Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Absolute truth

IF Guardian
  • Content count

    875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Everything posted by Absolute truth

  1. Who Is Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) -Is Jesus Our Creator?

    Can a fly be god ?! A brief debate with a Christian, on the subject of the incarnation, that Imam Fakhr Al-Deen Al-Razi recounts in his Al-Arba’een fi Usul Al-Deen. The imam writes: I told the Christian: do you accept that the absence of evidence, is not evidence for absence? He said: yes. So I told him: what is your evidence that the being of God did not assume the body of Zayd, or the body of ‘Amr, or the body of this fly, or the body of this ant? He said: such a thing is impossible. We believe that God assumed the body of Christ, because Christ was supported with miracles. Miracles like the resurrection of the dead, and the healing of the blind and of the lepers. So if none of those miracles appeared at the hands of Zayd or ‘Amr, how can we prove that God subsists within their bodies? I responded: you initially submitted that the absence of evidence, is not evidence for absence. And you consider the appearance of a miracle at the hands of someone, to be evidence for the subsistence of God within the body of said person. As such, the absence of this evidence, should not count as evidence against that subsistence. Ultimately, this entails that you don’t know whether or not God subsists within the body of this ant, or the body of this fly. And any religion which entails such ignorance, is truly despicable. Moreover, in the same way miracles appeared at the hands of Jesus peace be upon him, miracles also appeared at the hands of Moses peace be upon him. In fact, the transformation of a wooden staff into a snake, is even greater than the resurrection of the dead. So if Jesus’ miracles are proof for his divinity, then Moses’ miracles should also be proof for his divinity. https://keystotheunseen.com/2018/01/20/al-razi-debate-with-a-christian/
  2. Islam in Australia (G'Day mates)

    Why Australian prisoners are reverting to Islam ? Academics, imams and prison workers widely agree that conversions to Islam are now commonplace in Australia’s prisons. Robbie Maestracci, a community outreach worker with the Islamic Council of Queensland, pays weekly visits to Muslim inmates in the greater Brisbane area. He believes there is a prominent trend of conversions to Islam among detainees. “Without a doubt there is … We’re constantly being made aware of new names of people who have embraced Islam or names of people who are wanting to embrace Islam. At least every two weeks, there’s another name or two being added to our list,” Maestracci says. Michael Kennedy, a veteran detective of 20 years, knows more than most about the subject. Since leaving the New South Wales organised crime squad he has studied Islam and incarceration extensively as an academic at the University of Western Sydney. Kennedy has maintained contact with a “lot of good crooks” met in his former life. They exchange letters now and again. His correspondents drift in and out of jail, giving him a unique insight into the place of religion in prison. “They’re pretty easy to talk to. One in particular I’m thinking of, I said [name removed], ‘did you get religious?’” “He said ‘Oh no, but a lot of people do, it’s the way you get by. It’s the way you’re able to deal with what’s happened to you.’ “You’re isolated from all the people that you know in your life, whether good people or bad. You need to connect with someone about something.” In this reading, the discovery of religion is essentially a coping mechanism, and a way to forge a shared identity in the dog-eat-dog world of prison. Kennedy says more often than not it’s a positive influence, which can open a pathway to rehabilitation. It gives inmates some semblance of structure and provides a motive to stay away from drugs and alcohol. “I actually don’t think it’s a bad [coping mechanism], but some would argue that it is,” he said. “If you think about it, from my point of view, it gives them a bit of hope.” The best publicly available information comes from a 2013 census of NSW prisoners, which suggests Muslims remain a minority, although one that is overrepresented. The census showed Muslims accounted for about 9.3% of the state’s prison population compared with 3.2% of the NSW population. Muslim inmates pray in the yard at Goulburn correctional centre where the prisons boss admits the Supermax facility is a hotbed of Islam. Picture: Sean DaveySource:News Corp Australia “Inmates suspected of, or identified as, holding radical views are closely monitored by experienced and well trained staff, and moved away from other inmates if necessary.” But Jones believes there are risks in segregating already radicalised offenders from the general prison population, an approach not adopted in Victoria, where they are dispersed. A spokeswoman for Corrections Victoria said it disperses prisoners “wherever practicable” and “according to their assessed level of risk and individual needs”. “This approach aims to prevent extremist views being continually reinforced by like-minded prisoners,” she said. Ali Kadri, the vice-president of the Islamic Council of Queensland, believes there is no real evidence suggesting prisoners are becoming radicalised. He believes, ultimately, religious conversions are a force for good. “Not just that, we find people who have always been socially isolated and are living a life in crime finding faith in prison and feeling apart of a community, so they have more motivation to behave than they did before,” Kadri says. “We believe that faith, not just Islam, has the potential to help people who are in that situation, to find the right path.” https://islamicnafahat.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/why-australian-prisoners-are-reverting-to-islam/
  3. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions. Bralwiya is a Sufi sect which was founded in the town of Barili, in the Uttar Pradesh state in India during British colonialism. This sect is famous for exceeding the proper bounds of Prophets and Awliya (pious people). They launched "Madani channel". It's a group, which is distinct from the majority of Muslims in some points of belief (‘aqaid) and innovated practices (al-a’mal al-mubtada’ah). Ahmad Ridha Khan bin Taqi Ali Khan founded this sect in 1272 A.H; he died in 1340 A.H. He named himself Abdul Mustapha. The person who gave him this name (Abdul Mustapha) committed a very serious offence because worship should not be dedicated except to Allah. Their false ideologies: 1) The Prophet is an absolute assistant to Allah, and that the whole world is under his control, he runs it as he wishes, gives whatever he wants to whomever he wants, and takes away what he wants from whomever he wants. His order is irrefutable and no one can review or comment on his judgement. They say: 'whoever does not make the Prophet the Owner of all the things is deprived from the sweetness of the Sunnah.' 2) The Awliya (pious people) after the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) have the power to run this world. 3) They have indeed exaggerated in their view about the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) until they raised him to the status of Lordship. Ahmed Ridha Khan wrote in Hadaiq Bakhshish (the gardens of grants): 'O, Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), I cannot call you Allah, but I cannot distinguish between you both. Your matter is in the hands of Allah, He is the One who is best aware about your reality.' 4) They believe that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) is present and sees the actions of all the creation at all times and everywhere. They deny him being a human being; they consider him as a light of the lights of Allah. 5) They urge their followers to call upon the Prophets and Walis (pious people) for help, and whoever denies this, they label him as apostate. 6) They say that Sadaqah should be paid on a dead person according to the number of Salah and Sawm (fasting) that he had missed in his life. The amount of Sadaqah that should be paid on every Salah and fasting is the same as that of Sadaqah Al-Fitr. Whoever holds the false beliefs of this group has not been guided to the Truth. Therefore, it is not permissible for a Muslim to follow them or join them. But rather, it would be incumbent on him to advise them and warn others about their wrong belief. Therefore, he should continue to implore his Lord day and night, especially since ‘Aa’ishah may Allaah be pleased with her narrated that the Prophet , used to commence the night prayer saying: “Allaahumma: O Allaah, Lord of Jibreel (Gabriel), Mikaa’eel (Michael) and Israafeel (Israfil); Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen. You judge between Your slaves concerning that about which they differ. O Allaah, guide me to the matters of truth about which they differ by your permission, for You are the One Who guides to the straight path)." [Muslim] Allah knows best.
  4. Dr Tauseef Ahmad Parray From the classical to the contemporary era, numerous biographical works have been written on the life (seerah) of the last Prophet (SAW)—the only personage whose every detail, aspect, and feature, of whose blessed and illustrious life is thoroughly known to the world. Among these, a good number have been written, especially in the modern period, by Western (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) scholars in English. A good deal of this scholarship—related to the life, reforms, and achievements—is also produced in the form of the books on Islamic history. Here, in this write-up, views of some of the Muslims scholars, through their books on Islamic history—viz. Syed Ameer Ali, Masudul Hasan, Sayyed Hossein Nasr, and Akbar S. Ahmed—are presented to get a glimpse of how they perceive and present the achievements of the Prophet (SAW) as a Prophet vis-à-vis reformer. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) “came to humankind”, as Professor Tariq Ramadan writes in his ‘In The Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad’/ The Messenger (2007, p. 214) “with a message of faith, ethics, and hope, in which the One reminds all people of His presence, His requirements, and the final Day of Return and Encounter”. He touched every aspect of human life: he was a savior, liberator, and protector of the ‘oppressed’ humanity. Benefactor of humanity, Prophet (SAW was the greatest reformer the world has ever produced. He made great reforms in the socio-religious and politico-economic spheres. In the modern times, Prophet (SAW) is presented as a ‘reformer’ who considerably raised the social and ethical level of the Arabs of his time. The Prophet (SAW) was not only a religious preacher, a soldier, a statesman, but also a great administrator as well. He presided over, after hijrah from Makkah to Medina in 622 CE, the Commonwealth of Islam for ten years (622-32CE); and, thus, in the words of Syed Ameer Ali (d. 1928; Indian Jurist, political leader and author of numerous books on Islamic history) in his A Short History of the Saracens (2011, pp. 19 & 55): “During the ten years [Prophet] Mohammad [SAW] presided over the commonwealth of Islam [622-32 CE], a great change had come over the character of the Arab people”. And, in this short span of ten years at Medina, Ameer Ali adds, “a congeries of warring tribes and clans were rapidly consolidated into a nation under the influence of one great Idea. The work done within that short period will always remain as one of the most wonderful achievements recorded in history”. Writing on the achievements of Prophet (SAW), Professor Masudul Hasan (Pakistani historian), in his “History of Islam” (2015; vol. 1, pp. 76-77) writes: “the Holy Prophet [SAW] built an Ummah out of the people never united before; established a religion that elevated the soul; created an egalitarian society; laid the basis of an empire and set up new ideals before mankind. … He liberated man by planning for him a new political, economic, and social order, free from exploitation”. “In the wider perspective of universal history”, Professor Hasan avers, “we discern in the Holy Prophet of Islam [SAW] the greatest man the world has ever produced. As regards all standards, …, He (SAW)] is the greatest man of all times. … Of all men, the Holy Prophet of Islam [SAW] has exercised greatest influence upon the human race, and he stands to this day, and for all times to come, at the peak of humanity” (p. 77). Professor Sayyed Hossein Nasr (George Washington University, USA), in his “Islam: Religion, History, Civilization” (2002: 5), is of the opinion that the “primordial character of the Islamic message”, which was brought by the last Prophet (SAW), “is reflected not only in its essentiality, universality, and simplicity, but also in its inclusive attitude toward the religions and forms of wisdom that preceded it”. Writing on ‘The Prophet [SAW]: His Significance, Life, and Deeds’ (pp. 46-47), Prof. Nasr puts forth very eloquently that “The Prophet [SAW] is seen by Muslims as the most perfect of all of God’s creatures, the perfect man par excellence (al-Insan al-Kamil) and the beloved of God (Habib Allah), whom the Quran calls an excellent model (Uswah Hasanah) to emulate. He represents perfect surrender to God combined with proximity (qurb) to Him, which makes him the best interpreter of God’s message as well as its most faithful transmitter”. On the Prophet’s (SAW) achievements and contributions in the Medinan phase, Professor Nasr holds that in Medina, “the Prophet [SAW] became the ruler of a community; was at once statesman, judge, and military leader as well as the Prophet of God” (pp. 50-51). Thus, he accepts, like others, that in a short span of twenty-three-year period (as Prophet), “the Prophet [SAW] succeeded in not only uniting Arabia under the banner of Islam, but also establishing a religious community of global extent, for which he remains always the ideal model of human behaviour and action” (p. 52). He further states that “When we think of the life of the Prophet [SAW] in its totality, we must not only think of him as the leader of a human community, a father and head of a family, a man who married several wives, or a ruler who participated in battles or made social and political decisions for the preservation of Islam. We must also meditate on his inner life of prayer, vigil, and fasting and especially the mi‘raj [The Ascension], … create[ing] a balance between the outward and the inward, the physical and the spiritual” (p. 53). In his “The Heart of Islam” (2004), Professor Nasr enunciates almost similar views, and describes the significance of Prophet (SAW) as essential in order to “understand the heart of Islam” (p. 28). Along similar lines, the Pakistani-American professor, Akbar S Ahmed (American University, Washington, USA) in his “Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society” (2002) puts forward these insights: “Equality, the status of women, the rights of the less privileged (minorities, poorer working groups)—the shibboleths of our age—were reflected in the Prophet’s [SAW] message. It was a revolution the Prophet [SAW] wished to bring about, to end what came to be known as the Jahiliyya, the dark age” (p. 19). “In a short span” of 23 years as Prophet (SAW), he continues, “he [SAW] had played the role of father, husband, chief, warrior, friend and Prophet. His respect for learning, tolerance of others, generosity of spirit, concern for the weak, gentle piety and desire for a better, cleaner, world would constitute the main elements of the Muslim ideal. For Muslims , the life of the Prophet (SAW) is the triumph of hope over despair, [and of] light over darkness” (p. 21). Thus, we see that although Prophet (SAW) had, and displayed, in abundance, the qualities of “Piety, forbearance, courage and judgment—required in some degree by any leader”, but “what is striking about his behaviour and temperament is the most unexpected quality in tribal life, gentleness” (p. 22). The Prophet’s (SAW) “years of tribulation were brief; success followed in abundance. Within his lifetime he had established a religion and a state. … One hundred years after his death the Islamic empire was greater than Rome at its zenith” (pp. 28-29). These glimpses clearly show the greatness of ‘the greatest man of all times’. It is in the Prophet’s (SAW) illustrious life, that we see absolutely everything was ‘an instrument of renewal and transformation’ from the slightest detail to the greatest events; and all those (be they Muslims or believers of any faith) who study and write on Prophet’s (SAW) life, regardless of their personal religious belief, can derive instruction from this, thus reaching toward the essence of the message of light of faith. To use again, and to end with, the terminology of Tariq Ramadan, the Prophet (SAW) “prayed, meditated, transformed himself, and transformed the world. … He was beloved by God and an example among humans. He prayed and he contemplated. He loved, he gave. He served, he transformed. The Prophet [SAW] was the light that leads to Light, and in learning from his life, believers return to the Source of Life and find His light, His warmth, and His love” (pp. 214-216). —The author is Assistant Professor, Islamic Studies, at GDC, Pulwama. https://kashmirreader.com/2017/12/21/prophet-muhammad-saw-in-the-eyes-of-muslim-historians-some-perspectives/
  5. Dr Tauseef Ahmad Parray From the classical to the contemporary era, numerous biographical works have been written on the life (seerah) of the last Prophet (SAW)—the only personage whose every detail, aspect, and feature, of whose blessed and illustrious life is thoroughly known to the world. Among these, a good number have been written, especially in the modern period, by Western (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) scholars in English. A good deal of this scholarship—related to the life, reforms, and achievements—is also produced in the form of the books on Islamic history. Here, in this write-up, views of some of the Muslims scholars, through their books on Islamic history—viz. Syed Ameer Ali, Masudul Hasan, Sayyed Hossein Nasr, and Akbar S. Ahmed—are presented to get a glimpse of how they perceive and present the achievements of the Prophet (SAW) as a Prophet vis-à-vis reformer. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) “came to humankind”, as Professor Tariq Ramadan writes in his ‘In The Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad’/ The Messenger (2007, p. 214) “with a message of faith, ethics, and hope, in which the One reminds all people of His presence, His requirements, and the final Day of Return and Encounter”. He touched every aspect of human life: he was a savior, liberator, and protector of the ‘oppressed’ humanity. Benefactor of humanity, Prophet (SAW was the greatest reformer the world has ever produced. He made great reforms in the socio-religious and politico-economic spheres. In the modern times, Prophet (SAW) is presented as a ‘reformer’ who considerably raised the social and ethical level of the Arabs of his time. The Prophet (SAW) was not only a religious preacher, a soldier, a statesman, but also a great administrator as well. He presided over, after hijrah from Makkah to Medina in 622 CE, the Commonwealth of Islam for ten years (622-32CE); and, thus, in the words of Syed Ameer Ali (d. 1928; Indian Jurist, political leader and author of numerous books on Islamic history) in his A Short History of the Saracens (2011, pp. 19 & 55): “During the ten years [Prophet] Mohammad [SAW] presided over the commonwealth of Islam [622-32 CE], a great change had come over the character of the Arab people”. And, in this short span of ten years at Medina, Ameer Ali adds, “a congeries of warring tribes and clans were rapidly consolidated into a nation under the influence of one great Idea. The work done within that short period will always remain as one of the most wonderful achievements recorded in history”. Writing on the achievements of Prophet (SAW), Professor Masudul Hasan (Pakistani historian), in his “History of Islam” (2015; vol. 1, pp. 76-77) writes: “the Holy Prophet [SAW] built an Ummah out of the people never united before; established a religion that elevated the soul; created an egalitarian society; laid the basis of an empire and set up new ideals before mankind. … He liberated man by planning for him a new political, economic, and social order, free from exploitation”. “In the wider perspective of universal history”, Professor Hasan avers, “we discern in the Holy Prophet of Islam [SAW] the greatest man the world has ever produced. As regards all standards, …, He (SAW)] is the greatest man of all times. … Of all men, the Holy Prophet of Islam [SAW] has exercised greatest influence upon the human race, and he stands to this day, and for all times to come, at the peak of humanity” (p. 77). Professor Sayyed Hossein Nasr (George Washington University, USA), in his “Islam: Religion, History, Civilization” (2002: 5), is of the opinion that the “primordial character of the Islamic message”, which was brought by the last Prophet (SAW), “is reflected not only in its essentiality, universality, and simplicity, but also in its inclusive attitude toward the religions and forms of wisdom that preceded it”. Writing on ‘The Prophet [SAW]: His Significance, Life, and Deeds’ (pp. 46-47), Prof. Nasr puts forth very eloquently that “The Prophet [SAW] is seen by Muslims as the most perfect of all of God’s creatures, the perfect man par excellence (al-Insan al-Kamil) and the beloved of God (Habib Allah), whom the Quran calls an excellent model (Uswah Hasanah) to emulate. He represents perfect surrender to God combined with proximity (qurb) to Him, which makes him the best interpreter of God’s message as well as its most faithful transmitter”. On the Prophet’s (SAW) achievements and contributions in the Medinan phase, Professor Nasr holds that in Medina, “the Prophet [SAW] became the ruler of a community; was at once statesman, judge, and military leader as well as the Prophet of God” (pp. 50-51). Thus, he accepts, like others, that in a short span of twenty-three-year period (as Prophet), “the Prophet [SAW] succeeded in not only uniting Arabia under the banner of Islam, but also establishing a religious community of global extent, for which he remains always the ideal model of human behaviour and action” (p. 52). He further states that “When we think of the life of the Prophet [SAW] in its totality, we must not only think of him as the leader of a human community, a father and head of a family, a man who married several wives, or a ruler who participated in battles or made social and political decisions for the preservation of Islam. We must also meditate on his inner life of prayer, vigil, and fasting and especially the mi‘raj [The Ascension], … create[ing] a balance between the outward and the inward, the physical and the spiritual” (p. 53). In his “The Heart of Islam” (2004), Professor Nasr enunciates almost similar views, and describes the significance of Prophet (SAW) as essential in order to “understand the heart of Islam” (p. 28). Along similar lines, the Pakistani-American professor, Akbar S Ahmed (American University, Washington, USA) in his “Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society” (2002) puts forward these insights: “Equality, the status of women, the rights of the less privileged (minorities, poorer working groups)—the shibboleths of our age—were reflected in the Prophet’s [SAW] message. It was a revolution the Prophet [SAW] wished to bring about, to end what came to be known as the Jahiliyya, the dark age” (p. 19). “In a short span” of 23 years as Prophet (SAW), he continues, “he [SAW] had played the role of father, husband, chief, warrior, friend and Prophet. His respect for learning, tolerance of others, generosity of spirit, concern for the weak, gentle piety and desire for a better, cleaner, world would constitute the main elements of the Muslim ideal. For Muslims , the life of the Prophet (SAW) is the triumph of hope over despair, [and of] light over darkness” (p. 21). Thus, we see that although Prophet (SAW) had, and displayed, in abundance, the qualities of “Piety, forbearance, courage and judgment—required in some degree by any leader”, but “what is striking about his behaviour and temperament is the most unexpected quality in tribal life, gentleness” (p. 22). The Prophet’s (SAW) “years of tribulation were brief; success followed in abundance. Within his lifetime he had established a religion and a state. … One hundred years after his death the Islamic empire was greater than Rome at its zenith” (pp. 28-29). These glimpses clearly show the greatness of ‘the greatest man of all times’. It is in the Prophet’s (SAW) illustrious life, that we see absolutely everything was ‘an instrument of renewal and transformation’ from the slightest detail to the greatest events; and all those (be they Muslims or believers of any faith) who study and write on Prophet’s (SAW) life, regardless of their personal religious belief, can derive instruction from this, thus reaching toward the essence of the message of light of faith. To use again, and to end with, the terminology of Tariq Ramadan, the Prophet (SAW) “prayed, meditated, transformed himself, and transformed the world. … He was beloved by God and an example among humans. He prayed and he contemplated. He loved, he gave. He served, he transformed. The Prophet [SAW] was the light that leads to Light, and in learning from his life, believers return to the Source of Life and find His light, His warmth, and His love” (pp. 214-216). —The author is Assistant Professor, Islamic Studies, at GDC, Pulwama. https://kashmirreader.com/2017/12/21/prophet-muhammad-saw-in-the-eyes-of-muslim-historians-some-perspectives/
  6. My sister is drinking alcohol and hugging men

    Wa alaikum assalam Islam instilled family values and gave security to the people. Thus, with Islam, there is no longer a "need" to drink in order to relieve unhappiness and stress by slipping into a fantasy world. Give here advice/nasiha privately. The fear of God helps Muslims keep away from not only alcohol, but all other evils prohibited by the Qur'an, such as adultery, abuse and gambling. Peer pressure (sistererhood) also helps Muslims abstain from these sins. Islam is very clear on the topic of extra-marital affairs, and considers it as one of the major sins. It is important to note in this instance that Islamic teachings are often preventive in nature so “chances” that a person may become vulnerable to the temptation of one sin or another are excluded. In The Qur’an in (Surah 17, al Isra,, verse 32), Allah says: Do not go near adultery, .surely it is an indecency, and an evil way [of fulfilling sexual urge]. (17:32) Please note that extra-marital affairs may not involve any sex. It could be an emotional affair via the internet, and that may itself be equally problematic and dangerous. Have a look here: https://www.quranandscience.com/featured-articles/341-alcohol-in-islam http://aboutislam.net/shariah/shariah-and-humanity/shariah-and-life/premarital-relationships-why-not-2/
  7. Jerusalem - Al-Quds

    There are certain action points we can achieve in both the short term and long term. They are as follows: Short term 1. What has happened and what this means for Jerusalem, Palestine, and the Muslim world. The formal Judaisation of Jerusalem and ‘legalising’ the change of the status quo of Masjid al-Aqsa. This will lead to granting Israelis full control over al-Aqsa and other religious places in the city. This poses a real threat to al-Aqsa. It might encourage other countries to follow the footsteps of the US. 2. The importance of Jerusalem from the Qur’ān and Sunnah and its relationship and link with al-Masjid al-Harām. 3. State the problem; that people have forgotten it and neglected it as a political problem or a nationalistic one. The current state of Palestine and the recent announcement as regards Jerusalem is a result of the weakness of the Muslim Ummah. 4. The inaction of the leaders puts the requirement on the lay to act; each Muslim according to their means. As we are told by the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam), “Whoever of you sees an evil must then change it with his hand. If he is not able to do so, then [he must change it ] with his tongue. And if he is not able to do so, then [he must change it] with his heart. And that is the weakest of īmān.”[2] There was no fourth option given to excuse the Muslims of inaction. Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) will not ask the average Muslim why they did not liberate Palestine or al-Aqsa but He will ask why they did not do what was in their capacity to raise awareness, apply pressure, and contribute to bring eventual change. 5. Offer advice as to what can be done by the layperson, and why. “And when a community among them said: “Why do you preach to a people whom Allāh is about to destroy or to punish with a severe torment?” (The preachers) said: “In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and perhaps they may fear Allāh”.”[3] Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) looks at the input of each person and their personal moral responsibility, rather than outcome. https://www.islam21c.com/politics/al-quds-jerusalem-islamic-land-no-one-can-change-reality/
  8. Jerusalem is a city holy to the three largest monotheistic faiths – Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Because of its history that spans thousands of years, it goes by many names: Jerusalem, al-Quds, Yerushaláyim, Aelia, and more, all reflecting its diverse heritage. It is a city that numerous Muslim prophets called home, from Sulayman and Dawood to Isa (Jesus), may Allah be pleased with them. During the Prophet Muhammad ’s life, he made a miraculous journey in one night from Makkah to Jerusalem and then from Jerusalem to Heaven – the Isra’ and Mi’raj. During his life, however, Jerusalem never came under Muslim political control. That would change during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph of Islam. Into Syria During Muhammad ’s life, the Byzantine Empire made clear its desire to eliminate the new Muslim religion growing on its southern borders. The Expedition of Tabuk thus commenced in October 630, with Muhammad ﷺ leading an army of 30,000 people to the border with the Byzantine Empire. While no Byzantine army met the Muslims for a battle, the expedition marked the beginning of the Muslim-Byzantine Wars that would continue for decades. During the rule of the caliph Abu Bakr from 632 to 634, no major offensives were taken into Byzantine land. It was during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, that Muslims would begin to seriously expand northwards into the Byzantine realm. He sent some of the ablest Muslim generals, including Khalid ibn al-Walid and Amr ibn al-‘As to fight the Byzantines. The decisive Battle of Yarmuk in 636 was a huge blow to Byzantine power in the region, leading to the fall of numerous cities throughout Syria such as Damascus. In many cases, Muslim armies were welcomed by the local population – both Jews and Christians. The majority of the Christians of the region were Monophysites, who had a more monotheistic view of God that was similar to what the new Muslims were preaching. They welcomed Muslim rule over the area instead of the Byzantines, with whom they had many theological differences. http://aboutislam.net/family-society/culture/what-did-umar-ibn-al-khattab-do-after-conquering-jerusalem/?utm_campaign=organic_fb_promotion&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_content&utm_term
  9. Jerusalem - Al-Quds

    Muslims are routinely accused of provoking conflicts with other peoples but the reality is clearly that they are only reacting to the provocation carried out by the likes of Trump and those before him. The real question is who is to blame? Palestine has been under occupation for over half a century and this announcement comes as no surprise to us, rather it is a reminder of the on-going occupation and loud call to the Ummah. The status of Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa are of the most critical issues of our time and a call for Muslims to wake up and stand up all over the world. This Ummah might have become weak yet it will never die, and now is the time we must urge one another to oppose this move with all the tools at our disposal. This illegal and bloody occupation has reached its zenith – and we must not let it succeed.
  10. Jerusalem - Al-Quds

    Al-Quds, or Jerusalem, is an Islamic land All praise is to Allāh, and Salutations and prayers are upon the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhī wa sallam) “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”[1] Historically the status of Al-Quds is the yardstick by which the Ummah’s strength is measured. When the Ummah was strong ʿUmar b. al-Khattāb opened it. When the Ummah became weak in the end of the 4th Hijri century it was occupied by the crusaders. When the Ummah became strong again Salāh al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī liberated it once again. And after the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, it was occupied once again. And the Day of Judgement will not take place until the Ummah becomes strong again and liberates itself from occupation as the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) informed us. Al-Quds has always been the icon or reference point which exposes the reality of the relationship between the three faiths of Divine scriptures; Islam, Christianity and Judaism. And, as a result, all three faiths have always had interest in it and hence it is a place where major global conflicts will take place. Despite the emergence and violent imposition of secularism, the global status of Al-Quds is testament of the continuance and the presence of faith in people’s lives. https://www.islam21c.com/politics/al-quds-jerusalem-islamic-land-no-one-can-change-reality/
  11. Islam in Spain - Espenia

    Indeed, Europe’s creative energies and inventiveness are acknowledged much later, only from the dawn of the “scientific revolution” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A good example that is characteristic of this era is that of the astronomer Galileo. In 1610 he published a work which promoted heliocentrism, which is the idea that the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the centre of the Solar System. Today science has confirmed that this model of the universe is correct, however at that time it conflicted with the prevailing theological belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth, known as geocentrism, a view which the Catholic Church held due to its literal interpretation of the Bible. Galileo’s discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Church formally declared heliocentrism to be heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas. Later the Church found him “gravely suspect of heresy”, sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642. This intellectual slumber of Europe is in stark contrast to the Islamic world. The coming of the Qur’an in the seventh century not only transformed Arabia but also the lands that were under the control of the Muslims. The peace and sense of security that Islamic rule brought about consequently produced one of the most successful civilisations in the history of the world. While Europe was in the Dark Ages it was the Muslims that produced some of the best known scholars and work. Victor Robinson, a historian of science, eloquently summed up the contrast between medieval Europe and Islamic Spain: “Europe was darkened at sunset, Cordova shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Cordova built a thousand baths; Europe was covered with vermin, Cordova changed its undergarments daily; Europe lay in mud, Cordova’s streets were paved; Europe’s palaces had smoke-holes in the ceiling, Cordova’s arabesques were exquisite; Europe’s nobility could not sign its name, Cordova’s children went to school; Europe’s monks could not read the baptismal service, Cordova’s teachers created a library of Alexandrian dimensions.”
  12. Jerusalem - Al-Quds

    Revitalization of the City Umar immediately set about making the city an important Muslim landmark. He cleared the area of the Temple Mount, where Muhammad ﷺ ascended to heaven from. The Christians had used the area as a garbage dump to offend the Jews, and Umar and his army (along with some Jews) personally cleaned it and built a mosque – Masjid al-Aqsa – there. Throughout the remainder of Umar’s caliphate and into the Umayyad Empire’s reign over the city, Jerusalem became a major center of religious pilgrimage and trade. The Dome of the Rock was added to complement Masjid al-Aqsa in 691. Numerous other mosques and public institutions were soon established throughout the city. The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem under the caliph Umar in 637 was clearly an important moment in the city’s history. For the next 462 years, it would be ruled by Muslims, with religious freedom for minorities protected according to the Treaty of Umar. Even today, as fighting continues over the future status of the city, many Muslims, Christians, and Jews insist that the Treaty maintains legal standing and look to it to help solve Jerusalem’s current problems.
  13. This book is an English translation of as-Sirat an-Nabawiyyah; a scholarly and thoroughly researched Arabic work of Shaykh Abul-Hasan Ali Nadwi (May Allahs Mercy be upon him). However the title has been taken from the Urdu translation of the said work. In this book, the author has been particularly mindful of the current generation's mindset, taste, understanding and sensibilities. Similarly, he has been entirely considerate of the modern method of research and discourse, so that the content, evidences and style prove to be effective. In preparing the book, the author has read old and new literature, in Arabic and other languages; so that the book, in addition to being comprehensive, is also able to dispel any confusion that exists in the modern mind. As a result, this book has received much acclaim, and within a short space of time it has been included in the syllabus of universities. Now, the English version of this book is in your hands, so that English speakers may also benefit. Read Online Version 1 Download Version 1 [11.8 MB]
  14. Jerusalem - Al-Quds

    The Treaty of Umar As they did with all other cities they conquered, the Muslims had to write up a treaty detailing the rights and privileges regarding the conquered people and the Muslims in Jerusalem. This treaty was signed by Umar and Patriarch Sophronius, along with some of the generals of the Muslim armies. The text of the treaty read: In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety which the servant of God, Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem. The people of Jerusalem must pay the taxes like the people of other cities and must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. Those of the people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property and abandon their churches and crosses will be safe until they reach their place of refuge. The villagers may remain in the city if they wish but must pay taxes like the citizens. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing is to be taken from them before their harvest is reaped. If they pay their taxes according to their obligations, then the conditions laid out in this letter are under the covenant of God, are the responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs and of the faithful. – Quoted in The Great Arab Conquests, from Tarikh Tabari At the time, this was by far one of the most progressive treaties in history. For comparison, just 23 years earlier when Jerusalem was conquered by the Persians from the Byzantines, a general massacre was ordered. Another massacre ensued when Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders from the Muslims in 1099. The Treaty of Umar allowed the Christians of Jerusalem religious freedom, as is dictated in the Quran and the sayings of Muhammad ﷺ. This was one of the first and most significant guarantees of religious freedom in history. While there is a clause in the treaty regarding the banning of Jews from Jerusalem, its authenticity is debated. One of Umar’s guides in Jerusalem was a Jew named Kaab al-Ahbar. Umar further allowed Jews to worship on the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall, while the Byzantines banned them from such activities. Thus, the authenticity of the clause regarding Jews is in question. What is not in question, however, was the significance of such a progressive and equitable surrender treaty, which protected minority rights. The treaty became the standard for Muslim-Christian relations throughout the former Byzantine Empire, with rights of conquered people being protected in all situations, and forced conversions never being a sanctioned act.
  15. Jerusalem - Al-Quds

    Capture of Jerusalem By 637, Muslim armies began to appear in the vicinity of Jerusalem. In charge of Jerusalem was Patriarch Sophronius, a representative of the Byzantine government, as well as a leader in the Christian Church. Although numerous Muslim armies under the command of Khalid ibn al-Walid and Amr ibn al-‘As began to surround the city, Sophronius refused to surrender the city unless Umar came to accept the surrender himself. Having heard of such a condition, Umar ibn al-Khattab left Madinah, travelling alone with one donkey and one servant. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted by Sophronius, who undoubtedly must have been amazed that the caliph of the Muslims, one of the most powerful people in the world at that point, was dressed in no more than simple robes and was indistinguishable from his servant. Umar was given a tour of the city, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. When the time for prayer came, Sophronius invited Umar to pray inside the Church, but Umar refused. He insisted that if he prayed there, later Muslims would use it as an excuse to convert it into a mosque – thereby depriving Christendom of one of its holiest sites. Instead, Umar prayed outside the Church, where a mosque (called Masjid Umar – the Mosque of Umar) was later built.
  16. Islam in Spain - Espenia

    SPAIN LIBERATED FROM TYRANNY Muslims landed in Spain in 711 CE and many sources testify that they were welcomed by the population, as their reputation preceded them. This was, again, due to the severe persecution certain communities were facing therein. Under the Catholic Church’s rule, the Jewish community, in particular, was severely oppressed. The Catholic hierarchy in Spain held many councils to solve political and religious disputes and in these councils, severe edicts were issued against the Jews of Spain. One of the clauses in the text of the proceedings of the Fourth Council of Toledo (633 CE) states: “We decree that the sons and daughters of the Jews should be separated from the company of their parents in order that they should not become further entangled in their deviation, and entrusted either to monasteries or to Christian, God fearing men and women, in order that they should learn from their way of life to venerate the faith and, educated on better things, progress in their morals as well as their faith.' Hence, the children of the Jews were to be forcefully converted to Catholicism. Jews weren’t the only ones facing tyranny but they were easy targets due to them being a minority and having a way of life that was distinct from their Christian persecutors. So, when the Muslims arrived, Jews were the first people to greet them as saviours. Zion Zohar, a Jewish American historian, confirms the appreciation that Jews felt for the Muslim arrival: “Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution.”
  17. Islam is the only religion growing faster than the world’s population, and it will be the largest in the world by 2070, research has found. In 2010 there were 1.6bn Muslims in the world, and 2.17bn Christians. By 2050, there will be 2.76bn Muslims and 2.92bn Christians – and if both religions continue at that rate of growth, Islam will have a larger number of followers than Christianity by 2070. The world’s Muslim population is expected to become the world’s largest religion by 2070, researchers have found Atheists, agnostics and non-religious people will decline from 16.4 per cent of the world’s population to 13.2 per cent by 2050, the report added, despite growing in Europe and North America. Christianity is also likely to suffer as more converts leave to become non-religious or to join other faiths, the report predicted. God says, what means in quran 9:32,33: “They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.” Source
  18. Forgotten Hero of Islam: Alp Arslan “How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allāh’s Leave?”[1] Many years before Salāh al-Dīn’s magnanimity towards the defeated barbaric crusaders, another Muslim leader had shown the world how a Muslim ruler behaves with mercy and restraint in this very month of August. Soon after the advent of Islām, the Roman Empire faced an energetic new challenger in the Umayyad Caliphate. The Umayyads made two serious attempts to conquer the Roman Empire, laying siege to Constantinople in 674-8 CE and again in 717 CE. Fortunately for Byzantium, the Umayyad Caliphate was overthrown in 750 CE by the Abbasids, who gave up such ambitious plans, opting instead for regular military campaigns that sometimes penetrated right into the heart of Byzantine Anatolia. These raids culminated in Caliph Mu’tasim’s (833-842 CE) destruction of Amorium in central western Anatolia in 838 CE.[2] By the end of the eighth century however, Byzantium’s situation began to improve whereas the Abbasid economy was in decline and the government was paralysed by religious and political factionalism – this was the height of heresy with philosophers, mu’tazilites and bātinites. The Byzantines exploited Abbasid disunity to take the offensive and over the course of two centuries recovered their lost provinces of Illyricum, Greece, Bulgaria, Northern Syria, Cilicia, and Armenia. At this same time that the Byzantines were celebrating their revival, a new player in international affairs arrived on the scene – the Seljuk Turks who were a family of nomadic Oghuz Turks who had converted to Islām around the end of the tenth century. The Seljuk Turks The Abbasid Caliphate was in disarray and there was no effective force to stop the migration of Central Asian nomads. In 1040 CE, the first Seljuk horsemen under their first major leader, Tughril Beg penetrated the Caliphate’s eastern border and, without encountering any effective Abbasid opposition, began plundering their way across Iran and Iraq. They soon crossed into Armenia and drove deep into Anatolia, reaching the Byzantine port city of Trebizond on the Black Sea coast in 1054 CE. The following year, the Abbasids bowed to the inevitable and conceded political and military authority to Tughrul Beg of the Seljuks. Tughrul Beg (1056-1067 CE) was granted the title of Sultan and took Baghdad as his capital. Suddenly the Seljuks were elevated from nomadic raiders to masters of a vast and sophisticated empire. The rise of the Seljuks caused disunity amongst the Byzantines. In 1064 CE the Seljuk’s captured and sacked Ani. Ani was critical to the Byzantine’s eastern defence strategy. Constantine X died in 1067 CE leaving the administration in the hands of his wife Eudocia who married Romanus who then became the Emperor of Byzantine Rome. Alp Arslan and events leading to the Battle In 1063 CE (454 AH), Tughril’s nephew, Alp Arslan became Sultan of Persia and Iraq. His actual name was Muḥammad ibn Dāwūd and came to be known as Alp Arslan which means ‘heroic lion’ or ‘courageous lion’. His vizier (Chief Administrator), Nizam al-Mulk (Abu Ali Hasan ibn Ali Tusi), who was also a scholar came to be known as one of the greatest viziers and would go on to establish the esteemed Nizamiyah Madrasa – Imām Ghazzāli was to be one of its rectors. Sultan Alp Arslan was a merciful and generous leader, even against his enemies which proved to be a key feature during his rule. In the year 1066 (459AH), the ruler in the area of Kirman called Qara Arslan, rebelled against Alp Arslan. After marching towards Kirman and one of his detachment forces being defeated by Alp Arslan, Qara sought forgiveness from Alp, who received him graciously. The Sultan restored him to his kingdom and changed nothing in his position [3]. In 1069 CE (462 AH), the envoy of the ruler of Makkah, Muhammad ibn Abu Hashim visited Sultan Alp Arslan to inform him of the introduction of the khutbah (sermon) at Makkah in the name of the Caliph, al-Qa’im bi-Amr Allah and the Sultan and the dropping of the khutbah for the Fatimid ruler of Egypt and that they had abandoned the call to prayer with the Fatimid formula of “Hayya a’la khayril ‘amal” (‘Hasten towards the best of action’). The Sultan gave him 30,000 dinars and robes of honour and arranged an annual pension [3]. Sultan Alp Arslan regarded the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt as his main enemy; he had no desire to engage the neighbouring Byzantines in unnecessary hostilities and as such, in the same year of 1069, he entered into a treaty where he had committed to preventing Seljuk raiding on Byzantine territory In 1071 CE (436AH), Sultan Alp Arslan made his way to Edessa in Syria where it was reported to him that although the khutbah there went out in the name of the Caliph, they continued to pronounce the adhan of the Fatimid and as such, Sultan Alp Arslan marched towards them. The leader there, Mahmud ibn Salih sought Sultan Alp Arslan’s forgiveness with his mother in attendance. Sultan Alp Arslan received them both with kindness, gave robes of honour to Mahmud and restored him to his town.[3] In the meantime, Romanus needed a decisive victory not only to protect Armenia but also his throne and, in the summer of 1071 CE, Romanus decided to gamble everything on a massive eastern campaign that would draw the Seljuk’s into a engagement with Byzantine. In February 1071 CE, Romanus sent an embassy to Alp Arslan to renew the treaty of 1069 CE. Romanus’ envoys reached the Sultan outside Edessa, which he was besieging at the time. Keen to secure his northern flank against Byzantine attack, Alp Arslan happily agreed to the terms, abandoned the siege and immediately led his army south to attack Aleppo in Fatimid Syria. Aleppo was subdued and introduced the khutbahs in the name of Caliph al-Qā’im bi-amr Allāh and Sultan Alp Arslan. It has been recorded that the commoners in the city took away the rugs in the Masjid saying “These are Ali ibn Abi Tālib’s rugs, let Abū Bakr bring rugs for his followers to pray on”. The offer to renew the peace treaty by Romanus was a key element of Romanus’ plan, distracting the Sultan long enough to allow Romanus to lead an army into Armenia and recover the lost fortresses before the Seljuks had time to respond. Romanus’ offer to renew the treaty while at the same time preparing for a war was deceitful, but the use of deceit in warfare was a skill the Byzantines prized very highly. Byzantine tactical manuals regularly recommended using ploys, deceit and negotiation and to either avoid battle or gain advantage.[4] The Battle of Manzikert Romanus marched with 200,000 men, Greeks, Franks, Russians, Georgians, Armenians and many others. Many historians such as Matthew of Edessa claim the Byzantine army exceeded one million men [5] – Gibbons claims it was the largest army ever fielded by the Roman Empire, East or West. They came with much equipment and in great pomp and to attack the lands of Islām arriving in Malazgrid, also known as Manzikert. News reached Sultan Alp Arslan when he was laying siege in Azerbaijan. Sultan Alp Arslan knew that he would not be able to raise his army who were far away and whilst the enemy was close. He gathered the men he had with him which numbered around 15,000. They then marched on and when they drew near the enemy, they encountered an advance guard of the Byzantines of around 10,000. After a brief engagement, the advance guard fled. When Sultan Alp Arslan drew nearer, he sent a message to Emperor Romanus for a truce but this was emphatically refused by Romanus. It is said that before battle, Romanus sent an envoy to Sultan Alp Arslan as one last warning saying: “I have come to you with forces you cannot resist so become subservient to me willingly”. This angered Sultan Alp Arslan and the glory of Islām filled his breast and he responded: “Tell your master it is not you who have brought me out but it is God, to Whom be praise, who has brought you and your troops to me to make you food for the Muslims” [6] Sultan Alp Arslan was then advised by the Imām and Scholar of the army, Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Abdul Malik as follows: “You are fighting for a religion which Allāh promised to support and to make it prevail over all others. I trust that Allāh will have put this victory down to your name. Confront them on Friday in the afternoon, at the hour when the preachers will be in the pulpits. They will be praying for victory for the warriors of jihād – and prayer is linked to a favourable response.”[3] Accordingly, just as the hour came on Friday 20 Dhu’l-Qa’da 463 AH, corresponding to 19 August 1071 CE, Sultan Alp Arslan led all his men in prayer following which he wept much beseeching Allāh and they too wept with him. He then addressed his men and said: “We are with a depleted force. Either I will achieve the goal or I will go as a martyr to Paradise. If I die, then know that my son, Malikshah is to be my heir. Whosoever wishes to depart, let him depart, for there is no Sultan to command and forbid today for I too am a ghazi (warrior) with you.”[7] Encouraged by the fact that no one departed; he threw down his bow and arrows, picked up his sword and mace and tied the tail of his horse. He put on a white coloured clothing, anointed his body and said “If I am killed, then this is my winding sheet”. He then moved closer to the enemy and then dismounted his horse, rubbed his face in the dust of the plains of battle and wept and prayed to Allāh for a considerable amount of time for he understood the words of the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) who was reported to have said: “Two du’ās are never rejected, or rarely rejected: the du’a during the call for prayer, and the du’a during the calamity when the two armies attack each other”[8] The Byzantines set up like the number five on a dice with Romanus in the Centre whilst the army of Islām set up in a crescent formation hiding their small number. Voices reciting the Qur‘ān and the sounds of drums from the Sultan’s troops, and the ringing of bells from the Byzantines, filled the air. Sultan Alp Arslan then mounted his horse and charged towards the enemy lines with cries of “Allāhu Akbar” in unison with his army such that the mountains trembled. The charge was so ferocious that the dust which emerged from beneath provided them with much cover as they smashed into the centre of the Byzantine army. Allāh’s help descended and many of the enemy’s army were sent to their hereafter whilst the others fled in retreat with the soldiers of the Sultan reciting the verse I have set out at the outset of this article.[9] But it was to get better. The Muslims had managed to capture the Emperor of the Byzantines, Romanus himself. When Romanus was taken to Sultan Alp Arslan, the Sultan beat him three times with his whip and the following conversation is said to have then taken place: Alp Arslan: “What would you do if I was brought before you as a prisoner?” Romanus: “Perhaps I’d kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople.” Alp Arslan: “My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free”.[10] Arslan negotiated a peace with Romanus before permitting him to depart. This saw the transfer of Antioch, Edessa, Hierapolis, and Manzikert to the Seljuks as well as the initial payment of 1.5 million gold pieces and 360,000 gold pieces annually as ransom for Romanus. Romanus remained captive with Sultan Alp Arslan for approximately a week during which time he treated him with great kindness and generosity. He escorted him a long distance back to Constantinople and sent with him a number of his men for safe passage with a banner above his head bearing the words ‘There is nothing worthy of worship but Allāh’ [7]. For Romanus, when he returned he found that he had been dethroned, was blinded and sent into exile by another powerful dynasty, the house of Ducas. As for Sultan Alp Arslan, just under a year after the momentous battle, the Sultan set out for Mawarannahr (Transoxiana) and subdued its tyrant ruler, Yusuf al-Khwarezmi. Yusuf was being tied up and insulted the Sultan who asked for him to be released and took aim at him with his trusted bow except, for the first time, he missed his target and Yusuf, who had two knives hidden in his garment, stabbed the Sultan before he himself was killed.[3] The wound which the Sultan received eventually led to his death and with that, came the end of one of the most courageous sons of Islām. Points to Note: There are many points we can take from the life and times of Sultan Alp Arslan but to list all of them would mean that this article would become endless. Firstly, in a time when Muslims are negatively portrayed as barbaric because of the wrongful acts of a few in how they treat their prisoners, here we see a leader who dealt with his foes mercifully. Imagine, the head of the enemy who was the aggressor in attacking you, who killed many of your people and caused many injuries and much devastation and now you have him in your grasp – to pardon him indeed takes great character. This example in dealing with your enemies is one that you will not find anywhere outside the house of Islām where you will also find many other examples such as how the Messenger of Allāh (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) dealt with the Quraish at the Conquest of Makkah and how Salāh al-Dīn would deal with the barbaric crusaders almost a century after Sultan Alp Arslan. Regarding the crusaders, it should not be forgotten that this battle was so devastating, that it set in motion a number of events – one of these was that, within a decade, Pope Urban would make a call to unite Western and Eastern Christendom to avenge the consequences of the defeat at Manzikert in what was the first Crusades. Another event that was set in motion was that the victory opened up the area of Anatolia to the Muslims which marked the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire’s tenure as a dominant world power, and marked not only the beginning of the end of their civilization, but also sparked the birth and rise of a powerful Muslim presence that would last until its dissolution almost nine hundred years later, the Ottoman Empire, and thus, the battle of Manzikert is one of the most defining battles in history. We learn that the outward display of pomp and splendour of Romanus and the Byzantines were of no avail to them and that victory is indeed in the hands of Allāh. We also see the power of Friday, the day of Jumuʿah in the conscious of the Muslims and how they linked the power of duʿā with victory and how certain they were in their knowledge that on this day, the Muslims everywhere would raise their hands in duʿā for those fighting for them whereas today, you will find many Imāms and Muslims afraid to do so openly for fear of being criminalised. So, now you know who Sultan Alp Arslan is, I hope you will make him a household name and ensure that his noble legacy lives on. May Allāh make his grave spacious and may Allāh have mercy on him as he had mercy on those he ruled. May Allāh send to this ummah men like him. Source: www.islam21c.com
  19. Difficulties, Contradictions and Problems in the Crucifixion tale by Ibn Anwar ".but they killed him not, nor crucified him."(Qur'an 4:157) Jesus' Crucifixion is the bedrock of mainstream Christianity. It is such an important foundation in Christianity that even sects that have departed from "Orthodoxy" such as Unitarianism and the Jehovah's Witness have retained the crucifixion. Paul says, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Because the preaching of Christianity is based on the resurrection it goes without saying that the crucifixion is equally significant and important which is why the official symbol in mainstream Christianity is the cross. It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus' existence that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasian is small in number that does not discount the fact that they exist. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus' existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus' ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live that long. Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died. This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died. And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus' death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus' death itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive. In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man. How much do we know about Jesus? As we have mentioned before there is a paucity of material. "However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus' words and deeds that were made during his lifetime, we must acknowledge that we have none."[1] (emphasis added) "Reliable knowledge of Jesus, his life and teaching, is limited. The years of his adolescence and young manhood are shrouded in silence, and his active ministry of not over two or three years is treated only briefly in the Gospels. There are only four short accounts of Jesus' ministry, and these record what people though of his as well as what he did and taught. Beyond the narrative of his teachings and actions nothing is known of his personality, physical appearance, or bearing that might account for the remarkable charismatic power which he held over his disciples and the masses who at one time followed him." [2] (emphasis added) Contention 1: The passion narratives are inconsistent which means they cannot be trusted. If one were to compare the four gospels analytically one will find that there are many inconsistencies between the narratives given in the gospels. However, in fairness it should be noted that there are fewer contradictions between Matthew and Mark. Some stories are found in one or two of the gospels but not in the others for example Jesus being troubled is mentioned in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and John. The excuse given by apologists is that the authors simply did not mention them(or were not aware of its occurence) and this does not actually give rise to contradiction. This excuse is untenable when the Gospels and external historical evidence are studied carefully. Nevertheless, they would argue that in general there are many similarities between the passion narratives in the four Gospels. That's all fine. But what about those serious discrepencies that we do find in the Gospels? Can two conflicting stories presented in two different books be equally and simultaneously true? According to Christian apologists they can. What they will do is try to harmonise the conflicting stories by building a new story where both are included into one story with some modifications here and there. Is this a legitimate recourse? The eminent Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman, the prodige of one of the greatest New Testament scholars of America Bruce Metzger in Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted says that such a course of action does injustice to the gospels. Harmonising the conflicting gospel accounts does violence to what the authors and their work intend and convey. Each author wrote with a specific intention in mind and a specific audience in sight hence mixing and mashing one author's narrative with the other is unjustified. By doing such a thing they are in reality reconstructing a gospel that none of the gospel writers had in mind. By doing such a thing they have in reality introduced a new gospel. Let us now consider some of those contradictions. 1. When was Jesus arrested? Was it on the Passover or before it? The four Gospels place the crucifixion on a Friday (Mark 15:42, Matthew 27:62, Luke 23:54 and John 19:31), however John departs from the synoptics(Matthew, Mark and Luke) in that the incident occured on the day of rest of the Passover, that is one day earlier. The Synoptics on the other hand asserts that the Friday on which the crucifixion happened was the first day of the Passover. Jewish law stipulates that the lamb of the Passover should be slaughtered in the evening of the 14th of the first month of the Jewish calender, Nisan. The lamb is then eaten on the same night as mentioned in Exodus 12:1-8). Based on Genesis 1:5 the Jews measure a day as that from sunset to sunset. So that means the night of the Passover is the start of the 15th of Nisan. According to the synoptics Jesus was arrested after having the Passover meal with his disciples which was the first night of the first day of the Passover (Mark 14:12-46, Matthew 26:19-50 and Luke 22:7-54). He was then crucified in the morning of the 15th of Nisan. John on the other hand has it that Jesus was arrested and taken to Pilate early in the morning of the day of rest of the Passover which means that he was arrested the night before (john 18:28). The crucifixion then according to John's timeline should be placed on the 14th of Nisan some hours after the arrest. Thus according to John the day of the crucifixion was the Friday during the day of the rest of the Passover as opposed to the synoptics that place it on the first day of the feast. In conclusion, John's arrest and crucifixion is a day earlier than the synoptics version. There is a reason why John has made the crucifixion coincide with the time of the slaughter of Passover lambs. John's account is theologically motivated. He presents Jesus in the first chapter of his book as the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29 and 1:36). John wishes to pass Jesus off as the true Passover lamb. He makes Jesus fulfill a prophecy (John 19:36) with a description that the Old Testament uses for the Passover lamb. Because John's timeline corresponds intimately with his Crucifixion theology some scholars have been led to dismiss his narrative as fiction. [3] 2. How many Passovers were there? Was it one or three? Whilst the synoptics mention only one Passover that is the one during which Jesus was crucified John deviates as mentions two extra Passovers (John 2:13, 2:23 and 6:4). 3. When was Jesus' trial? Was it at night or in the morning? Both Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was arrested and put on trial before the Jewish council at night (Matthew 26:31-57 and Mark 14:30-53. John asserts the same in John 18:28. Luke on the other hand departs from them and says that the trial was in the morning in Luke 22:66. 4. Who questioned Jesus? Was it the Sanhedrin or the high priest? According to Mark 14:53-55 and Matthew 26:57-59 it was the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus in the house of the high priest, Caiaphas. Who were the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin was a Jewish council that dealt with religious and Jewish legal matters consisting of 71 members. How is it that 71 people fitted in Caiaphas' house 2000 years ago is a mystery to me. Perhaps he lived in a palatial palace? Luke 22:66 says, "At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them." One can understand from this that Luke may very well be referring to the Sanhedrin as Matthew and Mark does. But John departing from the synoptics claims that Jesus was first brought to the house of Annas, "Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year."(John 18:12-13) Only after he had been interrogated by Annas that he was then taken to Caiaphas(John 18:24). There are mutiple problems with these narratives. Firstly, the Sanhedrin is totally missing in John's account even though he says earlier in John 11:47-53 that Caiaphas led the Sanhedrin in planning to kill Jesus. If John saw it fit to mention the Sanhedrin's plan to kill him why not mention it also when Jesus was interrogated? The question then is was Jesus ever tried by the Sanhedrin as claimed by the synoptics? Who's telling the truth? The second problem that we find is that two high priests(kohen gadol) are mentioned together namely, Annas and Caiaphas. Annas is addressed as the high priest repeatedly in John 18:15-22 amd in the same passage in verse 24 Caiaphas is described as the high priest. This cannot be true because the Old Testament , Josephus, Philo and Rabbinic material all agree that the position of high priest can be occupied by one person only at any one time. Further more, the eminent authority in Jewish studies, Geza Vermes says that John's claim in John 11:49,51 and John 18:13 that the high priesthood went through annual rotations is unhistorical.[4] 5. Who sentenced Jesus to capital punishment? Matthew 26:66, Mark 14:64, Luke 24:20 and Acts 13:27 says that the Sanhedrin passed the death penalty on Jesus implying that they have the capacity to sentence someone to die. John departs from that and makes it clear that the Sanhedrin and the Jews in general have no legal power at all to put someone to death, "Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.' The Jews said to him, ?It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.'"(John 18:31) Looking at that verse carefully another problem arises. How is it that Pilate the Roman prefect who had been ruling the Jews for around four years and responsible for legal affairs did not even know that the Jews are not permitted to sentence anyone to death? 6. How many people tried Jesus? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree that Jesus was brought before Pilate to be sentenced, but Luke deviating from the other three gospels adds something extra in that Jesus was also tried by Herod in Luke 23:6-12). In this episode Jesus gets mocked and ridiculed by Herod. Why is this event completely omitted in all the other three gospels? Could it be that it did not happen and was simply Luke's invention to add more drama to the narrative? 7. How did Judas the traitor die? This is quite relevant to the passion narratives because it happened during the same time and that he is charged with the responsibility of deserting and betraying Jesus to the Jewish leaders for some money(Mark 14:43-46, Matthew 26:47-50, Luke 22:47-54 and John 18:2-12). According to Matthew the following is what happened to Judas Iscariot, "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, "Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. " (Matthew 27:3-10) The passage cites a prophecy that is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah. No such prophecy exists in Jeremiah. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the problem by mixing together Jeremiah 18:2-3 and Zechariah 11:12-13. This is utterly disingenuous because anyone can see that the author cited Jeremiah, not Jeremiah and Zechariah. Prof. Raymond E. Brown in his volume 1 or his 2 volume work on the crucifixion says about this confusion, "That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT." [5] In the passage Judas' manner of death is mentioned, that is, he hanged himself. Acts 1:18-20 relates the same incident, but the details differ heavily, "(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms," ?May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and, " ?May another take his place of leadership." (Acts 1:18-20) As we can see the above passage presents a totally different picture of Judas' death. Whilst Matthew says he hanged himself, Acts on the other hand says he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. If the latter is true why did Matthew not include it? Isn't such a dramatic and gruesome death of a traitor to one's Lord and Master worth mentioning? We can also see that a totally different prophecy is cited for the incident if it ever happened. One would think that the same prophecy would be applied for the same incident like the incident of Jesus going into Jerusalem on a donkey whereby the same prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 is quoted. This means that the two authors are retelling different stories. The only similitude is the person involved. 8. False promise by Jesus? In Luke 23:43 we have Jesus making a promise to his fellow crucified victim, "Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."" This was during the crucifixion. According to the Creed of the Apostles which may well have been based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Jesus went down to hell after the crucifixion, "Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and descended into hell." (Apostles' Creed) Further more, in John 20:17 Jesus says, "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ?I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " Where is the father? The Father is in heaven according to Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 23:9. What was the promise again? The promise was that he would see Jesus in heaven today i.e. on Friday. Apostles' Creed says Jesus went to hell after he died and John 20:17 says Jesus did not yet ascend to the Father(in heaven) on Sunday. It is clearly a contradiction. 9. Who and where were the women at the crucifixion? Matthew 27:56 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee were watching at the scene. Mark 15:40 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome were watching. Luke 23:49 says, "And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things." If Luke is correct then all the witnesses including the women were standing at a distance watching the incident. John goes against the rest and claims that Jesus' mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdelene were standing close to the cross. It was so clase that Jesus was able to speak to mother. (John 19:25-26) Did you also notice that the women were all MARYS? Were there no other name among Jewish women other than Mary? How very coincidental that all the women mentioned are Marys. Is it easier to say it's a coincidence or that they are inventions of the authors? 10. Who did Jesus appear to? According to Paul, Jesus appeared to the 12: "that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. " (1 Corinthians 15:4-8) From the Gospels we know that there were no 12 disciples soon after the crucifixion because Judas had gone. Some apologists might suggest that the 12 is merely an "appellation" and di not designate the actual number of disciples who were around. This is inconsistent with the fact that the Gospels treat the disciples as 11 when Judas was no longer around. Had it been an appellation i.e. a special designation for the disciples despite their actual number the gospel authors would have retained the 12, but they did not. There were 11 left so they were called the eleven and not the twelve (e.g. Mark 16:14). Luke 24:33- 43 tells us that Jesus appeared to the 11 and ate honeycomb and broiled fish in their midst in the upper room. However, John 20:24 tells us that Thomas was not around when Jesus appeared i.e. as related in Luke 24:33-43. That means that the number of disciples that were present should have been TEN at the most and not eleven as Luke 24:33 claims! Paul says 12, Luke says 11 and John asserts 10. Which one is true? Scholars like Dr. William Lane Craig have tried to reconcile this conundrum by proposing a sequence of events where Jesus is suggested to have first appeared in Jerusalem then the disciples went back to Galilee and after that they return to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Is this harmonising attempt coherent? One of the most eminent Bible scholars and praised as such by Dr. William Lane Craig, Prof. Raymond E. Brown disagrees. Such a sequential harmonising according to Prof. Raymond E. Brown, "does violence to the Gospel evidence". [6] Raymond E. Brown in the same book postulates that the several appearances recorded in the gospels are actually fictitious inventions stemming from one single appearance. 11. Jesus' trial could not have taken place at night and concluded in the same night. The Mishnah says about capital punishment, "Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day. Civil suits can be concluded on the same day, whether for acquittal or condemnation; capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favourable verdict; but only on the morrow with an unfavourable verdict. Therefore trials are not held on the eve of a sabbath or festival. In civil suits, and in cases of cleanness and uncleanness, we begin with [the opinion of] the most eminent [of the judges]; whereas in capital charges, we commence with [the opinion of] those on the side [benches]. (Sanh. 32a) Matthew 26:31-57, Mark 14:30-53 and John 18:28 claim that Jesus' trial took place at night. According to the Jewish law as we have read above this cannot be true unless the Jewish leaders and the high priest were altogether ignorant or perhaps they were involved in an evil conspiracy where they bent their own law? If that is true why isn't the error of their actions exposed and rebuked in the gospels? Why did Jesus not himself question the manner in which he was tried being himself a learned Jewish teacher? As Prof. Craig A. Evans tells us in his Context, Family and Formation in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible p. 19, "Jesus is frequently called ?Rabbi' or ?Rabboni', or its Greek equivalents ?master' (epistata) or ?teacher' (didaskalos)." So, Jesus was no doubt a Rabbi(Mark 12:29). Being a Rabbi and learned in the Jewish law he would have questioned the Jewish leaders concerning the unconstsitutional nocturnal trial. But, no such disagreement is found either from Jesus or from anyone else in the entire New Testament. Earlier we argued against the location of Jesus trial which took place at the house of the high priest. This is very unusual in Jewish tradition since the place of assembly was the hall of cut stone located within the temple as Geza Vermes notes in his The Passion and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz mentions their The Historical Jesus. There are many more discrepencies, contradictions and difficulties in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and other things besides. However, the inconsistencies that we have contended are sufficient in proving our point. The anonymous gospels are far from consistent in their narratives. If we can't establish which incident actually happened how can we be certain that any of them happened at all? In order to have a reasonable commentary on the events one should be able to know what truly happened first. The inconsistencies give proof to the Qur'anic declaration concerning the crucifixion that, ".those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but they only follow conjecture." (Qur'an 4:157) Christian apologists tend to argue that the crucifixion is true based on the multitude of independent multiple attestations. This brings us to our second contention. Further reading: http://harunyahya.com/en/Articles/33216/various-contradictions-in-the-four
  20. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    The Early Christians Who Believed Jesus Was Saved From Crucifixion After the deity of Jesus, the crucifixion is perhaps the most contested issue about his life between Christians and Muslims. Today his death on the cross is taken as an almost indisputable fact of history, to the point where it’s not even questioned. Yet the Qur’an makes the bold claim that he was not crucified. Is it possible that the Qur’an, written some 600 years after Jesus, could be right? This article is going to show that there were in fact early Christian groups who believed that Jesus was not crucified, just as the Qur’an proclaims. WHAT Islam TEACHES ABOUT THE CRUCIFIXION This is what the Qur’an says about the crucifixion of Jesus: They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise. [4:157-158] We can see that the Qur’an states that Jesus was not crucified; rather it was made to appear so. What “though it was made to appear like that to them” means is a topic of discussion among scholars. A major view is that God gave someone else Jesus’ appearance and it was this other person who was substituted for Jesus on the cross, causing his enemies to believe that Jesus was crucified. We find support for this view in the narrations of one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Abbas. He stated: “Just before God raised Jesus to the Heavens, Jesus went to his disciples, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping with water (as if he had just had a bath) and he said, ‘There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after you had believed in me.’ He then asked, ‘Who among you will volunteer for his appearance to be transformed into mine, and be killed in my place. Whoever volunteers for that, he will be with me (in Heaven).’ One of the youngest ones among them volunteered, but Jesus asked him to sit down. Jesus asked again for a volunteer, and the same young man volunteered and Jesus asked him to sit down again. Then the young man volunteered a third time and Jesus said, ‘You will be that man,’ and the resemblance of Jesus was cast over that man while Jesus ascended to Heaven from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Jews came looking for Jesus, they found that young man and crucified him…” [1] We can see that the Qur’an and other Islamic sources are crystal clear: God saved His beloved messenger from the crucifixion. Jesus was raised up to God, alive and unharmed, where he remains until this day. We find support for the Qur’anic crucifixion narrative in history. There were early Christian groups who denied the crucifixion of Jesus, such as the first century scholar Basilides and his followers, the Basilidians. They believed that Jesus was saved from the crucifixion and that another, Simon of Cyrene, was crucified in his place: “The Unborn and Nameless Father seeing their miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the angelic agencies who had built the world. And to men Christ seemed to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead…” [2] The beliefs of Basilides matter because he was living very close to the time of the disciples, and there are even traditions that he got these teachings from disciples of Jesus such as Peter [3]. From this account we can see that it’s not the Qur’an that invented this claim that Jesus was saved from the crucifixion, it goes back to the earliest time of Church history. ANSWERING THE CLAIM THAT SUCH GROUPS WERE HERETICAL Now, critics tend to discredit groups such as the Basilidians by appealing to the writings of Church Fathers who condemned them as heretical. Sadly, nearly all the writings of such groups have perished, and we mostly know of them through the writings of their opponents. It is a well known fact among historians that Church Fathers would exaggerate to the extreme when writing about other Christian sects with whom they did not agree. For example, the second century theologian Irenaeus claimed that the followers of Valentinus made indiscriminate copulation not only permissible but a desired act for those who are truly spiritual [4], and that the Carpocratians practiced indiscriminate sex and that their theology compelled them to violate every conceivable moral law and ethical norm [5]. Perhaps the most outrageous example occurs near the end of the fourth century in the writings of the bishop Epiphanius, who in his discussion of a group of Gnostic Christians outlines their beliefs and describes their orgiastic and cannibalistic practices. Epiphanius claimed that they indulged in sumptuous feasts, with married couples separating to engage in sexual intercourse with other members of the community [6]. The couples are alleged to have then collected the semen in their hands and ingested it together while proclaiming, “this is the body of Christ.” The couple also collected and consumed the woman’s menstrual blood, saying “this is the blood of Christ” [7]. If for some reason the women became pregnant, the fetus was allowed to develop until it could be manually aborted. Then, claims Epiphanius, it was dismembered, covered with honey and spices, and devoured by the community as a special meal [8]. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in the 20th century we have been able to study the actual writings of a bewildering variety of Gnostic Christians. A lot of the claims made by the Church Fathers against such groups were proven to be false, as far from condoning, let alone promoting, such outlandish moral behavior, their writings urge and assume just the contrary social and personal ethics. One of the few constants among all the Nag Hammadi writings is their ascetic orientation. Gnostic Christians appear to have believed, as a rule, in punishing the body, not indulging it. They endorsed ascetic lifestyles far from the hedonistic debauchery that the Church Fathers alleged. Apparently then, Gnostics were consistently attacked by orthodox Christians as sexually perverse, not because they actually were perverse but because they were the enemy. In fact, a lot of what we know about the early Church comes from the third century Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea who pioneered work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity. He is often called the “Father of Church History.” But he is not a reliable source of information as he openly admits to lying in order to propagate what he believes is the truth. In his work, Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Book 12, Chapter 31 is titled as follows [9]: “That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.” Eusebius makes it absolutely clear in his teachings that lying is necessary when it comes to the Gospel message. Chapter 31 reads as follows: “But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?” [10] According to Eusebius it’s okay to lie, it’s okay to hold a false belief, if in the end the lie benefits someone. Eusebius, like most Christians today, held the death and resurrection of Jesus to be an essential belief for salvation. Based on Eusebius’ own principles then, there is no doubt that he would have been willing to lie about other groups who deny the crucifixion in order to protect what he would have seen as an essential truth. For Eusebius, the ends justify the means. It would therefore be difficult to believe that his writings are historically accurate and objective. His representations of competing groups of Christian sects are very likely not impartial. In summary, we should take any claims of heresy made against early Christian groups who believed that Jesus was not crucified, with a pinch of salt. History is written by the winners, and much of what we know about these early groups has been painted by their opponents. DID GOD DECEIVE THE WORLD? A charge sometimes made against the Qur’an is that God ‘deceived’ people with the appearance of the crucifixion. The matter of the crucifixion was controversial in the formative years. The truth was “out there”, and one of my previous articles (please click this link here) shows how the Old Testament prophesied that the Messiah would not be harmed. So, the evidence that Jesus the Messiah could not be crucified is present within the Bible. Now, if some people of the past didn’t have access to the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and they thought Jesus was crucified, then according to the Qur’an they would not be blameworthy in the sight of God: “God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear…” [2:286] Here the Qur’an states that God does not hold people to account for what is beyond their capacity. Now that the final revelation, the Qur’an, has been revealed and clears up the misconceptions about Jesus, people have no excuse for ignorance. The test of life is to see if truth is what matters to you, as opposed to what is convenient or fits your desires, and ultimately you are judged on your honest commitment to follow the truth as it appears to you. It’s important to realise that life is a test. God is testing us in this life to distinguish those who believe from those who disbelieve: “Do the people think that they will be left to say, ‘We believe’ and they will not be tried? But We have certainly tried those before them, and God will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars” [29:2-3]. Such a claim about God deceiving us could be made about anything that seems confusing, contradictory or that needs a bit of investigation. Sources This article has been taken from the book “Jesus: Man, Messenger, Messiah” which can be ordered and downloaded for free from here.
  21. Deutsche Islamische Webseiten

    http://al-islaam.de/ http://www.al-tamhid.net/ http://www.al-mughni.de/ http://www.islamreligion.com/de/ http://www.islamicbulletin.org/german/german.htm https://islamqa.info/ge/ http://www.islamisches-zentrum-muenchen.de http://www.way-to-Allah.com/index.html
  22. اعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم ﴿ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا لَا يَسْخَرْ قَومٌ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَسَى أَنْ يَكُونُوا خَيْرًا مِنْهُمْ وَلَا نِسَاءٌ مِنْ نِسَاءٍ عَسَى أَنْ يَكُنَّ خَيْرًا مِنْهُنَّ وَلَا تَلْمِزُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَلَا تَنَابَزُوا بِالْأَلْقَابِ بِئْسَ الِاسْمُ الْفُسُوقُ بَعْدَ الْإِيمَانِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَتُبْ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ (11) يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيرًا مِنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا وَلَا يَغْتَبْ بَعْضُكُمْ بَعْضًا أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَنْ يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ رَحِيمٌ (12) ﴾ ( سورة الحجرات)
  23. Clarification Of Taqiyya And Kitman In Islam

    Kitman and its significance in Islam ! Keeping affairs secret is recommended to avoid envy ll perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad, sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallam, is His Slave and Messenger. Regarding urging people to be secretive about their affairs, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: استعينوا على إنجاح الحوائج بالكتمان ، فإن كل ذي نعمة محسود “Resort to secrecy for the fulfillment and success of your needs for, verily, every one who has a blessing is envied.” [reported by At-Tabaraani, Abu Nu'aym, and Al-Bayhaqi in Ash-Shu‘ab; narrated by Mu'aath] [Al-Albaani graded it Saheeh (sound)] Allaah Knows best Source We checked the dictionary to know the definition of this word: كتمان [عامة] concealment كتمان [مالية] Non - disclosure; Nondisclosure; Secrecy كِتْمان [طبية] confidentiality كتمان [سياسية] concealing, concealment كتمان الخيانة [قانونية] Misprision of treason بالكتمان الشديد [سياسية] The negotiation is still shrouded in great secrecy كتمان الشهادة [مالية] ‎Non - disclosure ‏ كتمان الشهادة ‏ [اسلامية] Withholding testimony كتمان وقائع [قانونية] Disguise of facts عدم كتمان السر [قانونية] Breach of secrecy We find that this word used, Islamically, to describe who withhold his testimony, which is forbidden in Islam. What is the meaning of kitman from the Islamic perspective? This answer was kindly provided by brother Ahmad Sa`d, a member of "Islam online Ask About Islam (AAI) Editorial Staff "In reality, the word kitman comes from the verb katama, which means to hide, to conceal. As it appears from the different English equivalents of the word, it touches on so many aspects - some of which are good and others are bad. Starting with the good aspects, we can say that a good type of kitman (concealment or hiding) is when you hide things still in process till they are complete. In our life, we may meet people who look with a malevolent eye to what we have, who are jealous that we have this and that, who are envious that we are blessed with this and that. Driven by their envy, hatred and dark intentions, they may plot for us or weave some traps. In order to be saved from their traps, we should keep hush-hush on things that are still in preparation. To this type of hiding, kitman is the best policy. In this regard, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, says in the hadith: “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman.” استعينوا على إنجاح الحوائج بالكتمان ، فإن كل ذي نعمة محسود He himself gave the best example of such a type in the early days of Islam. When the number of Muslims was still small and the community was still weak, there was a big need for concealment or secret call (kitman) so as to save the cause of da`wah (inviting people to Islam) from the fierce enemies.When migrating to Madinah, no one was aware of the time of the Prophet’s departure from Makkah except two individuals - his Companion and fellow traveler Abu Bakr, and their guide Ibn Urayqit. Of course, it helped them a lot to get saved from the traps of the pagans. Kitman is of much greater importance when we realize that it is a type of trust. When one discloses some of his secrets to you and asks you to keep them secret from others, then it is your duty to keep them secret as required by that person. Even between the two spouses, they have to practice kitman, i.e. they are in no way allowed to talk to others about the details or generalities of their conjugal life or intimate relations. Kitman may extend to cover the secrets of the whole state at the time of war and peace where a person who is loyal to his people cannot divulge to anyone or tell the enemy about his country’s affairs. Now, let’s turn to the bad type of kitman, namely, withholding or hiding. An example of this type is the image of a person whom Allah has gifted with knowledge so as to benefit people with it. However, such a person practices the kitman of knowledge by hiding it. To such type of people the Prophet hints in one of his hadiths in which he states that their knowledge will be like a bridle for them in Hell. Another ignominy of ignominies is that type of people whom Allah gives wealth and properties. Yet, they practice kitman of money, by withholding zakah and not offering charity. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, warns them: “Whomever Allah gives money but refrains from paying the zakah on it. This money will turn into a big snake, on the Day of Judgment, which will seize him by cheeks saying, ‘I am your money, I am your treasure’” Stinginess is thus a type of kitman, as is clear from the above. Hoarding goods and forcing people to buy them at high prices is also a type of kitman which should never be the trait of a Muslim. The word, in its pure sense of a word, never stops to generate new meanings. It echoes in the mind and gives life to images hidden in the back corridors of the memory. But this is language, words from words." God knows best ! Source
  24. The Story of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) is mentioned several times in the Qur’an. He and his mother, Mary, are presented as great role models to be loved, honored and imitated. Muslims believe that Jesus is a great Prophet who preached worshipping Allah alone. presents 7 miracles of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) mentioned in the Qur’an.
×