Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Details vs Essence
The details are merely servant to, not master of, the essence. And so it is with the Shar'iah and Islam.The various rules of the Shar'iah, unless carried out and implemented in a manner to serve Truth, Justice, Mercy and Compassion, which are of the essence of Islam, will be meaningless.No amount of prayer,fasting, zikr and haj is of use unless manifested in the way of Truth, Justice, Mercy and Compassion.And if it manifests itself not, does it not mean that the " Shar'iah" is used in the manner of a disloyal servant?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Finding Solace.
Last Friday during Jumaah prayers at Masjid Al Ghufran, I felt a sudden peace dwell upon and envelope me. I felt as though Allah swt was telling me that despite all the problems that were being faced, that I was not to worry but to fully trust in Him.
Nothing ever happens by accident. Everything is by design and we need only look around us and perceive the magnificence and preciseness of Allah's creation for us to understand that. And there are things that we do not understand but if we trust in Him, then know that He only means and shall design and carry out the best for each of His creatures. Thus if things occur that appear to us to be calamitous, be comforted that it occurs only with the leave of and permission of Allah swt. and that He alone knows what is best for His creatures.
Our vision is hampered by the illusive character of this World but believe that in the sphere of Reality, Allah swt knows what is best and that He designs what is best for each and every of His creatures. Accept with full acceptance of the heart therefore whatever Allah swt wills and accept too whatever outcome of anything that Allah swt has ordained.
Those thoughts comforted me and I trust that Allah swt will do whatever He knows to be the best and that whatever is the outcome of things, we should accept with full trust in our Creator.
Nothing ever happens by accident. Everything is by design and we need only look around us and perceive the magnificence and preciseness of Allah's creation for us to understand that. And there are things that we do not understand but if we trust in Him, then know that He only means and shall design and carry out the best for each of His creatures. Thus if things occur that appear to us to be calamitous, be comforted that it occurs only with the leave of and permission of Allah swt. and that He alone knows what is best for His creatures.
Our vision is hampered by the illusive character of this World but believe that in the sphere of Reality, Allah swt knows what is best and that He designs what is best for each and every of His creatures. Accept with full acceptance of the heart therefore whatever Allah swt wills and accept too whatever outcome of anything that Allah swt has ordained.
Those thoughts comforted me and I trust that Allah swt will do whatever He knows to be the best and that whatever is the outcome of things, we should accept with full trust in our Creator.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
THE PROPHET”S MARRIAGE TO YOUNG AISHAH
It is a common feature that when a person is unable to rebut the arguments or message put forth by another, he resorts to attacking the personality of that other, hoping thereby that somehow it will destroy or convey the impression of destroying that other’s arguments or message. One does not need to attack the other’s personality if indeed one’s own arguments on the issues raised or discussed are adequate to deal with it.
Hence we should not be surprised that critics of Islam centre much of their criticisms on the person of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) rather than the content of the message he conveyed.
One of the favourite criticisms of Western critics of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) relates to his marriage with Aishah. Indeed some of the most hateful allegations have been levelled at the Prophet (pbuh) on this score. He has been branded a child-abuser, a paedophile, a lustful man and a host of other similar unsavoury labels. Some Muslims too, for want of better knowledge and understanding, have been unable to clarify and rebut these false allegations by setting forth the true facts pertaining to his marriage to Aishah. They therefore avoid this issue.
Let us examine whether there is any substance and justification for any of these vile claims made against the Prophet (pbuh).
The Prophet's (pbuh) first marriage was to Khadijah, contracted when he was 25 years old and she was 40 years old. Khadijah was then 15 years older than the Prophet (pbuh). She had been twice widowed when the Prophet (pbuh) married her. For 24 years after the marriage until her death, Khadijah remained his only wife and the Prophet (pbuh) was a devoted husband to her. Does this reflect the conduct of a lustful man? Would a man in his sexual prime at the age of 25 years marry a woman 15 years his senior and then retain her as his only wife for 24 years until her death. This too at a time and in a society where women were downtrodden and it was the custom for men to have numerous wives and concubines?
Those determined at all cost to disparage the Prophet (pbuh) are likely to contend that the only reason he married Khadijah was because she was a wealthy widow. They can however offer no historical facts or records to support this assertion---only conjectures and their prejudice and malice towards him. History however tells us otherwise about the person of the Prophet(pbuh).
The devotion of the Prophet (pbuh) to Khadijah is borne out and illustrated by the hadith which records that years after the death of Khadijah and after the Prophet (pbuh) had remarried and taken several other wives, including Aishah, Aishah is reported to have asked the Prophet (pbuh) who his favourite wife was. To this the Prophet (pbuh) informed her that his favourite wife was indeed Khadijah for when he first received revelation and was himself in some doubt as to his role as prophet, she was the first to believe in him and had comforted and assured him that he was indeed God's messenger. The Prophet (pbuh) could so easily have told Aishah that she (Aishah) was his favourite wife and therefore pleased her without any risk of upsetting Khadijah as Khadijah had long since died. The Prophet (pbuh) however did not waver in his devotion to Khadijah even though it meant disappointing Aishah.
History clearly bears out that the Prophet (pbuh) remained devoted to Khadijah even after her death. Clearly those who call him a lustful man sin but against their own souls. And if they are Christians, they should be forewarned that their own Scripture (The Bible), even in its adulterated state, warns them against blaspheming Prophet Muhammad( pbuh) and that there will be no forgiveness for them if they do so.
After the death of Khadijah the Prophet (pbuh) married his second wife, Sawdah. After that he took Aishah as his wife. Aishah was the daughter of Abu Bakar, one of the Prophet's( pbuh) closest friends and one of his earliest followers. She was then 6 years old. She was the only virgin that the Prophet (pbuh) married, his other wives being mainly widows, those who had been abandoned and those whom he married for political reasons as they belonged to tribes opposed to Islam, thereby neutralizing the opposition..
Albeit that the marriage was contracted when Aishah was 6 years old, Aishah continued to live in the house of her father and the marriage was only consummated when she was 9 years old and had attained puberty.
Aishah narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) was betrothed to her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years”… Sahih AI- Bukhari, , Vol. 7 Book 62 Number 64.
What is the basis for criticism of the Prophet's (pbuh) marriage to Aishah? In all the writings of these critics, the only ground put forth is the young age of Aishah. They contend that it was wrong and immoral for the Prophet (pbuh) to have had sex with a girl aged 9 years. That is the only basis for their criticism.
If one were to ask these various critics what then should be the minimum age at which a girl can have sexual relations, can one expect a uniform answer from all these critics? Most certainly not. Their answers will of a certainty vary. Some may say 14 years, others perhaps 16 years or 18 years and other perhaps even later. If these critics themselves cannot agree at what the minimum age should be, then what right do they have to contend that 9 years of age is too young? And if questioned further as to the basis upon which they contend whatever the right age ought to be, it is inevitable that a measure of arbitrariness will be involved at them arriving at their decision.
As most, if not all, of these critics are Western-based, let us examine their own record on this issue.
Most Americans will be shocked to know that about 120/130 years ago the minimum age of consent based on the common law in the United States of America was 10 years of age.
In the state of Delaware, the minimum age of consent then was 7 years old. It was only after a campaign commenced in 1885 was the minimum age of consent gradually raised to 16 years and subsequently 18 years.California was the first state to raise the age of consent from 10 years to 14 in 1889,and then from 16 to 18 in 1913.The other states followed thereafter.
Are we therefore to conclude that approximately 120 years ago the United States of America officially condoned and sanctioned child-abuse and paedophilia? And what are we to make of the frequent changes to the minimum age of consent? Do not the frequent changes indicate that this is a matter that is not static but changes over time? If it was right 120 odd years age for the minimum age of consent to be 10 years (and 7 years in Delaware) in the United States of America, why do these critics then assume it was wrong 1,400 years ago for a marriage to be consummated when the girl was 9 years old?
To these various critics, I have to ask:
1.What was the prevailing situation 1,400 years ago? Was it not then the custom that a girl was marriageable on attaining the age of puberty? Was it not then a cultural norm in all Semitic societies then for marriage and consummation to take place on attaining puberty?
Wikipedia Encyclopedia under the heading “ The Nativity of Jesus” says:
“In first century Judea, betrothal was a binding contract that might take place while the couple, and in particular the girl, was prepubescent. The contract was for life, but under some circumstances could be broken by a formal divorce. After the ceremony of betrothal, the young bride would remain in her father's house for a year or more until she had reached sufficient maturity. At this time the husband would take the bride into his own home, accompanied by public celebration.”
Do not the findings and records of the Westerner himself confirm that during those times it was common for prepubescent girls to get married and only upon attaining puberty be sent from the homes of their fathers to their husbands ?
At what age do Christian records maintain that Mary, the mother of Jesus,gave birth to him? The Catholic Encyclopedia states that she gave birth to him when she was 13 or 14 years of age. Are they therefore contending that their so-called Holy Ghost was a philanderer and child-abuser?
So why the hypocrisy and double standards?
2. Was the average life expectancy then the same as it is now? Was it not much lower? Did that not then have a bearing on the marriageable age to ensure that the parents of children would be around to bring them up?
3. Can they explain why the father of Aishah, Abu Bakar, remained the Prophet’s (pbuh) closest helper and friend and devoted follower thereafter if indeed the Prophet had abused his daughter?
4.Would a man like Aishah’s father, Abu Bakar, have agreed to assume the position of Caliph and therefore help propagate and secure the teachings of someone who had abused his daughter?
5. Can they explain why, if indeed Aishah was abused by the Prophet (pbuh), she should have spoken so lovingly of him as is recorded in numerous hadith?
6. Can they explain why Aishah herself should relate so many hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) and thereby ensure his teachings survive to this day?
7. Can they explain why, if the Prophet (pbuh) was such a lustful man and a paedophile, he waited 3 long years to consummate his marriage with Aishah? She was his wife and he had every right to sleep with her if he so wished. Why did he wait for her to attain puberty?
8. Is not puberty a biological sign which shows that a women is capable of bearing children? Did the prophet (pbuh) not thereby set forth the principle that there can be no consummation until the onset of puberty even if she were your wife?
9. Why did the followers of the Prophet not then desert him and abandon his teachings if indeed what he did was wrong? Why should they continue to follow and obey him? Why did the number of his followers keep increasing, if indeed he was an immoral man?
These are questions that these critics rightly ought to answer.
They should also pay heed to what has been said by some Westerners themselves about the Prophet (pbuh).
W. Montgomery Watt wrote:
“Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad."
Annie Besant in “The Life and Teachings of Muhammad” wrote:
"It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but the reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
Reverend R. Maxwell King wrote:
"I have read in Moslem (sic) writings such deep and tender expressions of respect and reverence for Jesus that for the time I almost forgot, I was not reading the words of a Christian writer. How different, it is sad to say, has been the way in which Christians have spoken and written of Muhammad Let us put it down to it's true cause,ignorance".
Thomas Carlyle in “ Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History” wrote:
"The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only"
And Norman Daniel in “ Islam and the West” wrote:
"The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal…"
And whilst the Westerner/Christian ponders these passages whilst potraying himself and his Christian beliefs as being the vanguard and defender of women and their rights , he would also do well to consider some passages from his own scriptures and teachings, a sample of which is produced here:
1 Timothy 2:11-14 ( Bible):
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
1 Corinthians 14:34 (Bible):
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
(St. John Demascene):
"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise"
(St. Anthony):
"Woman is the fountain of the arm of the devil , her voice is the hissing of the serpent"
(St. Cyprian):
"Woman is the instrument which the devil uses to gain possession of our souls"
(St. Gregory):
"Woman has the poison of an asp, the malice of a dragon"
(St Tertullian):
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil wasn't valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man."
( St Augustine):
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman."
Dare we hope that the hypocrites will answer?
Hence we should not be surprised that critics of Islam centre much of their criticisms on the person of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) rather than the content of the message he conveyed.
One of the favourite criticisms of Western critics of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) relates to his marriage with Aishah. Indeed some of the most hateful allegations have been levelled at the Prophet (pbuh) on this score. He has been branded a child-abuser, a paedophile, a lustful man and a host of other similar unsavoury labels. Some Muslims too, for want of better knowledge and understanding, have been unable to clarify and rebut these false allegations by setting forth the true facts pertaining to his marriage to Aishah. They therefore avoid this issue.
Let us examine whether there is any substance and justification for any of these vile claims made against the Prophet (pbuh).
The Prophet's (pbuh) first marriage was to Khadijah, contracted when he was 25 years old and she was 40 years old. Khadijah was then 15 years older than the Prophet (pbuh). She had been twice widowed when the Prophet (pbuh) married her. For 24 years after the marriage until her death, Khadijah remained his only wife and the Prophet (pbuh) was a devoted husband to her. Does this reflect the conduct of a lustful man? Would a man in his sexual prime at the age of 25 years marry a woman 15 years his senior and then retain her as his only wife for 24 years until her death. This too at a time and in a society where women were downtrodden and it was the custom for men to have numerous wives and concubines?
Those determined at all cost to disparage the Prophet (pbuh) are likely to contend that the only reason he married Khadijah was because she was a wealthy widow. They can however offer no historical facts or records to support this assertion---only conjectures and their prejudice and malice towards him. History however tells us otherwise about the person of the Prophet(pbuh).
The devotion of the Prophet (pbuh) to Khadijah is borne out and illustrated by the hadith which records that years after the death of Khadijah and after the Prophet (pbuh) had remarried and taken several other wives, including Aishah, Aishah is reported to have asked the Prophet (pbuh) who his favourite wife was. To this the Prophet (pbuh) informed her that his favourite wife was indeed Khadijah for when he first received revelation and was himself in some doubt as to his role as prophet, she was the first to believe in him and had comforted and assured him that he was indeed God's messenger. The Prophet (pbuh) could so easily have told Aishah that she (Aishah) was his favourite wife and therefore pleased her without any risk of upsetting Khadijah as Khadijah had long since died. The Prophet (pbuh) however did not waver in his devotion to Khadijah even though it meant disappointing Aishah.
History clearly bears out that the Prophet (pbuh) remained devoted to Khadijah even after her death. Clearly those who call him a lustful man sin but against their own souls. And if they are Christians, they should be forewarned that their own Scripture (The Bible), even in its adulterated state, warns them against blaspheming Prophet Muhammad( pbuh) and that there will be no forgiveness for them if they do so.
After the death of Khadijah the Prophet (pbuh) married his second wife, Sawdah. After that he took Aishah as his wife. Aishah was the daughter of Abu Bakar, one of the Prophet's( pbuh) closest friends and one of his earliest followers. She was then 6 years old. She was the only virgin that the Prophet (pbuh) married, his other wives being mainly widows, those who had been abandoned and those whom he married for political reasons as they belonged to tribes opposed to Islam, thereby neutralizing the opposition..
Albeit that the marriage was contracted when Aishah was 6 years old, Aishah continued to live in the house of her father and the marriage was only consummated when she was 9 years old and had attained puberty.
Aishah narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) was betrothed to her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years”… Sahih AI- Bukhari, , Vol. 7 Book 62 Number 64.
What is the basis for criticism of the Prophet's (pbuh) marriage to Aishah? In all the writings of these critics, the only ground put forth is the young age of Aishah. They contend that it was wrong and immoral for the Prophet (pbuh) to have had sex with a girl aged 9 years. That is the only basis for their criticism.
If one were to ask these various critics what then should be the minimum age at which a girl can have sexual relations, can one expect a uniform answer from all these critics? Most certainly not. Their answers will of a certainty vary. Some may say 14 years, others perhaps 16 years or 18 years and other perhaps even later. If these critics themselves cannot agree at what the minimum age should be, then what right do they have to contend that 9 years of age is too young? And if questioned further as to the basis upon which they contend whatever the right age ought to be, it is inevitable that a measure of arbitrariness will be involved at them arriving at their decision.
As most, if not all, of these critics are Western-based, let us examine their own record on this issue.
Most Americans will be shocked to know that about 120/130 years ago the minimum age of consent based on the common law in the United States of America was 10 years of age.
In the state of Delaware, the minimum age of consent then was 7 years old. It was only after a campaign commenced in 1885 was the minimum age of consent gradually raised to 16 years and subsequently 18 years.California was the first state to raise the age of consent from 10 years to 14 in 1889,and then from 16 to 18 in 1913.The other states followed thereafter.
Are we therefore to conclude that approximately 120 years ago the United States of America officially condoned and sanctioned child-abuse and paedophilia? And what are we to make of the frequent changes to the minimum age of consent? Do not the frequent changes indicate that this is a matter that is not static but changes over time? If it was right 120 odd years age for the minimum age of consent to be 10 years (and 7 years in Delaware) in the United States of America, why do these critics then assume it was wrong 1,400 years ago for a marriage to be consummated when the girl was 9 years old?
To these various critics, I have to ask:
1.What was the prevailing situation 1,400 years ago? Was it not then the custom that a girl was marriageable on attaining the age of puberty? Was it not then a cultural norm in all Semitic societies then for marriage and consummation to take place on attaining puberty?
Wikipedia Encyclopedia under the heading “ The Nativity of Jesus” says:
“In first century Judea, betrothal was a binding contract that might take place while the couple, and in particular the girl, was prepubescent. The contract was for life, but under some circumstances could be broken by a formal divorce. After the ceremony of betrothal, the young bride would remain in her father's house for a year or more until she had reached sufficient maturity. At this time the husband would take the bride into his own home, accompanied by public celebration.”
Do not the findings and records of the Westerner himself confirm that during those times it was common for prepubescent girls to get married and only upon attaining puberty be sent from the homes of their fathers to their husbands ?
At what age do Christian records maintain that Mary, the mother of Jesus,gave birth to him? The Catholic Encyclopedia states that she gave birth to him when she was 13 or 14 years of age. Are they therefore contending that their so-called Holy Ghost was a philanderer and child-abuser?
So why the hypocrisy and double standards?
2. Was the average life expectancy then the same as it is now? Was it not much lower? Did that not then have a bearing on the marriageable age to ensure that the parents of children would be around to bring them up?
3. Can they explain why the father of Aishah, Abu Bakar, remained the Prophet’s (pbuh) closest helper and friend and devoted follower thereafter if indeed the Prophet had abused his daughter?
4.Would a man like Aishah’s father, Abu Bakar, have agreed to assume the position of Caliph and therefore help propagate and secure the teachings of someone who had abused his daughter?
5. Can they explain why, if indeed Aishah was abused by the Prophet (pbuh), she should have spoken so lovingly of him as is recorded in numerous hadith?
6. Can they explain why Aishah herself should relate so many hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) and thereby ensure his teachings survive to this day?
7. Can they explain why, if the Prophet (pbuh) was such a lustful man and a paedophile, he waited 3 long years to consummate his marriage with Aishah? She was his wife and he had every right to sleep with her if he so wished. Why did he wait for her to attain puberty?
8. Is not puberty a biological sign which shows that a women is capable of bearing children? Did the prophet (pbuh) not thereby set forth the principle that there can be no consummation until the onset of puberty even if she were your wife?
9. Why did the followers of the Prophet not then desert him and abandon his teachings if indeed what he did was wrong? Why should they continue to follow and obey him? Why did the number of his followers keep increasing, if indeed he was an immoral man?
These are questions that these critics rightly ought to answer.
They should also pay heed to what has been said by some Westerners themselves about the Prophet (pbuh).
W. Montgomery Watt wrote:
“Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad."
Annie Besant in “The Life and Teachings of Muhammad” wrote:
"It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but the reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher."
Reverend R. Maxwell King wrote:
"I have read in Moslem (sic) writings such deep and tender expressions of respect and reverence for Jesus that for the time I almost forgot, I was not reading the words of a Christian writer. How different, it is sad to say, has been the way in which Christians have spoken and written of Muhammad Let us put it down to it's true cause,ignorance".
Thomas Carlyle in “ Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History” wrote:
"The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only"
And Norman Daniel in “ Islam and the West” wrote:
"The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal…"
And whilst the Westerner/Christian ponders these passages whilst potraying himself and his Christian beliefs as being the vanguard and defender of women and their rights , he would also do well to consider some passages from his own scriptures and teachings, a sample of which is produced here:
1 Timothy 2:11-14 ( Bible):
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
1 Corinthians 14:34 (Bible):
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
(St. John Demascene):
"Woman is a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of Hell, the enemy of peace; through her Adam lost paradise"
(St. Anthony):
"Woman is the fountain of the arm of the devil , her voice is the hissing of the serpent"
(St. Cyprian):
"Woman is the instrument which the devil uses to gain possession of our souls"
(St. Gregory):
"Woman has the poison of an asp, the malice of a dragon"
(St Tertullian):
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil wasn't valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man."
( St Augustine):
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman."
Dare we hope that the hypocrites will answer?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Body vs. Spirit
We are taught by our Creator in the Last Testament sent by Him to Mankind that when Iblis or Satan was asked by God to bow down to Man in the form of Adam(pbuh), Iblis refused to do so and argued that Adam(pbuh) was created from clay whilst he(Iblis) was created from fire.Iblis thus understood himself to be superior to Man.
The Last Testament, the Qur'an, however explains thus the creation of Man:
"Behold!thy Lord said
To the angels: I am about
To create man from sounding clay
From mud moulded into shape:
When I have fasioned him
(In due proportion) and breathed
Into him of My spirit..."______Surah Al Hijr Ayat 28&29 (15:28&29)
What Iblis failed to understand or perceive was that Adam(pbuh) was not just created from clay but that God had breathed into him of His spirit and that Mankind therefore does not just consist of clay but contains something that God had breathed into him of His spirit that renders Man deserving of being bowed to by Iblis and the angels.
The clay was used to constitute Man's body and if Man had been left in that state without having been breathed into by God of His spirit, then indeed might Iblis have been right and Man be undeserving of being bowed to by Iblis and the angels.
Presently when we view one another,does our vision of the other cease at the perimeters of that other's body? Or are we able to extend our vision beyond the confines of that other's body into the realm of his spirit---one that God had deemed worthy of Iblis and the angels bowing to? Do we see him in essence in his bodily-form or do we see his essence as spirit? If we see him in essence in his bodily-form ,then does not our sense of vision extend no further than that of Iblis? Are we then no more deserving or perhaps even lower than Iblis?
We should hence ask ourselves : "Do we merely see the 'clay' or do we see what God had breathed of His spirit in that body of clay?"
Therein perhaps lies the answer to Man's quest for peace and harmony in this world.Therein perhaps lies the means to end Man's propensity for racism, discrimination, envy and selfishness. If we can train ourselves to habitually view others not in their bodily-form but as one containing something that God had breathed into of His spirit, can we then discriminate against and harbour ill-feelings towards him into whom has been breathed of the spirit of God?
Clay is clay and unto the earth it shall return but our spirit having been vested with a vestige of the immortality of God shall in time transcend the dimensions that demarcate this sphere of illusion into the sphere of reality, where Man being in essence spirit shall begin to understand the essence of Reality and begin to truly understand the things that he used to do.
How truly it has been said:
"Remember always that we are not so much
humans seeking a spiritual life as we
are spirits for now having to lead a
human life."
The Last Testament, the Qur'an, however explains thus the creation of Man:
"Behold!thy Lord said
To the angels: I am about
To create man from sounding clay
From mud moulded into shape:
When I have fasioned him
(In due proportion) and breathed
Into him of My spirit..."______Surah Al Hijr Ayat 28&29 (15:28&29)
What Iblis failed to understand or perceive was that Adam(pbuh) was not just created from clay but that God had breathed into him of His spirit and that Mankind therefore does not just consist of clay but contains something that God had breathed into him of His spirit that renders Man deserving of being bowed to by Iblis and the angels.
The clay was used to constitute Man's body and if Man had been left in that state without having been breathed into by God of His spirit, then indeed might Iblis have been right and Man be undeserving of being bowed to by Iblis and the angels.
Presently when we view one another,does our vision of the other cease at the perimeters of that other's body? Or are we able to extend our vision beyond the confines of that other's body into the realm of his spirit---one that God had deemed worthy of Iblis and the angels bowing to? Do we see him in essence in his bodily-form or do we see his essence as spirit? If we see him in essence in his bodily-form ,then does not our sense of vision extend no further than that of Iblis? Are we then no more deserving or perhaps even lower than Iblis?
We should hence ask ourselves : "Do we merely see the 'clay' or do we see what God had breathed of His spirit in that body of clay?"
Therein perhaps lies the answer to Man's quest for peace and harmony in this world.Therein perhaps lies the means to end Man's propensity for racism, discrimination, envy and selfishness. If we can train ourselves to habitually view others not in their bodily-form but as one containing something that God had breathed into of His spirit, can we then discriminate against and harbour ill-feelings towards him into whom has been breathed of the spirit of God?
Clay is clay and unto the earth it shall return but our spirit having been vested with a vestige of the immortality of God shall in time transcend the dimensions that demarcate this sphere of illusion into the sphere of reality, where Man being in essence spirit shall begin to understand the essence of Reality and begin to truly understand the things that he used to do.
How truly it has been said:
"Remember always that we are not so much
humans seeking a spiritual life as we
are spirits for now having to lead a
human life."
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Munafiq ( Hypocrite)
Just as during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), when there were those calling themselves muslims who were in fact munafiq, we find the same true today. These are those who are so enraptured by the ways of the West and its ideals and way of life that they have abandoned or wish to abandon the deen of Islam. They prefer the ideals of the West and the unrestrained freedom that goes with it. They wish to pursue the delights and glitter of this world as they please .
They are so enamoured of the ways of the West that they lead their lives no differently from the ordinary Westerner and find it incomprehensible why Muslims should place limitations on their own freedom and why God should have a say in everything. They see Islam and its prescribed way of life as the biggest threat to their misguided values of unlimited and unrestrained freedom.
Just as the pagan Arabs of yesteryear attempted to compromise Islam and Muslims, so too today we find there are those attempting the same thing. Hence we see numerous calls to reform Islam, to make Islam progressive and to bring Islam in line with modern times. We should not be surprised at this as Allah swt. had warned us that never will they be satisfied with us until we follow their deen, or in other words their way of life.
These so-called self-termed champions and proponents of human rights and freedom envisage a system where men shall live according to the dictates of their minds and confine God to the domain of their private lives, and that too only when they choose to permit Him to do so. In this they advocate a society where secularism holds sway, where they, and they alone, decide the role and prominence that God is to play in their lives, if any.
The clash is now taking place and it is growing as these deniers of truth will never be satisfied until they can get us to follow their deen.
The West today has largely given up on religion. Their churches are empty and their people today worship materialism, unbounded freedom and unbridled sensationalism. Homosexuality, once so abhorred by them, has become acceptable. Children born out of wedlock are now openly acknowledged and displayed to the world by the 'proud' parents. Those who have involved themselves in scandals now reap millions of dollars by writing bestsellers and going on lecture tours telling the whole world of their notoriety. In short, they have lost all sense of shame.
They have literally adopted the biblical passage "Give unto God what is God's and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" as though Caesar himself did not owe his very existence to God and as though there are facets of life that belong exclusively to Caesar and are outside the domain of God.
To the Westerner God has no role in the public domain. How one conducts oneself is a matter solely between one and God and no one else has a say in the matter. To them individual interests has supplanted and overcome communal interests in their private lives. This has resulted in the moral decadence of the West. Their ways are therefore different from that prescribed by Islam where there is no separation of God from one's private life and where the community's interest overrides that of the individual even in matters of how one is to conduct oneself privately.
The munafiq in adopting and worshipping the ways of the West in fact worship their own minds in that to them everything including the word of God must meet and measure up to the dictates of their minds and sense of reason. In so doing they fall prey to the most subtle form of shirk which is the worship of one's own mind and sense of logic despite the warning clearly given in the Holy Qur'an against doing so.
We see calls from amongst the deniers of truth that there should be inter-faith dialogue and a search for common ground from the teachings of the various religions to arrive at a code of conduct by which all men may live. In doing so what they are actually asking for is that we compromise Islam and our deen and that wherever and whenever Islam does not accord with that code, then Islam has to adjust to fit that code.
They quote sections from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Federal Constitution and other similar writings (as though something coined by Man can be as sacrosanct as God's word) in their arguments to change the teachings and practices of Islam. They speak of liberty and freedom (including the unspoken liberty and freedom to disobey and ignore God). They speak of human rights as the highest ideal ( as though God has no rights and as though Man's rights are not to be subject to God's rights).
Whilst we are encouraged, nay, commanded to use our logic and reason, they fail to comprehend that our logic and reason, just like our whole selves, are to submit to the will of God. It is in our total and not partial submission to His will that we become Muslims and that differentiate us from the munafiq and the kafir.
To Muslims everywhere the call therefore should be to appreciate that we are meant to be different, that we should be proud to be different, that we do not have to apologise for being different and that we are indeed to ensure we are different. Our difference should be manifested in our readiness to submit to God in totality including the submission of our minds to the commands of God and our rejection of the ungodly life lived by the West and the munafiq. We are to manifest our difference in as many ways as we can even if some are merely symbolic for they will add to our pride and strength at being Muslims.
And when we are confronted with allegations that we are not free or are backward or whatever allegations that they wish to hurl at us our answer should be:
"To you be your way and to me mine."
With us is Allah swt and we have the Truth, not them.
The hypocrites should also be reminded of:
"Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment. Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely *." [Surah al-Nisaa' 4:138-139]
They are so enamoured of the ways of the West that they lead their lives no differently from the ordinary Westerner and find it incomprehensible why Muslims should place limitations on their own freedom and why God should have a say in everything. They see Islam and its prescribed way of life as the biggest threat to their misguided values of unlimited and unrestrained freedom.
Just as the pagan Arabs of yesteryear attempted to compromise Islam and Muslims, so too today we find there are those attempting the same thing. Hence we see numerous calls to reform Islam, to make Islam progressive and to bring Islam in line with modern times. We should not be surprised at this as Allah swt. had warned us that never will they be satisfied with us until we follow their deen, or in other words their way of life.
These so-called self-termed champions and proponents of human rights and freedom envisage a system where men shall live according to the dictates of their minds and confine God to the domain of their private lives, and that too only when they choose to permit Him to do so. In this they advocate a society where secularism holds sway, where they, and they alone, decide the role and prominence that God is to play in their lives, if any.
The clash is now taking place and it is growing as these deniers of truth will never be satisfied until they can get us to follow their deen.
The West today has largely given up on religion. Their churches are empty and their people today worship materialism, unbounded freedom and unbridled sensationalism. Homosexuality, once so abhorred by them, has become acceptable. Children born out of wedlock are now openly acknowledged and displayed to the world by the 'proud' parents. Those who have involved themselves in scandals now reap millions of dollars by writing bestsellers and going on lecture tours telling the whole world of their notoriety. In short, they have lost all sense of shame.
They have literally adopted the biblical passage "Give unto God what is God's and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" as though Caesar himself did not owe his very existence to God and as though there are facets of life that belong exclusively to Caesar and are outside the domain of God.
To the Westerner God has no role in the public domain. How one conducts oneself is a matter solely between one and God and no one else has a say in the matter. To them individual interests has supplanted and overcome communal interests in their private lives. This has resulted in the moral decadence of the West. Their ways are therefore different from that prescribed by Islam where there is no separation of God from one's private life and where the community's interest overrides that of the individual even in matters of how one is to conduct oneself privately.
The munafiq in adopting and worshipping the ways of the West in fact worship their own minds in that to them everything including the word of God must meet and measure up to the dictates of their minds and sense of reason. In so doing they fall prey to the most subtle form of shirk which is the worship of one's own mind and sense of logic despite the warning clearly given in the Holy Qur'an against doing so.
We see calls from amongst the deniers of truth that there should be inter-faith dialogue and a search for common ground from the teachings of the various religions to arrive at a code of conduct by which all men may live. In doing so what they are actually asking for is that we compromise Islam and our deen and that wherever and whenever Islam does not accord with that code, then Islam has to adjust to fit that code.
They quote sections from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Federal Constitution and other similar writings (as though something coined by Man can be as sacrosanct as God's word) in their arguments to change the teachings and practices of Islam. They speak of liberty and freedom (including the unspoken liberty and freedom to disobey and ignore God). They speak of human rights as the highest ideal ( as though God has no rights and as though Man's rights are not to be subject to God's rights).
Whilst we are encouraged, nay, commanded to use our logic and reason, they fail to comprehend that our logic and reason, just like our whole selves, are to submit to the will of God. It is in our total and not partial submission to His will that we become Muslims and that differentiate us from the munafiq and the kafir.
To Muslims everywhere the call therefore should be to appreciate that we are meant to be different, that we should be proud to be different, that we do not have to apologise for being different and that we are indeed to ensure we are different. Our difference should be manifested in our readiness to submit to God in totality including the submission of our minds to the commands of God and our rejection of the ungodly life lived by the West and the munafiq. We are to manifest our difference in as many ways as we can even if some are merely symbolic for they will add to our pride and strength at being Muslims.
And when we are confronted with allegations that we are not free or are backward or whatever allegations that they wish to hurl at us our answer should be:
"To you be your way and to me mine."
With us is Allah swt and we have the Truth, not them.
The hypocrites should also be reminded of:
"Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment. Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely *." [Surah al-Nisaa' 4:138-139]
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Qur'an's Message to Christians
Unknown to the vast majority of Christians, the Qur'an addresses itself directly at them. In this the Qur'an is unique in that the Christian is named in the Qur'an and the Qur'an speaks directly to them. No other Scripture,other than their own, does so.
In numerous passagess of the Qur'an we find passages such as:
"From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." ___Surah 5:14
"O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book.___Surah 5:15
Those are just a sampling of passages that a Christian will encounter on reading the Qur'an.There are lots and lots more. And yet the average Christian is oblivious to it.
How has this come about? By and large this situation has been managed and controlled by the elders of the church who, by frightening their flock from venturing beyond the confines of the teachings of the church in the discovery of truth and by demonising Islam and the Qur'an, have prevented Christians from knowing the truth about Islam and the Qur'an. For reasons that will be dealt with later, the political leaders of these "Christian" nations with the collaboration of their media have all played a part in this.
Why are the church elders and others so against Islam and the Qur'an? Why is it that of all the other religions that are practised they fear Islam the most? Why is it that the fear is so great that even lies and distortions are resorted to to keep Christians from leatning about Islam or reading the Qur'an?
In truth if we examine the matter they have much to fear.
Of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that is addressed directly to Christians.
Of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that states that the Jews and Christians have adulterated and corrupted their Scriptures.
Of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that tells the Christians in detail exactly where their Scripture is wrong.
And of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that challenges and criticises the Western-Christian way of life and proves it to be wrong.
Is it any wonder then that they harbour that fear?
If Christians were to come to know the Qur'an, the institution of the church might crumble and all their clergy may have to seek other pursuits. Their current way of life may have to change and this they fear.
(to be continued)
In numerous passagess of the Qur'an we find passages such as:
"From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." ___Surah 5:14
"O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book.___Surah 5:15
Those are just a sampling of passages that a Christian will encounter on reading the Qur'an.There are lots and lots more. And yet the average Christian is oblivious to it.
How has this come about? By and large this situation has been managed and controlled by the elders of the church who, by frightening their flock from venturing beyond the confines of the teachings of the church in the discovery of truth and by demonising Islam and the Qur'an, have prevented Christians from knowing the truth about Islam and the Qur'an. For reasons that will be dealt with later, the political leaders of these "Christian" nations with the collaboration of their media have all played a part in this.
Why are the church elders and others so against Islam and the Qur'an? Why is it that of all the other religions that are practised they fear Islam the most? Why is it that the fear is so great that even lies and distortions are resorted to to keep Christians from leatning about Islam or reading the Qur'an?
In truth if we examine the matter they have much to fear.
Of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that is addressed directly to Christians.
Of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that states that the Jews and Christians have adulterated and corrupted their Scriptures.
Of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that tells the Christians in detail exactly where their Scripture is wrong.
And of all the Scriptures that there is, the Qur'an is the only one that challenges and criticises the Western-Christian way of life and proves it to be wrong.
Is it any wonder then that they harbour that fear?
If Christians were to come to know the Qur'an, the institution of the church might crumble and all their clergy may have to seek other pursuits. Their current way of life may have to change and this they fear.
(to be continued)
Apostasy in Malaysia - A Muslim's Perspective
Much discussion and debate has taken place in recent times on the issue of whether Muslims have or ought to have the right to apostasise. Participants in this discussion involve not only muslims but also non-muslims who are vociferous in their insistence that muslims have the right to apostasise.
From the theological point of view, there are Islamic scholars who contend that an apostate who refuses to recant his apostasy is to be punished with death whilst there are other Islamic scholars who contend that the death punishment is only to be meted out where the apostate is guilty also of actions akin to treason as where for example he actively involves himself in "waging war" against the religion of Islam and/or the community of muslims.
In Malaysia the administration of the religion of Islam is provided by the Federal Constitution as falling within the jurisdiction of the State Authority and not the Federal Authority and hence there exists differences in the administration of Islam amongst the various States. In Negeri Sembilan for instance, there exists provision and procedure that govern the situation where a muslim intends to apostasise. These include, amongst others, the requirement that the intending apostate has to undergo counselling by the State Islamic authorities before any further steps can be taken in the matter. In most, if not all other States, there is no specific provision, procedure or guideline providing for such a situation.
Leaving aside the theological aspects of the issue, it is incumbent to also examine the practical aspects surrounding the issue. It is submitted that a muslim should not be allowed to apostasise at his own whim and fancy but perhaps may be allowed to do so only after he has attended counselling by the State Islamic authority who should be empowered to examine whether his choice to apostasise has been influenced by deception, ignorance, threat or inducement.
It must be borne in mind that Islam, unlike other religions practised in Malaysia, has it own comprehensive set of laws that apply to and govern the conduct of its
adherents. Christianity too in its early days had a similar set of laws for its followers but it was later abandoned when Christianity lost its way due to the teachings of Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus.
Where a set of religious laws apply to and is implemented over the followers of a religion, then it is impracticable and illogical to allow any of those followers to freely apostasise for to do so would create chaos in society.
To allow apostasy at a person's whim and fancy can result in a person having one set of laws apply to him on Sunday, a different set of laws on Monday, the earlier set of laws on Tuesday, the latter set of laws on Wednesday and so on and so forth. This will of necessity create chaos in that community.
Even from the non-muslim point of view it is disadvantageous to their own community to have muslims being able to freely apostasise.
To illustrate this we may take an example of a Christian couple. Let us say that after some years of marriage the husband tires of her and prefers another Christian lady. Rather than file for divorce and wait a protracted period of time for his divorce to be finalized, that is assuming in the first place that he has sufficient and appropriate grounds for asking for a divorce, the easiest way for him in this situation is for him and that Christian lady to convert to Islam and to get married even if they do not truly believe in Islam. Thereafter upon his divorce from the first wife being effected and their aim achieved all that is then necessary is for him and his new wife to apostasise and to revert to Christianity. They would have succeeded in defeating the legal system in place and the husband is free to adopt the same procedure again should he later tire of the new wife.The net result would be a mockery of and abuse of the legal system. Where however the husband and that Christian lady are aware that it is impossible or possible only after great difficulty to apostasise out of Islam, they would surely think a thousand times about adopting such a course if they did not truly believe in the religion of Islam, thereby ensuring that the legal system in place is not easily abused.
From the theological point of view, there are Islamic scholars who contend that an apostate who refuses to recant his apostasy is to be punished with death whilst there are other Islamic scholars who contend that the death punishment is only to be meted out where the apostate is guilty also of actions akin to treason as where for example he actively involves himself in "waging war" against the religion of Islam and/or the community of muslims.
In Malaysia the administration of the religion of Islam is provided by the Federal Constitution as falling within the jurisdiction of the State Authority and not the Federal Authority and hence there exists differences in the administration of Islam amongst the various States. In Negeri Sembilan for instance, there exists provision and procedure that govern the situation where a muslim intends to apostasise. These include, amongst others, the requirement that the intending apostate has to undergo counselling by the State Islamic authorities before any further steps can be taken in the matter. In most, if not all other States, there is no specific provision, procedure or guideline providing for such a situation.
Leaving aside the theological aspects of the issue, it is incumbent to also examine the practical aspects surrounding the issue. It is submitted that a muslim should not be allowed to apostasise at his own whim and fancy but perhaps may be allowed to do so only after he has attended counselling by the State Islamic authority who should be empowered to examine whether his choice to apostasise has been influenced by deception, ignorance, threat or inducement.
It must be borne in mind that Islam, unlike other religions practised in Malaysia, has it own comprehensive set of laws that apply to and govern the conduct of its
adherents. Christianity too in its early days had a similar set of laws for its followers but it was later abandoned when Christianity lost its way due to the teachings of Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus.
Where a set of religious laws apply to and is implemented over the followers of a religion, then it is impracticable and illogical to allow any of those followers to freely apostasise for to do so would create chaos in society.
To allow apostasy at a person's whim and fancy can result in a person having one set of laws apply to him on Sunday, a different set of laws on Monday, the earlier set of laws on Tuesday, the latter set of laws on Wednesday and so on and so forth. This will of necessity create chaos in that community.
Even from the non-muslim point of view it is disadvantageous to their own community to have muslims being able to freely apostasise.
To illustrate this we may take an example of a Christian couple. Let us say that after some years of marriage the husband tires of her and prefers another Christian lady. Rather than file for divorce and wait a protracted period of time for his divorce to be finalized, that is assuming in the first place that he has sufficient and appropriate grounds for asking for a divorce, the easiest way for him in this situation is for him and that Christian lady to convert to Islam and to get married even if they do not truly believe in Islam. Thereafter upon his divorce from the first wife being effected and their aim achieved all that is then necessary is for him and his new wife to apostasise and to revert to Christianity. They would have succeeded in defeating the legal system in place and the husband is free to adopt the same procedure again should he later tire of the new wife.The net result would be a mockery of and abuse of the legal system. Where however the husband and that Christian lady are aware that it is impossible or possible only after great difficulty to apostasise out of Islam, they would surely think a thousand times about adopting such a course if they did not truly believe in the religion of Islam, thereby ensuring that the legal system in place is not easily abused.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Sodom and Gomorrah Re-visited
Of late there are reports of several Western nations recognising same-sex marriages. There was the case of a Danish cabinet minister marrying his boyfriend. Then Canada legalised same-sex marriages. Spain followed suit shortly thereafter. On July, 5th, 2005 it was reported that the United Church of Christ's rule-making body voted overwhelmingly to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriages.The President of the United Church of Christ, Rev. John H. Thomas,lent his support to the resolution. If this trend continues it may well be that within a short time all Western nations will recognise same-sex marriages.
Prior to all these there were numerous reports of gays and lesbians marching down the main avenues of the capital cities of many Western nations in broad daylight demanding their "right" to practice homosexuality. Not only do they in large numbers participate in this depravity but construe it their right to do so.
What is happening in Western Christian Society? Have they lost all sense of reason? Have they forgotten the story of Sodom and Gomorrah described in what they consider as scripture (the Bible) where the people were punished by God for such depravity? Do they forget that in Leviticus 18:22 of the Bible it states:-
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination."
What has brought about all this?
We find today in Western society a state of 1awlessness. By this it is not meant that Western society does not have laws promulgated by their Parliaments, Congress and other legislative authorities but rather it is a society devoid of God's guidance and commandments (syariah). It is not that what they consider to be scripture (the Bible) does not contain laws that govern conduct but that Western state has chosen to ignore these and choose to be ruled solely by the dictates of their own minds, reason and sense of logic.
In doing so, although they call themselves Christians, they ignore what they themselves believe to be the very teachings of him whom they claim to follow, Jesus (pbuh). In the scripture that they ascribe to Jesus (pbuh), i.e. the Bible, he is reported in Mathew 5:17 to 19 to have said:-
“17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "
In other words what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said is that his mission is not to repeal or do away with the law (i.e. the Law then in place as was believed to have been revealed to Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the other prophets)(pbut). Rather, he goes on to say that the Law will not be changed until heaven and earth pass away and that anyone who breaches and teaches men to breach the law shall be viewed as the lowest and as despicable in the sight of God whilst those who teach men to observe the Law shall be viewed as "great" by God.
Christians today however do not consider themselves bound to follow any of these laws, notwithstanding that the Bible tells them Jesus (pbuh) reportedly said that the Law will remain till heaven and earth pass away.
Why do they do this?
The answer lies in their following the teachings of Paul found in the New Testament of the Bible notwithstanding that it contradicts what they believe to be the teachings of Jesus(pbuh) in the Bible. Paul teaches them that the Law is no longer applicable to them and hence they are free to ignore the Law. Going by what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said in Mathew 5: 19 of the Bible, Paul is a man viewed as the lowest and despised by God and leads men to be similarly despised by God.
In Romans 3:28 of the Bible Paul states:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
In this passage Paul states that it is enough to have faith and that observance of the Law is unnecessary. 3
He also calls the Law a curse.
In Galatians 3:13 of the Bible he states:
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law ..."
In Romans 4: 15 of the Bible Paul states:
“the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
In Romans 5: 13 of the Bible he states:
“(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
By teaching man that the Law is unnecessary and that men are freed from the Law by Jesus(pbuh), Paul in fact fulfils the description by Jesus {pbuh)in Mathew 5.19 of the Bible of the man despised by God. He also contradicts what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said that the Law will remain till heaven and earth pass away. Regrettably, the Christians have chosen to follow Paul rather than Jesus (pbuh), even though they claim to be followers of Jesus (pbuh).
In Hebrews 5: 16 of the Bible Paul states:
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ...”
Nothing can be clearer than this verse that Paul teaches principles different from that Jesus(pbuh)taught. He even has the temerity to state that what Jesus~ (pbuh) taught is not perfect but that it is his own teachings that are perfect.
The Law that was given to Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the other prophets is believed by the Christians to be in the Old Testament of the Bible. They believe the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) to be in the New Testament of the Bible. The Christians however fail to recognise the Last Testament of God, the Holy Qur'an, which corrects the earlier Testaments that have been altered and corrupted by men in various places.
What does this Last Testament (Holy Qur'an) tell us about the Christians and their failure to observe the laws" of God?
In Surah AI Ma'idah verse 44 (5:44) of the Holy Qur'an God tells us:-
"It was We who revealed
The Law (to Moses): therein
Was guidance and light . . ."
Two verses later we are told:-
“. . . We sent Jesus the son
Of Mary, confirming
The Law that had come
Before him: We sent him
The Gospel: therein
Was guidance and light,
And confirmation of the Law
That had come before him ...”
Several verses later in verse 68 we are told:
“Say: '0 People of the Book!
Ye have no ground
To stand upon unless
Ye stand fast by the Law ...”
The Holy Qur'an in these verses confirms what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said that he (Jesus) confirms the Law that was sent to Moses (pbuh) and that Man shall fail if they disregard the Law of God. Take away the false teachings ascribed to Paul and we find that all God's prophets state the same thing, that is that Man is required to observe the laws and commandments of God.
By disregarding the laws of God the Western Christian society has in effect become a Godless society. They claim that they have faith, but by ignoring the Law of God their faith, is at best, an empty shell.
They have to be made aware that they cannot continue to rely on laws derived solely from their own minds and sense of reason. Man's logic has its limitations and when relied upon solely will surely lead Man astray.
We have two exceptional examples set out in the Holy Qur'an showing the limitations of logic as compared to the knowledge of God.
When Iblis (Satan) was commanded by God to bow to Adam(pbuh) and when he was thereafter asked whv he disobeyed, “he retorted, as reported in Surah AI A'raf verse 12 (7:12) of the Holy Qur'an:-
“...l am better
Than he: Thou didst create
Me from fire, and him from clay"
Ibilis here used his logic and sense of reason to argue against and disobey the commandment of God. We all know what happened to Iblis thereafter.
As opposed to this we have the example of Prophet Abraham (pbuh). He was commanded to sacrifice his only son --- something which defies logic. His readiness to comply with the commandment, even against his own sense of reason, saw him ultimately raised to the rank of "Friend of God".
It is not surprising therefore that Western nations, in ignoring the laws of God and by following the false teachings ascribed to Paul, has gone far astray. They have ventured so far astray as to now consider homosexuality a human right and have gone on to legalise such unions. In considering human rights they are oblivious to or choose to ignore the rights of God. Unless they repent and mend their ways and learn to pay heed to the laws of God and submit their minds and sense of reason to God, it is only a matter of time before the world shall witness the catastrophe associated with Sodom and Gomorrah befall them.
Footnote: All references to the Bible and Holy Quran are to the King James Version of the Bible and Abdullah Yusuf Ali's" The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an
Updated May 15, 2008
Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban
MSNBC staff and news service reports
SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority.
Prior to all these there were numerous reports of gays and lesbians marching down the main avenues of the capital cities of many Western nations in broad daylight demanding their "right" to practice homosexuality. Not only do they in large numbers participate in this depravity but construe it their right to do so.
What is happening in Western Christian Society? Have they lost all sense of reason? Have they forgotten the story of Sodom and Gomorrah described in what they consider as scripture (the Bible) where the people were punished by God for such depravity? Do they forget that in Leviticus 18:22 of the Bible it states:-
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination."
What has brought about all this?
We find today in Western society a state of 1awlessness. By this it is not meant that Western society does not have laws promulgated by their Parliaments, Congress and other legislative authorities but rather it is a society devoid of God's guidance and commandments (syariah). It is not that what they consider to be scripture (the Bible) does not contain laws that govern conduct but that Western state has chosen to ignore these and choose to be ruled solely by the dictates of their own minds, reason and sense of logic.
In doing so, although they call themselves Christians, they ignore what they themselves believe to be the very teachings of him whom they claim to follow, Jesus (pbuh). In the scripture that they ascribe to Jesus (pbuh), i.e. the Bible, he is reported in Mathew 5:17 to 19 to have said:-
“17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "
In other words what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said is that his mission is not to repeal or do away with the law (i.e. the Law then in place as was believed to have been revealed to Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the other prophets)(pbut). Rather, he goes on to say that the Law will not be changed until heaven and earth pass away and that anyone who breaches and teaches men to breach the law shall be viewed as the lowest and as despicable in the sight of God whilst those who teach men to observe the Law shall be viewed as "great" by God.
Christians today however do not consider themselves bound to follow any of these laws, notwithstanding that the Bible tells them Jesus (pbuh) reportedly said that the Law will remain till heaven and earth pass away.
Why do they do this?
The answer lies in their following the teachings of Paul found in the New Testament of the Bible notwithstanding that it contradicts what they believe to be the teachings of Jesus(pbuh) in the Bible. Paul teaches them that the Law is no longer applicable to them and hence they are free to ignore the Law. Going by what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said in Mathew 5: 19 of the Bible, Paul is a man viewed as the lowest and despised by God and leads men to be similarly despised by God.
In Romans 3:28 of the Bible Paul states:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
In this passage Paul states that it is enough to have faith and that observance of the Law is unnecessary. 3
He also calls the Law a curse.
In Galatians 3:13 of the Bible he states:
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law ..."
In Romans 4: 15 of the Bible Paul states:
“the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
In Romans 5: 13 of the Bible he states:
“(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
By teaching man that the Law is unnecessary and that men are freed from the Law by Jesus(pbuh), Paul in fact fulfils the description by Jesus {pbuh)in Mathew 5.19 of the Bible of the man despised by God. He also contradicts what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said that the Law will remain till heaven and earth pass away. Regrettably, the Christians have chosen to follow Paul rather than Jesus (pbuh), even though they claim to be followers of Jesus (pbuh).
In Hebrews 5: 16 of the Bible Paul states:
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ...”
Nothing can be clearer than this verse that Paul teaches principles different from that Jesus(pbuh)taught. He even has the temerity to state that what Jesus~ (pbuh) taught is not perfect but that it is his own teachings that are perfect.
The Law that was given to Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the other prophets is believed by the Christians to be in the Old Testament of the Bible. They believe the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) to be in the New Testament of the Bible. The Christians however fail to recognise the Last Testament of God, the Holy Qur'an, which corrects the earlier Testaments that have been altered and corrupted by men in various places.
What does this Last Testament (Holy Qur'an) tell us about the Christians and their failure to observe the laws" of God?
In Surah AI Ma'idah verse 44 (5:44) of the Holy Qur'an God tells us:-
"It was We who revealed
The Law (to Moses): therein
Was guidance and light . . ."
Two verses later we are told:-
“. . . We sent Jesus the son
Of Mary, confirming
The Law that had come
Before him: We sent him
The Gospel: therein
Was guidance and light,
And confirmation of the Law
That had come before him ...”
Several verses later in verse 68 we are told:
“Say: '0 People of the Book!
Ye have no ground
To stand upon unless
Ye stand fast by the Law ...”
The Holy Qur'an in these verses confirms what Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said that he (Jesus) confirms the Law that was sent to Moses (pbuh) and that Man shall fail if they disregard the Law of God. Take away the false teachings ascribed to Paul and we find that all God's prophets state the same thing, that is that Man is required to observe the laws and commandments of God.
By disregarding the laws of God the Western Christian society has in effect become a Godless society. They claim that they have faith, but by ignoring the Law of God their faith, is at best, an empty shell.
They have to be made aware that they cannot continue to rely on laws derived solely from their own minds and sense of reason. Man's logic has its limitations and when relied upon solely will surely lead Man astray.
We have two exceptional examples set out in the Holy Qur'an showing the limitations of logic as compared to the knowledge of God.
When Iblis (Satan) was commanded by God to bow to Adam(pbuh) and when he was thereafter asked whv he disobeyed, “he retorted, as reported in Surah AI A'raf verse 12 (7:12) of the Holy Qur'an:-
“...l am better
Than he: Thou didst create
Me from fire, and him from clay"
Ibilis here used his logic and sense of reason to argue against and disobey the commandment of God. We all know what happened to Iblis thereafter.
As opposed to this we have the example of Prophet Abraham (pbuh). He was commanded to sacrifice his only son --- something which defies logic. His readiness to comply with the commandment, even against his own sense of reason, saw him ultimately raised to the rank of "Friend of God".
It is not surprising therefore that Western nations, in ignoring the laws of God and by following the false teachings ascribed to Paul, has gone far astray. They have ventured so far astray as to now consider homosexuality a human right and have gone on to legalise such unions. In considering human rights they are oblivious to or choose to ignore the rights of God. Unless they repent and mend their ways and learn to pay heed to the laws of God and submit their minds and sense of reason to God, it is only a matter of time before the world shall witness the catastrophe associated with Sodom and Gomorrah befall them.
Footnote: All references to the Bible and Holy Quran are to the King James Version of the Bible and Abdullah Yusuf Ali's" The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an
Monday, January 7, 2008
Mindlessly imitating the West
Imitation,it has quite rightly been said, is the sincerest form of flattery.Ever since the West colonised large parts of Asia, we find that Asians have to a considerable degree aped Western ways and the Western way of life.This is largely a result of colonisation as the Western-coloniser introduced and imposed his language, his culture, his religion, his politics and system of government, his social mores, his economic system and his values and attitudes on the Asian.
Long periods of colonisation, as was the case in the West's colonisation of Asia, invariably results in the colonised people choosing to blindly imitate the coloniser.The one colonised is brainwashed mainly through the education system, the value-system based on the coloniser's religion and the mass media introduced and controlled by the coloniser into thinking and believing that the coloniser is superior in most things and that the only way that he can improve himself is by adopting the ways of these "superior" people as much as he can.If he accepts and conforms to the Western way of life he stands a chance of being duly rewarded with a senior position in the civil service and in other ways.He is taught to believe that his own native way is deficient and poor in comparison with that of the coloniser. Changing this mindset is not something that can be overturned within a shortframe of time, even with the end of colonisation, and it sometimes takes generations before the peoples who were once colonised can break free.
Hence today we see large sections of Asian peoples, despite having gained their independence of their colonial masters, still living and adoring the Western way of life and discarding the ways of their forefathers.Few venture to enquire and examine whether the ways of their forefathers are in fact inferior and few still wonder whether their forefathers would "turn in their graves" if they could but see the manner of living of their descendants.
Even at the superficial level we see the Asian still ape the West.We find Chinese, Indians, Filipinos,Indonesians,Malaysians and others sporting names like Francis,Tony,Mark and Henry---names that would be totally alien to their forefathers.We find Asians dyeing their hair all shades of colour in imitation of the Westerner and slavishly following Western fashion,entertainment and culture.It did not take long for instance after the advent of rap music and navel-exposing jeans in the West for Asians to adopt it.Just as it became hip in the West for men to sport earrings and to wear a baseball cap backwards, Asians followed suit. In so doing, the Asian deprecates his own culture.
We see national leaders,captains of industry and executives and those in high society of Asian countries meticulously maintaining their dress code of coat and tie for official and formal functions notwithstanding that the weather may not actually be suitable for such attire.The tie incidentally is about the most worthless, useless piece of clothing ever designed as it serves absolutely no purpose for those living in warmer climates. The fact that it is worn as a status symbol and as a necessary part of one's attire and as a mark that one has attained to a certain strata of society is all the more alarming and is indicative of the extent to which western values have permeated the Asian.In all these ways the Asian consciously or unconsciously lends weight to his acceptance of the superiority of the Western way of life and its values.These are at the relatively superficial level but is nevertheless indicative of the extent of mindless imitation.
Greater impact is felt at the level of economic, educational and political values and attitudes on the Asian. Democracy, based essentially on the Westminster-model, and human rights ala the West is assumed without much debate as the most-perfect form of government for any society and the minimum rights and expectations of its citizens respectively.Capitalism and by extension now globalisation is seen and accepted by the Asian as the only way to move forward, whilst education modelled on what the Westerner introduced is the only way to attain to the high pedestal of a scholar.
It has also often been said that the person who imitates can never in the eyes of the one imitated equal the " original" and that the one who imitates shall at best be viewed as a "poor second".Is it any wonder then if the Westerner generally views the Asian as inferior and with disdain? In this it is the Asian's fault in having abandoned his own values, focus and way of life and preferring that of the Westerner.
It is perhaps now time for the Asian to rediscover and examine and perhaps adopt some of the ways and values of his forefathers and to determine his own way of life rather than be in mindless imitation of the West. He should look into the spiritual, social,economic, political and moral compasses of his forefathers.It will take a mental revolution to do so but a start ought to be made now before it is too late for the Asian, having done away with physical colonisation, only to have it replaced with and be subjugated by mental colonisation.
Long periods of colonisation, as was the case in the West's colonisation of Asia, invariably results in the colonised people choosing to blindly imitate the coloniser.The one colonised is brainwashed mainly through the education system, the value-system based on the coloniser's religion and the mass media introduced and controlled by the coloniser into thinking and believing that the coloniser is superior in most things and that the only way that he can improve himself is by adopting the ways of these "superior" people as much as he can.If he accepts and conforms to the Western way of life he stands a chance of being duly rewarded with a senior position in the civil service and in other ways.He is taught to believe that his own native way is deficient and poor in comparison with that of the coloniser. Changing this mindset is not something that can be overturned within a shortframe of time, even with the end of colonisation, and it sometimes takes generations before the peoples who were once colonised can break free.
Hence today we see large sections of Asian peoples, despite having gained their independence of their colonial masters, still living and adoring the Western way of life and discarding the ways of their forefathers.Few venture to enquire and examine whether the ways of their forefathers are in fact inferior and few still wonder whether their forefathers would "turn in their graves" if they could but see the manner of living of their descendants.
Even at the superficial level we see the Asian still ape the West.We find Chinese, Indians, Filipinos,Indonesians,Malaysians and others sporting names like Francis,Tony,Mark and Henry---names that would be totally alien to their forefathers.We find Asians dyeing their hair all shades of colour in imitation of the Westerner and slavishly following Western fashion,entertainment and culture.It did not take long for instance after the advent of rap music and navel-exposing jeans in the West for Asians to adopt it.Just as it became hip in the West for men to sport earrings and to wear a baseball cap backwards, Asians followed suit. In so doing, the Asian deprecates his own culture.
We see national leaders,captains of industry and executives and those in high society of Asian countries meticulously maintaining their dress code of coat and tie for official and formal functions notwithstanding that the weather may not actually be suitable for such attire.The tie incidentally is about the most worthless, useless piece of clothing ever designed as it serves absolutely no purpose for those living in warmer climates. The fact that it is worn as a status symbol and as a necessary part of one's attire and as a mark that one has attained to a certain strata of society is all the more alarming and is indicative of the extent to which western values have permeated the Asian.In all these ways the Asian consciously or unconsciously lends weight to his acceptance of the superiority of the Western way of life and its values.These are at the relatively superficial level but is nevertheless indicative of the extent of mindless imitation.
Greater impact is felt at the level of economic, educational and political values and attitudes on the Asian. Democracy, based essentially on the Westminster-model, and human rights ala the West is assumed without much debate as the most-perfect form of government for any society and the minimum rights and expectations of its citizens respectively.Capitalism and by extension now globalisation is seen and accepted by the Asian as the only way to move forward, whilst education modelled on what the Westerner introduced is the only way to attain to the high pedestal of a scholar.
It has also often been said that the person who imitates can never in the eyes of the one imitated equal the " original" and that the one who imitates shall at best be viewed as a "poor second".Is it any wonder then if the Westerner generally views the Asian as inferior and with disdain? In this it is the Asian's fault in having abandoned his own values, focus and way of life and preferring that of the Westerner.
It is perhaps now time for the Asian to rediscover and examine and perhaps adopt some of the ways and values of his forefathers and to determine his own way of life rather than be in mindless imitation of the West. He should look into the spiritual, social,economic, political and moral compasses of his forefathers.It will take a mental revolution to do so but a start ought to be made now before it is too late for the Asian, having done away with physical colonisation, only to have it replaced with and be subjugated by mental colonisation.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Use of "Allah" by Catholics
The Catholics in Malaysia wish to use "Allah" in their publications in the Malay Language. Their main justification in asserting their right to do so is their contention that Arab Christians use it in referring to God. That makes for "funny" logic. It is understandable if they are publishing their material in Arabic, but why insist on an Arabic word when publishing in Malay?
They may contend that the Muslims here too use " Allah" in their Malay and even English publications and so they should have the right to do the same. But there is a major difference. Muslims all over the world pray in the Arabic language. Likewise the call to prayer throughout the world is made in the Arabic language. In all of these " Allah" is used and Muslims throughout the world use "Allah" in praying to and referring to God.
Only Muslims and perhaps Arab-speaking Christians use "Allah" in their prayers. Do the Christians in Malaysia use " Allah" in their prayers? No,they do not. So why the demand that they have the right to use " Allah"? To publish in Malay they could use "Tuhan" which is the Malay word for God. Why publish in the Malay language and insist on using an Arabic word when there is a Malay equivalent?
Are there then other undisclosed reasons for such demand?
The answer lies in the Christian agenda to preach to Muslims. The Christians have this worldwide agenda called the 10/40 Window. To quote from one of their websites at http://1040window.org/what_is.htm:
"The 10/40 Window is an area of the world that contains the largest population of non-Christians in the world. The area extends from 10 degrees to 40 degrees North of the equator, and stretches from North Africa across to China.It includes Malaysia."
Not very long ago Time magazine ran as its lead story and had on its cover the caption "Should Christians convert muslims".
In another website at: http://www.win1040.com/countries/malaysia.htm, this comment appears:
"Growing Islamic culture in Malaysia could make it harder for Malay Muslims to hear the truth about Jesus. Pray that Christians would still find opportunities to share the Gospel."
In another website at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/cia1.html, it states:
"The 10/40 Window is evangelical-speak for the rectangle with boundaries of latitudes 10 and 40 degrees north of the equator; encompassing most of the Muslim World.
Muslim countries especially targeted are the newly independent states in Central Asia - particularly Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and the Southeast Asian tigers, Malaysia and Indonesia."
It adds: "Mike and Cindy Bowen of LaGrange, Georgia first went to Malaysia in 1987, on a short-term outreach for the Pentecostal Holiness Church. According to the Bowens, it was on the plane home that God confirmed His call to them. "We both knew that God would eventually bring us back home to Malaysia to teach and preach to the Malay people who haven't heard," says Cindy Bowen, of her husband-and-wife team."
Further it says:"'The Bowens plan to help establish two Pentecostal Holiness churches in Kuala Lumpur by training the pastors and bringing forth leaders to start plant more churches in this emerging Southeast Asian Muslim-majority nation of 19 million. A spokesperson for the National Evangelical Fellowship of Malaysia claims that 600 Christian churches have started there since 1992. Evangelical Christians like the Bowens tout Muslims as the largest block of unreached peoples in the world."
That just gives one an inkling of what is going on.
In Malaysia, Malays are synonymous with the faith of Islam. The Christians here are part of a worldwide movement intent on converting Muslims to Christianity. They are however hampered by the social contract (The Federal Constitution) entered into amongst the various races here at the time of independence where it imposes restraints on other religions being preached to Muslims.
The Christians however have their agenda to fulfil and obviously one of the means to reach Malay-Muslims is by publishing material in the Malay language and using terms that the Muslims are familiar with like "Allah". They obviously hope that the less-informed and less-learned Muslims may be confused by the use of such terms.
There have been instances previously where Christian material using words like "Allah", "Alhamdulillah","Subahanallah", "ibadat" and others have been found distributed at primary schools targeting Malay-Muslim pupils in an attempt to confuse them and to lead them towards Christianity. This is in defiance of the provisons of the social contract(Federal Constitution) and a gross attempt at deceit. When it suits them they quote that social contract for their rights, and at the same time abuse it when they can.
Muslims should be on their guard against such attempts at deceit. Perhaps if they still insist on using "Allah" in thier publications, permission could be given provided the Church in their prayers pray to "Allah".
Often times we have been taught and told that the character of an act is determined by its underlying intent. Hence an act may upon examination of its intent may be found to be quite different from what it appears to be. Hence the Catholics wanting to use the word "Allah" in their publications may seem innocent enough, but when the intent behind it is considered in the light of their grand agenda to convert Muslims in defiance of the provisons of the Federal Constitution and law, then surely they should not be allowed to pursue this course.
In their hypocritical way, the Church and Christian writers have countless times abused "Allah". They have referred to "Allah" as the "Moon God". A quick search on any search-engine online will reveal that.
Here is an excerpt from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Islamic%20Muslim/moon_god.htm.:
"The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the Biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the Biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in Biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters."
The Christians have to answer: Is the Moon-god then what they mean by Allah in their wanting to publish "Allah" in their material? Is this what they are fighting for? Is the Moon-god their god? Are they trying to reach out to their followers to worship the Moon-god?
This is an update:
On 29th March,2008 at an interfaith forum held at Hotel Singgahsana, I publicly invited a forum-panellist, Bruno Pereira, who is a Catholic priest, to recite together with me "There is no God but Allah". He declined stating that there are differences in thelogical understanding. To me this was a litmus test of their sincerity in their wish to use "Allah" in their publications.
If they cannot recite that there is no God but Allah, then they have no business using "Allah" in their publications.
I therefore urge all Muslims to invite the Catholics at suitable public occassions to recite aloud that "There is no God but Allah".
Further update on 10th,May,2008
Received an e-mail from a concerned muslim, extracts of which read:
"Why do the Christians in Malaysia want to use the term 'Allah' in Malaysia when the Christians around the world are against it? Why only for the Malay Bible and not for the English Bible? If these Christians are sincere then they should not object to the term 'Allah' being used in English too.
Lets see what happens when 'Allah' is used instead of God in the English Bible;
NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our Allah is the one and only Lord. And you must love the Lord your Allah with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. (Mark 12:29-30)
“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my Allah and your Allah ’” (John 20:17)
Jesus (pbuh) says; "I can do nothing on my own. I judge as Allah tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will." (John 5:30)
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by Allah to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which Allah did among you through him, as you yourselves know. (Acts 2:22 NIV)
OLD TESTAMENT:
Exodus 20:1-5
1 And Allah spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your Allah who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your Allah am a jealous God.
These are only a few examples."
Perhaps the Muslims can print such a Bible in English for them
They may contend that the Muslims here too use " Allah" in their Malay and even English publications and so they should have the right to do the same. But there is a major difference. Muslims all over the world pray in the Arabic language. Likewise the call to prayer throughout the world is made in the Arabic language. In all of these " Allah" is used and Muslims throughout the world use "Allah" in praying to and referring to God.
Only Muslims and perhaps Arab-speaking Christians use "Allah" in their prayers. Do the Christians in Malaysia use " Allah" in their prayers? No,they do not. So why the demand that they have the right to use " Allah"? To publish in Malay they could use "Tuhan" which is the Malay word for God. Why publish in the Malay language and insist on using an Arabic word when there is a Malay equivalent?
Are there then other undisclosed reasons for such demand?
The answer lies in the Christian agenda to preach to Muslims. The Christians have this worldwide agenda called the 10/40 Window. To quote from one of their websites at http://1040window.org/what_is.htm:
"The 10/40 Window is an area of the world that contains the largest population of non-Christians in the world. The area extends from 10 degrees to 40 degrees North of the equator, and stretches from North Africa across to China.It includes Malaysia."
Not very long ago Time magazine ran as its lead story and had on its cover the caption "Should Christians convert muslims".
In another website at: http://www.win1040.com/countries/malaysia.htm, this comment appears:
"Growing Islamic culture in Malaysia could make it harder for Malay Muslims to hear the truth about Jesus. Pray that Christians would still find opportunities to share the Gospel."
In another website at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/cia1.html, it states:
"The 10/40 Window is evangelical-speak for the rectangle with boundaries of latitudes 10 and 40 degrees north of the equator; encompassing most of the Muslim World.
Muslim countries especially targeted are the newly independent states in Central Asia - particularly Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and the Southeast Asian tigers, Malaysia and Indonesia."
It adds: "Mike and Cindy Bowen of LaGrange, Georgia first went to Malaysia in 1987, on a short-term outreach for the Pentecostal Holiness Church. According to the Bowens, it was on the plane home that God confirmed His call to them. "We both knew that God would eventually bring us back home to Malaysia to teach and preach to the Malay people who haven't heard," says Cindy Bowen, of her husband-and-wife team."
Further it says:"'The Bowens plan to help establish two Pentecostal Holiness churches in Kuala Lumpur by training the pastors and bringing forth leaders to start plant more churches in this emerging Southeast Asian Muslim-majority nation of 19 million. A spokesperson for the National Evangelical Fellowship of Malaysia claims that 600 Christian churches have started there since 1992. Evangelical Christians like the Bowens tout Muslims as the largest block of unreached peoples in the world."
That just gives one an inkling of what is going on.
In Malaysia, Malays are synonymous with the faith of Islam. The Christians here are part of a worldwide movement intent on converting Muslims to Christianity. They are however hampered by the social contract (The Federal Constitution) entered into amongst the various races here at the time of independence where it imposes restraints on other religions being preached to Muslims.
The Christians however have their agenda to fulfil and obviously one of the means to reach Malay-Muslims is by publishing material in the Malay language and using terms that the Muslims are familiar with like "Allah". They obviously hope that the less-informed and less-learned Muslims may be confused by the use of such terms.
There have been instances previously where Christian material using words like "Allah", "Alhamdulillah","Subahanallah", "ibadat" and others have been found distributed at primary schools targeting Malay-Muslim pupils in an attempt to confuse them and to lead them towards Christianity. This is in defiance of the provisons of the social contract(Federal Constitution) and a gross attempt at deceit. When it suits them they quote that social contract for their rights, and at the same time abuse it when they can.
Muslims should be on their guard against such attempts at deceit. Perhaps if they still insist on using "Allah" in thier publications, permission could be given provided the Church in their prayers pray to "Allah".
Often times we have been taught and told that the character of an act is determined by its underlying intent. Hence an act may upon examination of its intent may be found to be quite different from what it appears to be. Hence the Catholics wanting to use the word "Allah" in their publications may seem innocent enough, but when the intent behind it is considered in the light of their grand agenda to convert Muslims in defiance of the provisons of the Federal Constitution and law, then surely they should not be allowed to pursue this course.
In their hypocritical way, the Church and Christian writers have countless times abused "Allah". They have referred to "Allah" as the "Moon God". A quick search on any search-engine online will reveal that.
Here is an excerpt from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Islamic%20Muslim/moon_god.htm.:
"The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the Biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the Biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in Biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters."
The Christians have to answer: Is the Moon-god then what they mean by Allah in their wanting to publish "Allah" in their material? Is this what they are fighting for? Is the Moon-god their god? Are they trying to reach out to their followers to worship the Moon-god?
This is an update:
On 29th March,2008 at an interfaith forum held at Hotel Singgahsana, I publicly invited a forum-panellist, Bruno Pereira, who is a Catholic priest, to recite together with me "There is no God but Allah". He declined stating that there are differences in thelogical understanding. To me this was a litmus test of their sincerity in their wish to use "Allah" in their publications.
If they cannot recite that there is no God but Allah, then they have no business using "Allah" in their publications.
I therefore urge all Muslims to invite the Catholics at suitable public occassions to recite aloud that "There is no God but Allah".
Further update on 10th,May,2008
Received an e-mail from a concerned muslim, extracts of which read:
"Why do the Christians in Malaysia want to use the term 'Allah' in Malaysia when the Christians around the world are against it? Why only for the Malay Bible and not for the English Bible? If these Christians are sincere then they should not object to the term 'Allah' being used in English too.
Lets see what happens when 'Allah' is used instead of God in the English Bible;
NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our Allah is the one and only Lord. And you must love the Lord your Allah with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. (Mark 12:29-30)
“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my Allah and your Allah ’” (John 20:17)
Jesus (pbuh) says; "I can do nothing on my own. I judge as Allah tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will." (John 5:30)
"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by Allah to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which Allah did among you through him, as you yourselves know. (Acts 2:22 NIV)
OLD TESTAMENT:
Exodus 20:1-5
1 And Allah spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your Allah who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your Allah am a jealous God.
These are only a few examples."
Perhaps the Muslims can print such a Bible in English for them
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Freedom-worshippers
Scripture tells us that Man early on made the mistaken choice of partaking of the forbidden fruit thereby making him disobedient to God and leading to his downfall. The opportunity or freedom to make a choice is a gift given to Man by God, which even the angels do not possess---the gift of freewill. Over time the prophets of God have continually reminded Man that the gift of freewill or freedom to make choices comes with the responsibility to exercise it correctly and also serves as a test of Man’s gratitude to God in that he should exercise it in obedience to God’s commands.
The gift of freewill grants Man freedom to make choices. As taught to Man early on, that freedom is not absolute and not without consequences.
Today we see manifold instances of Man leading his life in a manner where the freedom to do as he pleases seems to be the paramount consideration. He dresses as he pleases, eats whatever he fancies, carries on his trade however he wishes, spends his earnings however he likes and entertains himself in whatever way he desires and so on.
Man today cherishes his unrestrained freedom and will readily and quickly oppose whatever limitations are imposed upon it, unless he, in the first place chooses to agree to such limitations. In so doing, Man believes that he, and he alone, knows best what is good for him and how best to regulate his affairs.
This is exemplified in the system of government in place today where Man alone decides what is legal and what is illegal in the society he lives in. Parliament or Congress or whatever similar institution that Man has created is often vested with the power to pass whatever law it pleases, perhaps constrained only by a Constitution in place that was drawn up by some of their number. Such laws, or in some instances the Constitution, is touted as the supreme law of the land.
This is democracy at work, where the will of the majority holds sway, constrained only by convention or by a written constitution drawn up by Man. Large sectors of mankind hold to the belief that such democracy, crafted on or modified from the Westminster model, is the best form of government that can be had.
Democracy however, to the extent that it permits Man unrestrained freedom to make choices in the exercise of his freewill and to absolutely legislate and regulate his own affairs, is contrary to Islam and has resulted in disastrous consequences for Man. One needs only consider the growing instances where Man has legalized same-sex marriages to appreciate the dangers inherent in unbridled freedom and the fallacy that Man knows what is best for himself .The fact that such legislation approving same-sex marriages emanates from the so-called developed nations that supposedly have the best-educated and most capable people the world has ever had is all the more alarming.
Any attempt to curtail such licentiousness on the part of Man in exercising unrestrained freedom is often met by stern opposition and there is no shortage of those who will beat the war-drums in their battle-cry for absolute or near-absolute freedom. These “warriors” for such unbridled freedom must be reminded of the worshippers of freedom described by the poet, Kahlil Gibran.
Gibran wrote:
“At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment.
You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.
And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.”
Sadly amongst these “warriors” are those that call and consider themselves muslims. Whilst considering themselves adherents of Islam, their love-affair with freedom has caused them to fail to appreciate that Islam means “submission to God”.
They should ask themselves the question:
“What do you submit to God, if not your freedom and your freewill?”
Is it not that when you subjugate your own desires to the will of God that you truly submit to Him? Is this not what fasting during Ramadhan is all about where Man overcomes the strongest physical desires that he has (the desire for food, drink and sex) and control and submit these desires to God’s commands so as to earn the good pleasure of God?
What merit is there if Man merely submits to that which is agreeable to him? Does not submission entail submitting also to that which is disagreeable to him?
As described by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri in his "Living Islam - East & West ":
“The purification of the heart occurs degree by degree, and the way to this purification is by going against one's own personal selfish motives, desires, expectations, and so on. This is called the struggle of the self, al-jihad an-nafs. Maintaining this jihad constantly, and keeping diligently to the shari'ah (the body of Islamic law) as it has come to us, one eventually ends up being the free man who is a true slave.” (emphasis added)
Sadly, amongst Man are those who are too arrogant to become the slaves or servants of God. They forget that even Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) frequently referred to himself as the slave of God, and they cannot comprehend what is said by Shakyh Fadhalla that it is when you are a true slave of God that you are truly free.
They demand or expect that God’s commands must meet with the dictates of their sense of reason, and hence anything and everything that does not appeal to their sense of reason and logic must be rejected. In doing so they fall prey to that most subtle and dangerous form of shirk, which is the worship of one’s own mind. In this they follow the path trodden by Iblis who followed the dictates of his mind in considering himself superior to Man and thus justifying his rejection of God’s command to bow down to Adam (pbuh).
These people also fail to heed the lessons of the account of Prophet Musa’s encounter with Khidr where one of God’s mightiest prophets, who was taught and instructed by God, nevertheless had limitations in his understanding and knowledge.
They fail too to appreciate the example of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) who clearly submitted his own sense of reason and desire in submitting to God by being prepared to sacrifice his own son.
It is not meant by the aforesaid that Man must discard his sense of reason absolutely. Reason, being one of the special gifts to Man by God, is certainly to be used, even in matters of submitting to God, but even “Reason” must submit to God. Thus where a command is clearly from God and from Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and is couched in clear and unequivocal terms, it is not open to Man to consider whether he may or may not obey. His freedom in the exercise of his freewill must end there. God Almighty did instruct us in the Holy Qur’an that:
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”_ _ _ (Surah 33:36)
Man must choose and decide whether he is to be the servant of God or the slave of Reason. Man must decide whether he is to continue earning the displeasure of God by partaking of the forbidden fruit.
The gift of freewill grants Man freedom to make choices. As taught to Man early on, that freedom is not absolute and not without consequences.
Today we see manifold instances of Man leading his life in a manner where the freedom to do as he pleases seems to be the paramount consideration. He dresses as he pleases, eats whatever he fancies, carries on his trade however he wishes, spends his earnings however he likes and entertains himself in whatever way he desires and so on.
Man today cherishes his unrestrained freedom and will readily and quickly oppose whatever limitations are imposed upon it, unless he, in the first place chooses to agree to such limitations. In so doing, Man believes that he, and he alone, knows best what is good for him and how best to regulate his affairs.
This is exemplified in the system of government in place today where Man alone decides what is legal and what is illegal in the society he lives in. Parliament or Congress or whatever similar institution that Man has created is often vested with the power to pass whatever law it pleases, perhaps constrained only by a Constitution in place that was drawn up by some of their number. Such laws, or in some instances the Constitution, is touted as the supreme law of the land.
This is democracy at work, where the will of the majority holds sway, constrained only by convention or by a written constitution drawn up by Man. Large sectors of mankind hold to the belief that such democracy, crafted on or modified from the Westminster model, is the best form of government that can be had.
Democracy however, to the extent that it permits Man unrestrained freedom to make choices in the exercise of his freewill and to absolutely legislate and regulate his own affairs, is contrary to Islam and has resulted in disastrous consequences for Man. One needs only consider the growing instances where Man has legalized same-sex marriages to appreciate the dangers inherent in unbridled freedom and the fallacy that Man knows what is best for himself .The fact that such legislation approving same-sex marriages emanates from the so-called developed nations that supposedly have the best-educated and most capable people the world has ever had is all the more alarming.
Any attempt to curtail such licentiousness on the part of Man in exercising unrestrained freedom is often met by stern opposition and there is no shortage of those who will beat the war-drums in their battle-cry for absolute or near-absolute freedom. These “warriors” for such unbridled freedom must be reminded of the worshippers of freedom described by the poet, Kahlil Gibran.
Gibran wrote:
“At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfilment.
You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.
And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.”
Sadly amongst these “warriors” are those that call and consider themselves muslims. Whilst considering themselves adherents of Islam, their love-affair with freedom has caused them to fail to appreciate that Islam means “submission to God”.
They should ask themselves the question:
“What do you submit to God, if not your freedom and your freewill?”
Is it not that when you subjugate your own desires to the will of God that you truly submit to Him? Is this not what fasting during Ramadhan is all about where Man overcomes the strongest physical desires that he has (the desire for food, drink and sex) and control and submit these desires to God’s commands so as to earn the good pleasure of God?
What merit is there if Man merely submits to that which is agreeable to him? Does not submission entail submitting also to that which is disagreeable to him?
As described by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri in his "Living Islam - East & West ":
“The purification of the heart occurs degree by degree, and the way to this purification is by going against one's own personal selfish motives, desires, expectations, and so on. This is called the struggle of the self, al-jihad an-nafs. Maintaining this jihad constantly, and keeping diligently to the shari'ah (the body of Islamic law) as it has come to us, one eventually ends up being the free man who is a true slave.” (emphasis added)
Sadly, amongst Man are those who are too arrogant to become the slaves or servants of God. They forget that even Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) frequently referred to himself as the slave of God, and they cannot comprehend what is said by Shakyh Fadhalla that it is when you are a true slave of God that you are truly free.
They demand or expect that God’s commands must meet with the dictates of their sense of reason, and hence anything and everything that does not appeal to their sense of reason and logic must be rejected. In doing so they fall prey to that most subtle and dangerous form of shirk, which is the worship of one’s own mind. In this they follow the path trodden by Iblis who followed the dictates of his mind in considering himself superior to Man and thus justifying his rejection of God’s command to bow down to Adam (pbuh).
These people also fail to heed the lessons of the account of Prophet Musa’s encounter with Khidr where one of God’s mightiest prophets, who was taught and instructed by God, nevertheless had limitations in his understanding and knowledge.
They fail too to appreciate the example of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) who clearly submitted his own sense of reason and desire in submitting to God by being prepared to sacrifice his own son.
It is not meant by the aforesaid that Man must discard his sense of reason absolutely. Reason, being one of the special gifts to Man by God, is certainly to be used, even in matters of submitting to God, but even “Reason” must submit to God. Thus where a command is clearly from God and from Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and is couched in clear and unequivocal terms, it is not open to Man to consider whether he may or may not obey. His freedom in the exercise of his freewill must end there. God Almighty did instruct us in the Holy Qur’an that:
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”_ _ _ (Surah 33:36)
Man must choose and decide whether he is to be the servant of God or the slave of Reason. Man must decide whether he is to continue earning the displeasure of God by partaking of the forbidden fruit.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Third Eye
In my younger days when I was inclined more to read any material other than my school textbooks, I came across this concept called the third eye. If my memory serves me right, I vaguely recall it being a Tibetan concept where each person is supposed to have a hidden third eye located under the skin somewhere in the middle of the forehead, which if developed and used enables one to perceive things with greater clarity. In those days I imagined it to be a bit of hogwash and nice fiction.
Now after having journeyed much in the passage of life, I have learnt through a greater understanding of life and my Creator and my surroundings to look at things differently and this makes me wonder if in fact that that is the meaning of having and using the third eye--- that it is not a matter of developing and using a hidden physical third eye, but rather a matter of attaining to Truth where one shall invariably adjust and amend one's perception and understanding of things together with one's values, attitudes, focus and goals so that one, in a sense, looks at things differently.
It is often said that the world we live in is one simply of illusion and that the world of reality is far removed from what we know of this world. It is only through the use of that "third eye" that one shall gain a glimpse of reality. I use "glimpse of reality" because it is impossible for us in our human state to know absolute truth about our Creator and His creation, including ourselves. As has been revealed, what delights in Paradise await the believer and what punishment in Hell awaits the non-believer are beyond the realm of human comprehension. It is only through the use of metaphors that we are given an inkling of what lies ahead in the sphere of reality.
And yet on attaining a glimpse of that reality, it is invariable that one shall undergo change. Things that mattered much before fade in importance and things that never mattered before come to the forefront. Many amongst us however are afraid of embarking on these life-changing experiences simply because of its tendency to alter and affect one's "comfort zone". They would rather operate in blissful ignorance in what they "assume" they know rather than venture into the unknown and perchance discover Truth , which may require them to re-orientate their life.
From one who has travelled that lonely road towards Truth ( and believe me it can be lonely because one usually has no one but oneself as company), believe me that the joys that unfold in attaining to Truth and achieving a glimpse of Reality is more than worth all the effort and perseverance that one has to invest in such endeavour. That it shall change one's life is without a doubt but in return one shall be vested with one of life's most valued prizes---the attainment of so much of peace, contentment and serenity that is humanly possible in this world of illusion. These are qualities that cannot be bought and are hence priceless. No amount of material goodies can lead one to this state and the best that such material things can do is but provide one with fleeting moments of joy that rapidly loses its lustre. It never and cannot lead one to anything approaching happiness .Happiness is in the state of one's mind and it is only through understanding and the fruition of one's search and love for Truth that one can attain to anything approaching true happiness.
Now after having journeyed much in the passage of life, I have learnt through a greater understanding of life and my Creator and my surroundings to look at things differently and this makes me wonder if in fact that that is the meaning of having and using the third eye--- that it is not a matter of developing and using a hidden physical third eye, but rather a matter of attaining to Truth where one shall invariably adjust and amend one's perception and understanding of things together with one's values, attitudes, focus and goals so that one, in a sense, looks at things differently.
It is often said that the world we live in is one simply of illusion and that the world of reality is far removed from what we know of this world. It is only through the use of that "third eye" that one shall gain a glimpse of reality. I use "glimpse of reality" because it is impossible for us in our human state to know absolute truth about our Creator and His creation, including ourselves. As has been revealed, what delights in Paradise await the believer and what punishment in Hell awaits the non-believer are beyond the realm of human comprehension. It is only through the use of metaphors that we are given an inkling of what lies ahead in the sphere of reality.
And yet on attaining a glimpse of that reality, it is invariable that one shall undergo change. Things that mattered much before fade in importance and things that never mattered before come to the forefront. Many amongst us however are afraid of embarking on these life-changing experiences simply because of its tendency to alter and affect one's "comfort zone". They would rather operate in blissful ignorance in what they "assume" they know rather than venture into the unknown and perchance discover Truth , which may require them to re-orientate their life.
From one who has travelled that lonely road towards Truth ( and believe me it can be lonely because one usually has no one but oneself as company), believe me that the joys that unfold in attaining to Truth and achieving a glimpse of Reality is more than worth all the effort and perseverance that one has to invest in such endeavour. That it shall change one's life is without a doubt but in return one shall be vested with one of life's most valued prizes---the attainment of so much of peace, contentment and serenity that is humanly possible in this world of illusion. These are qualities that cannot be bought and are hence priceless. No amount of material goodies can lead one to this state and the best that such material things can do is but provide one with fleeting moments of joy that rapidly loses its lustre. It never and cannot lead one to anything approaching happiness .Happiness is in the state of one's mind and it is only through understanding and the fruition of one's search and love for Truth that one can attain to anything approaching true happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
