquest.” In Islam’s darkest hour, this conviction remained “a central point of union against the unfaithful.” It looms more powerful in today’s Islamic ascendancy.

Of course, conventional wisdom in the West holds that the Arab Spring spontaneously combusted when Mohamed Bouazizi, a fruit vendor, set himself ablaze outside the offices of the Tunisian klepto-cops who had seized his wares. This suicide protest, the story goes, ignited a sweeping revolt against the corruption and caprices of Arab despots. One by one, the dominos began to fall: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya — with rumblings in Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as teetering Syria and rickety Iran. We are to believe that the mass uprising is an unmistakable manifestation of the “desire for freedom” that, according to Pres. George W. Bush, “resides in every human heart.”

That proclamation came in the heady days of 2004, when the democracy project was still a Panglossian dream, not the Pandora’s box it proved to be as Islamic parties began to win elections. Like its successor, the Bush administration discouraged all inquiry into Islamic doctrine by anyone seeking to understand Muslim enmity, indulging the fiction that there is something we can do to change it. Inexorably, this has fed President Obama’s preferred fiction — that we must have done something to deserve it — as well as the current administration’s strident objection to uttering the word “Islam” for any purpose other than hagiography. In this self-imposed ignorance, most Americans still do not know that hurriya, Arabic for “freedom,” connotes “perfect slavery” or absolute submission to Allah, very nearly the opposite of the Western concept. Even if we grant for argument’s sake the dubious proposition that all people crave freedom, Islam and the West have never agreed about what freedom means.

The first count of contemporary Muslims’ indictment of Middle Eastern dictators is not that they have denied individual liberty, but that they have repressed Islam. This is not to say that other grievances are irrelevant. Muslims have indeed been outraged by the manner in which their Arafats, Mubaraks, Qaddafis, and Saddams looted the treasuries while the masses lived in squalor. But the agglomerations of wealth and other regime hypocrisies are framed for the masses more as sins against Allah’s law than as the inevitable corruptions of absolute power. The most influential figures and institutions in Islamic societies are those revered for their mastery of Islamic law and jurisprudence — such authorities as top Muslim Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni learning for over a millennium. In places where Islam is the central fact of life, even Muslims who privately dismiss sharia take pains to honor it publicly. Even regimes that rule by whim nod to sharia as the backbone of their legal systems, lace their rhetoric with scriptural allusions, and seek to rationalize their actions as Islamically appropriate.

If you understand this, you understand why Western beliefs about the Arab Spring — and the Western conceit that the death of one tyranny must herald the birth of liberty — have always been a delusion. There are real democrats, authentically moderate Muslims, and non-Muslims in places such as Egypt and Yemen who long for freedom in the Western sense; but the stubborn fact is that they make up a strikingly small fraction of the population: about 20 percent, a far cry from the Western narrative that posits a sea of Muslim moderates punctuated by the rare radical atoll.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the ummah’s most important organization, unabashedly proclaiming for nearly 90 years that “the Koran is our law and jihad is our way.” Hamas, a terrorist organization, is its Palestinian branch, and leading Brotherhood figures do little to disguise their abhorrence of Israel and Western culture. Thus, when spring fever gripped Tahrir Square, the Obama administration, European governments, and the Western media tirelessly repeated the mantra that the Brothers had been relegated to the sidelines. Time had purportedly passed the Islamists by, just as it was depositing Mubarak in the rear-view mirror. Surely the Tahrir throngs wanted self-determination, not sharia. Never you mind the fanatical chants of Allahu akbar! as the dictator fell. Never mind that Sheikh Qaradawi was promptly ushered into the square to deliver a fiery Friday sermon to a congregation of nearly a million Egyptians.

With a transitional military government in place and openly solicitous of the Brotherhood, there occurred the most telling, most tellingly underreported, and most willfully misreported story of the Arab Spring: a national referendum to determine the scheduling of elections that would select a new parliament and president, with a new constitution to follow. It sounds dry, but it was crucial. The most organized and disciplined factions in Egyptian life are the Brotherhood and self-proclaimed Muslim groups even more impatient for Islamization, collectively identified by the media as “Salafists” even though this term does not actually distinguish them from the Brothers, whose founder (Hassan al-Banna) was a leading Salafist thinker. By contrast, secular democratic reformers are in their infancy. Elections on a short schedule would obviously favor the former; the latter need time to take root and grow.

Egypt being Egypt, the election campaign was waged with the rhetoric of religious and cultural solidarity. A vote against a rapid transition was depicted as a vote “against Islam” and in favor of the dreaded Western hands said to be guiding the Christians and secularists. The vote was the perfect test of the Arab Spring narrative.

Four-to-one: That’s how it went. The democrats were wiped out by the Muslim parties, 78 percent to 22 percent. While Western officials dismissed the vote as involving scheduling arcana, it foretold everything that has followed: the electoral romp in the parliamentary elections, a multi-stage affair in which the Brotherhood and the Salafists are inching close to three-fourths control of the legislature; the ongoing pogrom against the Copts; and the increasing calls for renunciation of the Camp David Accords, which have kept the peace with Israel for more than 30 years.

Four-to-one actually proves to be a reliable ratio in examining Islamic developments. In a 2007 poll conducted by World Public Opinion in conjunction with the University of Maryland, 74 percent of Egyptians favored strict application of sharia in Muslim countries. It was 76 percent in Morocco, 79 percent in Pakistan, and 53 percent in moderate Indonesia. Before American forces vacated Iraq, roughly three-quarters of the people they had liberated regarded them as legitimate jihad targets, and, given the opportunity to vote, Iraqis installed Islamist parties who promised to hasten the end of American “occupation.” Three out of four Palestinians deny Israel’s right to exist. Even in our own country, a recently completed survey found that 80 percent of American mosques promote literature that endorses violent jihad, and that these same mosques counsel rigorous sharia compliance.

The Arab Spring is an unshackling of Islam, not an outbreak of fervor for freedom in the Western sense. Turkey’s third-term prime minister Recep Erdogan, a staunch Brotherhood ally who rejects the notion that there is a “moderate Islam” (“Islam is Islam, and that’s it,” he says), once declared that “democracy is a train where you can get off when you reach your destination.” The destination for Muslim supremacists is the implementation of sharia — the foundation of any Islamized society, and, eventually, of the reestablished caliphate.

The duration of the ride depends on the peculiar circumstances of each society. Erdogan’s Turkey has become the model for Islamist gradualism in more challenging environments: Slowly but steadily bend the nation into sharia compliance while denying any intent to do so and singing the obligatory paeans to democracy. Erdogan came to this formula after no shortage of stumbles — it is now rare to hear such outbursts as “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers,” the sort of thing he used to say in the late Nineties when he was imprisoned for sedition against Ataturk’s secular order. His banned Welfare party eventually reemerged as the new and democracy-ready AKP, the Justice and Development party. Ever since a quirk in Turkish electoral law put these Islamists in power in 2002, Erdogan has cautiously but demonstrably eroded the secular framework Ataturk and his followers spent 80 years building, returning this ostensible NATO ally to the Islamist camp, shifting it from growing friendship to open hostility toward Israel, co-opting the military that was Ataturk’s bulwark against Islamization, and salting the country’s major institutions with Islamic supremacists.

The Turkish model will be the ticket for Brotherhood parties that have just prevailed in Tunisian and Moroccan elections. In Tunisia, Rachid Ghannouchi, a cagey Islamist of the Erdogan stripe, heads the Ennahda party, convincingly elected in October to control the legislature that will replace ousted ruler Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. In Morocco, an Islamist party whose namesake is the AKP won the fall elections, but further Islamization is apt to be slower. Far from being driven from power, King Mohammed VI remains popular, having balanced his affinity for the West with deference to sharia norms. Moroccan Islamists are making significant inroads, though, as are their neighbors to the east. Algerian Islamists are poised to accede to power this spring after being thwarted by a military coup that blocked what would have been their certain electoral success in 1991.

Egypt, by contrast, will go quickly. There, the most salient development is not the weakness of secular democrats but the impressive electoral strength of the Salafists. Their numbers are competitive with those of the better-known Brothers, and they will tug their rivals in a more aggressively Islamist direction. Vainly, the West hoped that the country’s American-trained and -equipped armed forces would serve as a brake. But the Egyptian military, from which several top al-Qaeda operatives have hailed, is a reflection of Egyptian society, especially as one descends to the conscripts of lower rank. The undeniable trend in Egyptian society is toward Islam. That trend is more blatant only in such basket cases as Libya, where each day brings new evidence that today’s governing “rebels” include yesterday’s al-Qaeda jihadists, and in Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, where even the New York Times concedes al-Qaeda’s strength.

Led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic parties have become expert at presenting themselves as moderates and telling the West what it wants to hear while they gradually ensnare societies in the sharia web, as slowly or quickly as conditions on the ground permit. They know that when the West says “democracy,” it means popular elections, not Western democratic culture. They know the West has so glorified these elections that the victors can steal them (Iran), refuse to relinquish power when later they lose (Iraq), or decline to hold further elections (Gaza) without forfeiting their legitimacy. They know that seizing the mantle of “democracy” casts Islamists as the West’s heroes in the dramas still unfolding in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. They know that the Obama administration and the European Union have deluded themselves into believing that Islamists will be tamed by the responsibilities of governance. Once in power, they are sure to make virulent anti-Americanism their official policy and to contribute materially to the pan-Islamic goal of destroying Israel.

We should not be under any illusions about why things are shaking out this way. The Arab Spring has not been hijacked any more than Islam was hijacked by the suicide terrorists of 9/11. Islam is ascendant because that is the way Muslims of the Middle East want it.

Mr. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 31, 2012 in News


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why European women are turning to Islam

Why European women are turning to Islam

By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science MonitorTue Dec 27, 3:00 AM ET

Mary Fallot looks as unlike a terrorist suspect as one could possibly imagine: a petite and demure white Frenchwoman chatting with friends on a cell-phone, indistinguishable from any other young woman in the café where she sits sipping coffee.
And that is exactly why European antiterrorist authorities have their eyes on thousands like her across the continent.
Ms. Fallot is a recent convert to Islam. In the eyes of the police, that makes her potentially dangerous.
The death of Muriel Degauque, a Belgian convert who blew herself up in a suicide attack on US troops in Iraq last month, has drawn fresh attention to the rising number of Islamic converts in Europe, most of them women.
“The phenomenon is booming, and it worries us,” the head of the French domestic intelligence agency, Pascal Mailhos, told the Paris-based newspaper Le Monde in a recent interview. “But we must absolutely avoid lumping everyone together.”
The difficulty, security experts explain, is that while the police may be alert to possible threats from young men of Middle Eastern origin, they are more relaxed about white European women. Terrorists can use converts who “have added operational benefits in very tight security situations” where they might not attract attention, says Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.
Ms. Fallot, who converted to Islam three years ago after asking herself spiritual questions to which she found no answers in her childhood Catholicism, says she finds the suspicion her new religion attracts “wounding.” “For me,” she adds, “Islam is a message of love, of tolerance and peace.”
It is a message that appeals to more and more Europeans as curiosity about Islam has grown since 9/11, say both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers. Although there are no precise figures, observers who monitor Europe’s Muslim population estimate that several thousand men and women convert each year.
Only a fraction of converts are attracted to radical strands of Islam, they point out, and even fewer are drawn into violence. A handful have been convicted of terrorist offenses, such as Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” and American John Walker Lindh, who was captured in Afghanistan.
Admittedly patchy research suggests that more women than men convert, experts say, but that – contrary to popular perception – only a minority do so in order to marry Muslim men.
“That used to be the most common way, but recently more [women] are coming out of conviction,” says Haifa Jawad, who teaches at Birmingham University in Britain. Though non-Muslim men must convert in order to marry a Muslim woman, she points out, the opposite is not true.
Fallot laughs when she is asked whether her love life had anything to do with her decision. “When I told my colleagues at work that I had converted, their first reaction was to ask whether I had a Muslim boyfriend,” she recalls. “They couldn’t believe I had done it of my own free will.”
In fact, she explains, she liked the way “Islam demands a closeness to God. Islam is simpler, more rigorous, and it’s easier because it is explicit. I was looking for a framework; man needs rules and behavior to follow. Christianity did not give me the same reference points.”
Those reasons reflect many female converts’ thinking, say experts who have studied the phenomenon. “A lot of women are reacting to the moral uncertainties of Western society,” says Dr. Jawad. “They like the sense of belonging and caring and sharing that Islam offers.”
Others are attracted by “a certain idea of womanhood and manhood that Islam offers,” suggests Karin van Nieuwkerk, who has studied Dutch women converts. “There is more space for family and motherhood in Islam, and women are not sex objects.”
At the same time, argues Sarah Joseph, an English convert who founded “Emel,” a Muslim lifestyle magazine, “the idea that all women converts are looking for a nice cocooned lifestyle away from the excesses of Western feminism is not exactly accurate.”
Some converts give their decision a political meaning, says Stefano Allievi, a professor at Padua University in Italy. “Islam offers a spiritualization of politics, the idea of a sacred order,” he says. “But that is a very masculine way to understand the world” and rarely appeals to women, he adds.
After making their decision, some converts take things slowly, adopting Muslim customs bit by bit: Fallot, for example, does not yet feel ready to wear a head scarf, though she is wearing longer and looser clothes than she used to.
Others jump right in, eager for the exoticism of a new religion, and become much more pious than fellow mosque-goers who were born into Islam. Such converts, taking an absolutist approach, appear to be the ones most easily led into extremism.
The early stages of a convert’s discovery of Islam “can be quite a sensitive time,” says Batool al-Toma, who runs the “New Muslims” program at the Islamic Foundation in Leicester, England.
“You are not confident of your knowledge, you are a newcomer, and you could be prey to a lot of different people either acting individually or as members of an organization,” Ms. Al-Toma explains. A few converts feel “such a huge desire to fit in and be accepted that they are ready to do just about anything,” she says.
“New converts feel they have to prove themselves,” adds Dr. Ranstorp. “Those who seek more extreme ways of proving themselves can become extraordinarily easy prey to manipulation.”
At the same time, says al-Toma, converts seeking respite in Islam from a troubled past – such as Degauque, who had reportedly drifted in and out of drugs and jobs before converting to Islam – might be persuaded that such an “ultimate action” as a suicide bomb attack offered an opportunity for salvation and forgiveness.
“The saddest conclusion” al-Toma draws from Degauque’s death in Iraq is that “a woman who set out on the road to inner peace became a victim of people who set out to use and abuse her.”

1 Comment

Posted by on January 29, 2012 in The message


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why are so many Women converting to Islam?

Why are so many Women converting to Islam?

According to “The Plain Truth”, February 1984, in its 50 Year Anniversary Issue, quoting from the “World Almanac and Book of Facts 1935” and “Reader’s Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983”, between 1934 and 1984.

Christianity increased 47%
World Population increased 136%
Islam increased 235%

100,000 people per year in America alone, are converting to Islam. For every 1 male convert to Islam, 4 females convert to Islam.
They’re discovering the FACTS and not basing their decisions on biased media. They realise they deserve to know the complete unadulterated truth.

1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}.

The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Koran 7:19-25}

2. The Bible says “The Birth of a Daughter is a loss” {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}.

The Koran says both are an Equal Blessing {Koran 42:49}

3. The Bible forbids women from speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}.

The Koran says women can argue with the Prophet {58:1}

4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as an Adulteress, not men {Matthew 5:31-32}

The Koran does Not have Biblical double standards{Koran 30:21}

5. In The Bible, widows and sisters do not inherit Any property or wealth, only men do {Numbers 27:1-11}

The Koran abolished this male greed {Koran 4:22} and God protects all.

6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives {I Kings 11:3}

In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only under certain situations (with the wife’s permission)and prefers you marry only one wife {Koran 4:3} The Koran gives the woman the right to choose who to marry.

7. “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}

One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the woman who was raped? According to the Bible, you have to spend the rest of your life with the man who raped you.

The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:”It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)”.

Would the Non-Muslim men reading this prefer the Women they know to be Christian or Muslim?

8. The Bible also asks women to wear veils as in Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}

9. Women were given rights to Vote less than a 100 years ago in the (US), while the Koran gave women voting rights almost 1,500 years ago.

Christian Scientists are declaring the Koran is from God. Click this link- for stories of Christians and atheist scientists who convert to Islam and why. The Christian Bishops and Priests are admitting the Bible has tensions.-…say/ch2.1.html

Jesus is a Muslim? Click here.-…ay/ch6.10.html

The list goes on and on, to hear from some of these converts, including Nuns, and many Famous people click Here. For a more Information and Statistics click Here

This is Dedicated to Past, Present, and Future Muslim Sisters, Family and Friends, to the Devil who prefers slander and hype over facts. Peace and Blessings upon All.


Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2012 in The message


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The message of the messengers – -English

Allaah, the All Wise, All Knowing, All Merciful and Just, created this Universe in order to test and examine His obedient slaves and reward them, and to punish the disobedient. He Says (what means): “We did not create the heavens and the earth and that between them in play. We did not create them except in truth, but most of them do not know.” [Quran 44: 38-39]

Allaah also made clear the main goal for the creation of mankind, Saying (what means): “I did not create the Jinn and Mankind except for My worship” [Quran 51: 56]

Allaah, the Exalted, did not leave His slaves to rely upon their intellect and inclination to guide them to the correct way; rather He sent them Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners. He sent the revealed Books with them to be a reference in those matters wherein they disagreed, so that no excuse would remain for the people and the proof would be established against them. Thus, after sending the Messengers, there would be no further excuse for people before Allaah.

Indeed, their mission covered every good and banished every evil. They brought to humankind everything needed for their well being and happiness in this world and the Hereafter. There is nothing good, which they did not inform the people about and nothing evil that they did not warn the people against.

‘Abdullaah bin `Amr bin Al-`Aas, may Allaah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: “There was never a Prophet before me except that it was a duty upon him that he should guide his nation to every good that he knew and warn them against every evil that he knew…” [Muslim]

Indeed, calling to Allaah was the mission of the Messengers in order to bring the people out from darkness into light. There are many basic principles upon which their calls were based, which were the starting point for calling to Allaah. These fundamental principles are:

1. Tawheed (Monotheism)

2. Prophethood

3. The Hereafter

Every book revealed by Allaah gave great importance to these points. The most important and sublime of these three principles and the most fundamental of them all is Tawheed (Oneness) of Allaah.

Allaah Says (which means): “And We certainly sent into every nation a Messenger, (saying): ‘Worship Allaah and avoid Taaghoot (false objects of worship).’ “ [Quran 16: 36]

Allaah has informed us about some of the Prophets, may Allaah exalt their mention, and how they faced their people. We see that all of them proceeded upon the universal way laid down by Allaah and followed the methodology Allaah established for all of them. Not a single one of them is at variance with it, Allaah Says (which means): “And We had certainly sent Nooh to his people, (saying): ‘Indeed, I am to you a clear warner, that you not worship except Allaah. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a painful Day.'” [Quran 11: 25-26]

The noblest of all Prophets and the last of them, Muhammad bin ‘Abdullaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, (who was sent with the greatest, most complete and comprehensive message), began with what all the Prophets, may Allaah exalt their mention, started their Da’wah (call) — calling to the ‘Aqeedah (creed) of Tawheed (Oneness of Allaah), and calling for all worship to be made purely and sincerely for Allaah alone. Allaah’s Messenger, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, started with the principle: ‘Witness that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah.’

Allaah Says (what means): “Say, (O Muhammad): ‘O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allaah to you all, (from him) to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.’ So believe in Allaah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allaah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided.” [Quran 7: 158]

The verses in this regard are many, what we quote here is just one example. With regard to the Sunnah (traditions and approved actions of Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), there are many clear indications that Allaah’s Messenger began his call to Islam with Tawheed.

1.     `Amr bin Abasah As-Sulami, may Allaah be pleased with him, said: “During the times of ignorance … I heard of a man in Makkah who received revelation. So I set upon my riding beast and came to him. At that time he was in hiding, due to the oppression of his people. So I behaved in a way that enabled me to gain access to him in Makkah. I said to him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am a Prophet.’ So I said: “And what is a Prophet?’ He said: ‘Allaah has sent me as a Messenger.’ So I said: ‘And what is it that He has sent you with?’ He said: ‘I have been sent to order the joining of ties of relationship, to break the idols, so that Allaah is worshipped Alone and nothing at all is associated in worship along with Him.”  [Muslim]

2.     At the time of the peace of Hudaibiyyah, Hiraql (Heraclius) asked Abu Sufyaan some questions about Allaah’s Messenger, among which he asked: “What does he (Muhammad) command you?” Abu Sufyaan replied: “He says, ‘Worship Allaah Alone and do not worship anything else along with Him, and abandon what your fathers say. He also orders prayers, charity, and the joining of the ties of relationship.'”[Al-Bukhaari]

 Consequently, the Prophets, may Allaah exalt their mention, did not come to bring about the downfall of one State to replace it with another. They did not seek sovereignty, nor did they organize political parties for this reason. Rather, they came for the guidance of humankind, to save it from misguidance and Shirk (polytheism), and to take them out of darkness into light.

In this regard Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, gave an example about himself. He, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,  said: “The similitude of me and the message with which Allaah has sent me, is like a man who came to some people and said: ‘I have seen the enemy forces with my own eyes and I am a mere warner (to you). So, save yourselves, save yourselves!’ A group of his people obeyed him and went out at night, slowly and steadily and was safe; while another group belied him and stayed in their place until the morning when the army destroyed them. Such is the similitude of those who obey me and follow what I have brought (i.e., Message) and of those who disobey me and belie the Truth which I have brought.” [Al-Bukhaari, Muslim and others]

The Message of the Messengers, by the Mercy of Allaah, revives and enlightens the believer’s soul. This enlightenment is the revelation of Allaah, which leads mankind from the darkness of Shirk (polytheism) and ignorance to the Light of Truth and Islam: “Allaah is the ally  of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into the light.”[Quran 2: 257]

The Messenger and the Message are evidence against the disbelievers

Allaah sent His Messengers and His Books so that there can be no excuse for mankind on the Day of Judgment. The Quran says (what means): “(we sent) Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allaah after Messengers.” [Quran 4: 165]

The Message of Allaah deals with the rights of Allaah on His bondsmen, the rights of man on His Creator, The Oneness of Allaah and its influence on the creation, knowledge, admonition, the wisdom behind the creation, righteousness, mutual interactions, refutation of incorrect beliefs and deviations, lawful and unlawful, migration and Jihaad. In totality, it is the complete code for righteous living, which results in delight, pleasure and harmony in this life and the Hereafter.

The message of the messengers – -English.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 26, 2012 in The message


Be mirror !

Be A Mirror

It is the duty of a Muslim to help fellow Muslims to stay on the straight path.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) enumerated the conditions to be met in the task of advising others:
Each one of you is like a mirror to the other.” (Tirmidhi)

In another hadith the Prophet said:
Every Muslim serves as another Muslim’s mirror. He safeguards his rights in his absence as well.” (Abu Dawud) The following norms emerge in light of the above ahadith:

1. One should not look for the lapses and weaknesses of others. For a mirror does not seek defects. Only on coming face to face does a mirror reflect you.

2. One should not be criticised in one’s absence. Once again the similitude of the mirror should be kept in mind; it does not reflect someone in absentia.

3. One should not exceed limits in criticising someone else. For a mirror does not magnify or diminish any feature.

4. Criticism should be forthright and free of any ulterior motive. For, once again, a mirror does not entertain any revenge or grudge.

5. One’s criticism should be made with sincerity, genuine concern, pain and love. This removes any bitterness caused by criticism. Sincerity in this context signifies one’s concern for the ultimate accountability in the Hereafter. One should help a fellow Muslim in order to avoid any punishment for him on the Day of Judgement. Nor should one entertain any superiority complex. Humility and not arrogance makes mutual care and advice effective.

Compiled From:
“Inter Personal Relations” – Khurram Murad, pp. 34, 35

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 20, 2012 in Uncategorized