Dan’s Course on Islam
: Hulagu Khan set up an observatory at Maragha, Persia
Yüklə 7,46 Mb.
|
1259: Hulagu Khan set up an observatory at Maragha, Persia.1273: Jalal al-Din Rumi, Persian mystic and poet, dies. 1325: Ibn Battuta sets out on his famous travels from Tangiers. 1353: Most of the Alhambra is completed in Granada, Spain. 1375: Ibn Khaldun, great Muslim historian, begins the
1390: Death of Hafiz, the great Persian lyric poet. 1522: The Persian minature painter Bizhad heads the Safavid Library.
1611: Shah Abbas I lays out a new capital at Isfahan, Persia. 1648: Taj Mahal is completed as mausoleum for Shah Jahan’s wife. 1901: Muhammad Iqbal, an indian Muslim poet, publishes in Lahore. 1926: The Eqyptian Taha Husein writes his autobiography, The Days. 1928: The Latin alphabet is adopted in Turkey. W.L. Cati Early Islam, pp. 184-185. 12.26Stop Cutting! - Lengthen Your BeardAll religious scholars are unanimous that that all Prophet kept beards. Furthermore, the Prophets have classified the beard as something (that is) part of nature (Fitrah). ‘Allamah Suyuti explains human nature is based on keeping a beard and does not need a special order to be part of a particular faith. Thus, the beard is part of human nature to which all humans (men) have to adhere. The Prophet of Allah mentions in a Hadeeth 10 points of nature. Out of these ten, he mentions is the lengthening of the beard. Allah the Almighty narrates the incident when Sayyiduna Harun Alaihissalam calls out to his brother Sayyiduna Musa , “O son of my mother! Do not seize (me) by my beard, and nor by my head.” (94:20) This verse clearly shows that Prophet Harun had a lengthy beard. The first nation ever to shave their beards was the nation to whom Allah the Almighty sent Sayyiduna Lut , the people of Sadoom ( Sodom). Hadhrat Hasan Basri reports a Hadeeth that the nation of Lut was punished for 10 sins they committed; the Prophet mentioned ‘trimming the beard’ from the 10 sins. In the Shariah (Islamic law), it is Haram (unlawful) for men to shave the beard, this ruling is with the Ijma (consensus) of the scholars of all the Schools of Thought. Among the scholars who have attested to this consensus, include Allamah Mahmood Khattab 6, Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri Hanafi, Allamah Muhammad Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Allamah Hasfaki, Allamah Kamal Ibn Al-Humam Hanafi, Sheikh Ahmad Nafrawi Maliki, Allamah Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm Zahiri, Allaamah Shaykh ul islaam Ibn Tayimyyah, and many other scholars.
This has also been mentioned by Allamah Haleemi, Allamah Qaffal Shashi, Allamah Azrai and many other Shafiee scholars. There are many Ahadeeth, which clearly state the above. Primarily the famous Hadeeth narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar and others that the Prophet ordered us to lengthen our beards. This Hadeeth has been narrated with six different words, all of which refer to lengthening the beard and leaving it alone without interfering. This is why in the Shariah (Islamic law) if one was to shave the beard or trim it to less than a fist length then he will be sinful. Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri writes,“None of the scholars have permitted trimming the beard to less than a fist length.” Various other scholars such as Allamah Hasfaki, Allamah Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Mufti Rasheed Ahmad have mentioned similar to this. The Prophet ’s beard was dense, and would cover his chest. The Sahaba realised, by the movement of he ’s beard, that the prophet would recite from the Holy Quran in Zuhr and Asr; clearly indicating that the beard was lengthy. In the same manner Hadhrat Abu bakr and Umar possessed a dense beard. Hadhrat Uthman possessed a fine beard stretched out in length where as Hadhrat Ali’s beard was spread in width covering the area between his shoulders. Therefore, when the Prophet ordered us to legthen our beards we have to follow his and his Sahaba’s Sunnah and their method of keeping a beard. The Prophet says, “Hold fast unto my ways and the ways of the guided caliphs after me.” In the eighth year of Hijri, the Prophet sent a letter with Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Huthafah to Feroz, the king of Persia. Feroz tore the letter apart and ordered Bazan, the king of Yemen to send two officers to the Prophet to kidnap him. They arrived in Madinah Munawwarah, on seeing the Prophet , started to shiver. However the Prophet asked them, “Who ordered you to leave your moustache and shave your beard?” They replied, “Our Lord” (referring to their King). The Prophet declared, “But my Lord orders me to trim the moustache and lengthen the beard”. Those who shave their beards should decide for themselves whether their Lord is Allah or someone else! In many Ahadeeth, the prophet has cursed men who imitate women and those women who imitate men. There is no doubt that shaving the beard is a clear imitation of a woman’s face. Many scholars have stated that shaving the beard is Tagyeeru Khalqillah (changing the creation of Allah). Allah mentions in the Holy Quran the promise of Satan, “Indeed I will order them (Mankind) to change the nature created by Allah” (4:119). In effect, the one who shaves his beard is obeying Satan. The great Caliph Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz would say, “Shaving the beard is Muthlah (mutilation). Verily the Prophet has prohibited Muthlah”. A similar verdict has also been narrated from the great Imam of Madina Munawwarah, Imam Malik. The sin of shaving the beard is not only a Kabirah (Major) sin, but it is also Bagawah (open offence). The prophet says, “My nation will be forgiven except those who sin in the night and then boast about their sin the following day.” Although one may not boast about this sin verbally but indirectly, he will boast by showing his face to the people. Some sins are limited to the time of the act or omission, for example, Zina (adultery & fornication) is a grave sin; the sinner is sinning for the duration of that act. Whereas this sin’s time remains for as long as the beard remains shaven or trimmed to less than a fist’s length. The person will be regarded a sinner for every second his face is devoid of a proper beard, therefore sinning for that entire time span. this means it's severity aggregates and persists more than other sins. In reality when a person loves someone, he will fulfil every command of his. We cannot see the love a person possesses in his heart for someone except by his actions. We have been guided to judge people according to their apparent and visible actions. The Prophet has repeatedly said, “I have not been ordered to cut open the hearts of people.” (to see their intention) When a disbeliever recites the Shahadah, he will be classified as a Muslim, despite of what his beliefs are in reality. Thus if a person shaves his beard it cannot be judged that he loves the Prophet . The great Muhaddith Allamah Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Siddiq Al-Gimari says, “To mock the beard is KUFR with the consensus of all the Muslims”. The consequences of this would be that the Nikah (Marriage) would invalidate and renewing the Imaan (faith) will be necessary. http://www.inter-islam.org/Prohibitions/beard.html
“The civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at once. It is a long process, that involves many elements and a specific mental conditioning. It happents when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to uphold these destructive myths, more than their own values because they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only guarantee for their survival, when in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching of history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia, inventing moral justification for their own self-destruction.” Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, p. 31. Antoine Fattal, in his authorative study on the legal status of non-Muslim lands, has written, The dhimmi is a second-class citizen. If he is tolerated, it is for reaons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority... In no way is the dhimmi the equal of a Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal as regards taxes; unequal in the law courts, as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal, and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims. No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis... Even today, the study of jihad is part of the cirriculum of all Islamic institutes. In the universities of Al-Azhar, Najaf, and Zaitoune, students are still taught that the holy war is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced against the infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world. Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, pp. 93-94. 13.2 Principles of Dhimmitude The main pribciples of “dhimmitude” are as follows: 1) the inequality of rights in all domains between Muslim and dhimmis 2) the social and economic discrimination of the dhimmis 3) the humiliation and vunerability of the dhimmis. Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, p. 163. 13.3 The Jizya Tax In an Islamic state, non-Muslims are forced to pay the jizya, the special tax on non-Muslims. This payment has always been the centerpiece of the Islamic legal system regarding non-Muslims, as it is explicitly mentioned in the Quran (sura 9:29), while other elements of the treatment and status of the dhimmis are elaborations of this verse’s command to make sure that the dhimmis “feel themselves subdued.” (cf. 9:29) Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, p. 57. Bat Ye’or: the great historian of dhimmitude, the institutionalized opression of non-Muslims (dhimmis: “protected” or “guilty” people) under Islam, put it: “The civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at once. It is a long process, that involves many elements and a specific mental conditioning. It happents when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to uphold these destructive myths, more than their own values because they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only guarantee for their survival, when in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching of history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia, inventing moral justification for their own self-destruction.” Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, p. 31. Antoine Fattal, in his authorative study on the legal status of non-Muslim lands, has written, The dhimmi is a second-class citizen. If he is tolerated, it is for reaons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority... In no way is the dhimmi the equal of a Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal as regards taxes; unequal in the law courts, as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal, and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims. No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis... Even today, the study of jihad is part of the cirriculum of all Islamic institutes. In the universities of Al-Azhar, Najaf, and Zaitoune, students are still taught that the holy war is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced against the infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world. Robert Spencer, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, pp. 93-94. 13.4 Slavery The Koran itself was on the side of slavers because Muhammad himself was a slaver! Africans have been afflicted by 1,000 years of slave trading. For every African brought as a slave to the United States, many more were abducted to Muslim North Africa, Arabia and the Middle East. One would expect, then to find many times as many descendents of slaves living today in North Africa, Arabia and the Middle East as are found in America. Some 30 million descendants of African slaves reside in America today. Where, then, are the perhaps 300 million descendants of African slaves that should be residing across North Africa, the Middle East and Arabia today? Why are they nowhere to be seen? The grim horror is that Muslim slavers customarily castrated black males that they captured. Why? Primarily so that no black man could ever be a sexual threat to Muslim somen in North African households. Secondly, Muslim slave owners themselves wanted to be the only ones to have sex with captive black women and girls, as Muhammad made lawful for them to do (23:5-6 & 70:30) Muslim slave owners did not want black men competing with them as cohabiters with black women, so black men had to be emasculated. Evidence exists that Muslim slave owners did indeed step in to do what emasculated black males could not. Tens of millions of brown skinned Haratin – people descended from the offspring of Arab fathers and black mothers – are found all across North Africa, and under different designations, in the Middle East. Mauritania alone is reported to have some 1 million Haratin. In the United States, southern insistence on perpetuating slavery and nothern opposition to it contributed to a bloody civil war in which 600,000 men died and 2 million others were wounded. The 10-year-long war in South Vietnam took 58,000 American lives, yet one three-day battle at Gettysburg killed at least 51,000! In which Muslim nation has there ever been even a minor civil disturbance of conscience – let alone a war – over slavery defined as evil? Not one! Yet Farrakhan, unwilling to give the northern states an ounce of credit for such a sostly stand, praises Islam – still history’s most heinous proslavery force – as defender of the black race. Mother of all ironies. Don Richardson, Secrets of the Koran, pp. 203 & 209-211. 13.5 Observations About Muslims within Islam
Dr. George Braswell, Islam and America, p. 110. 13.6 The Exile of Christians from Muslim Lands It has been estimated that the number of Arab Palestinian Christian has been reduced to fewer than 30,000 among the 3.4 million inhabitants of territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Fifty years ago the Palestinian population was approximately 25% Christian. It has been further estimated that partly because of the pressure on Christians to either convert toIslam or to get out, some 2 million Christians left their homes in the Middle Eastern countries during 1993-97.106 106. ‘Exodus Now – It Still Goes On’ ISIC Bulletin, December 1997/January 1998, p. 9. Stuart Robinson, Mosques & Miracles, p. 100.
Sadly confusion seems to be the order of the day, especially among certain western seminaries and missions who have redefined the Word of God to make it more acceptable to Muslims. For those of us working in missions, it is understood a degree of contextualization is in keeping with the truth of the Bible, but these brethren have moved beyond propriety and have embraced as truth elements within Islam so as to make the Islamic Christ the source of eternal salvation. In some ways, they are helping Muslims become better Muslims and the few that come to the understanding of Christ from Islamic sources be Muslim followers of Christ who have built their house on a falsehood. It is bad enough when this false teaching remains within the western lands, but now is spreading to many lands. This movement would never pass muster of the historical theologians nor would supporting churches support such a movement, if they understood the core questions and a proper view of Biblical theology. The whole deeper issue of the contextualization/common ground movement needs to be examined by the Church and theologians before being released on the world wide Church. If you are interested in this subject Google "A Common Word Between us and you". This is a document signed by 138 Islamic scholars. Please read the document contained on the www.pilcrowpress.com/response.php. This document will clarify the issues. Carl A. Gordon
The letter authored by some 138 Muslim Scholars, “A Common Word between Us and You” is neither ‘new’ nor ‘common’, nor is it a true ‘invitation’ to true dialogue – at least not in the accepted sense of a dialogue being a meeting of two equal parties. A Common Word, Islamically speaking, means a call, or an invitation to ‘come to common terms’ - or to ‘an equitable proposition’ - and is based solidly on Sura 3:64, Say “’O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: "Bear witness that we are Muslims.’” which if read and properly analysed from Islamic commentaries can be seen to negate all the rhetoric the Muslim ‘invitation’ appears to offer. This sura, containing the common word proposition, was first proposed by Muhammad in the 7th century when he invited a visiting Christian delegation from Najran to ‘come to a common word’, a dialogue which rapidly escalated to his demand that they come to common terms by accepting him as the final prophet and messenger of Allah (Sura 3:64). Therefore, Sura 3:64 has since been the key reference behind all dialogues and debates between Islam and Christendom to this very day. This progression can be seen historically, starting with the Najran debate during Muhammad’s lifetime, through the conquest of the Byzantine Empire two years after he died, and through all subsequent conquests of the Islamic Empire up to the gates of Vienna in 1683. In more recent times, elements of this ‘common word’ thinking has surfaced in various harsh proclamations by Osama Bin Laden, and, though it is currently being re-packaged in somewhat softer terms, in the current invitation letter A Common Word Between Us and You. But the true meaning and ultimate intent of the Common Word remains clear: accept Islam or face the consequences. Most of Sura 3:64 is actually quoted in the letter from the Muslim clerics to the Church, so it is sitting out there in broad daylight for all to see and heed. But although it is shamelessly out in the open, it is also veiled – that is, rendered virtually invisible to Christian readers - because the true meanings have been obscured by changing the interpretations of certain key phrases of Islamic doctrine rather than following the interpretations found in the various Tafsirs (Islamic commentaries). This is allowed in Islam, in order to suit the forum of the present day needs. This is a formal doctrine in Islam, called Takiyya (legitimate deception).
throughout the Common Word, an example of which has to do with the identity of Christ, although it is not mentioned in those terms - but rather as being in support of the ‘unity, or ‘oneness’ of God. For example, they give a partial reference from Sura 3:64 that “we associate no partners with Him [God]”, but this is explained away as reinforcing the ‘unity’ of the Monotheistic God, rather than referring to the correct Islamic interpretation of that phrase - that Christ is seen in their eyes as a ‘partner’, and that as a consequence to accept ‘other Lords’ or ‘partners’ would be blasphemy against the oneness of God. In actuality, what we would see if we were to be able to read their Tafsirs, is that the common word they are proposing, is in fact a denial of the Lordship of Christ1 , His divine sonship2 , and saviourhood3i, while validating Muhammad first as a Yüklə 7,46 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|