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.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
