defending-islam

ACTION ALERT: Why israel's Investigation into Flotilla is not Sufficient? Write to your MP and tell them that the British government cannot accept israel's investigation into the Flotilla attack, and there needs to be an independent UN led inquiry. (Contact details below) Tirkel Commission is not Enough israel's Tirkel Commission has been set up to 'investigate' the armed attack by israeli troops on the Gaza Flotilla. 9 Turkish peace activists were killed on 31 May 2010 by live fire from israeli troops. Immediately after the incident, israel began to defend itself, saying it was attacked by the peace activists. All video footage and photo evidence from the passengers of the attack on the MV Marmara were confiscated by the israeli troops and have not been returned to their rightful owners, including 20 journalists who were on board the ship. Since then, israel has gone to great lengths to blame the activists, calling them 'protestors', 'radicals' and even 'terrorists'. The information being circulated in israeli society is expected to form the bulk of israel's inquiry into the attack on the Flotilla. Instead of releasing all of the video and photographic evidences that exist, the Tirkel Commission will look at selective materials which support israel's story. As no peace activists from the ships will be interviewed, not any of the soldiers who attacked the ship, this enquiry is flawed. The Tirkel Commission fails to meet international standards for a number of reasons: 1. The Tirkel Commission's terms of reference do not include looking into the decision-making process by israeli Politicians and Commanders which led to bloodshed on the high seas, to the killing of nine people whose purpose had been to reach Gaza rather than clash with israeli soldiers. 2. The commission is specifically and explicitly excluded from calling any soldier or officer to testify and is expected to rely blindly on the army's own investigation of its own doings, which is carried out secretly. 3. israel has confiscated most of visual recordings and photographic evidence from the passengers which is highly unlikely to be made available to the commission. 4. With israel withholding vital evidence it would appear there may be selective or no eye-witness testimonies of the boat's Turkish, European and American passengers, whom the State of israel has already branded as "terrorists". 5. To get a semblance of international respectability, two international observers were attached to the commission. It should be noted that one of them - David Trimble, Protestant Unionist leader from North Ireland – expressed his allegiance just two weeks ago by joining a "Friends of israel" group established by Netanyahu loyalist Dore Gold. In addition, Trimble is a veteran member of the Henry Jackson Society, an international organization linked with the American "neo conservative" circles and which advocates the "spreading of democracy" by way of military incursions and invasions. At Trimble's side, this society's membership includes such people as Richard Perle, who under the Bush Administration was among the main initiators of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as well as William Kristol who is the main neo-conservative ideologue. 6. The other international observer on the commission is Ken Watkin, retired Canadian Army general and until recently Judge Advocate General. Watkin's name is associated with a sensational affair in Canada, regarding cases of Canadian forces in Afghanistan transferring dozens of prisoners to the custody of the Afghan government's security service – where they were tortured and some extra-judicially executed. Watkin refused to testify to the Canadian Parliament regarding the advice he had given to the military commanders on this issue, arguing that there existed between him and the Canadian government a privileged attorney–client relationship. This behavior does not bode well for Watkin 's willingness or ability to participate in exposing facts which might prove embarrassing to the Government of israel. The Tirkel Commission falls short of the basic International requirements of being independent, transparent and comprehensive. It has no credibility and therefore it is not acceptable. TAKE ACTION: 1. Write to your local MP Include the above points in your letter. Click here to find the address of your MP or Click here to email a letter to your MP 2. Write to the Foreign Secretary and encourage him not to accept the Tirkel Commission and instead call for an independent UN led investigation. Rt Hon. William Hague MP Foreign Secretary King Charles Street London SW1A 2AH 3. Write to the Minister for the Middle East Alistair Burt, who is also an Officer of Conservative Friends of israel. Rt Hon. Alistair Burt MP Minister for the Middle East King Charles Street London SW1A 2AH Friends of Al-Aqsa is a UK based non-profit making NGO concerned with defending the human rights of Palestinians and protecting the sacred al-Aqsa Sanctuary in Jerusalem. This vision is supported by various international groups and organisations. Friends of Al-Aqsa was first established in 1997 and now has an international support base. source: Nakba .co .uk

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_invitation2truth(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/images/fis22.jpg[/img] fis22.pdf Prayer (salaah) is the most important pillar of Islam. Indeed it is the dividing line between Islam and infidelity. Salaah is a duty incumbent on every Muslim, male or female, who has attained the age of maturity and has a sound mind. There are numerous verses in the Holy Qur’an commanding Muslims to observe salaah regularly. Allah says: “Guard the prayers strictly, especially the middle prayer (i.e., ‘Asr) and stand up in prayer to Allah with true devotion.†(Holy Quran Al Baqarah 238) “Verily, the prayer is enjoined on the believers at stated times.†(Holy Quran An Nisa 103)

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_invitation2truth(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/images/fis13.jpg[/img] Collection of Du'as to help with difficuty and problems in this world. Very resourceful and definitely the best way to resolve all the problem for surely the is no better way then Du'as accepted by Allah. [using large font size is not allowed]fis13.pdf [using large font size is not allowed]

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_invitation2truth(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/images/fis15.jpg[/img] There is only one origin to Whom, equally, all must return. Life thus becomes a journey, and its measure of happiness and success is the closeness or distance to our Creator. Rather than a religion, Islam is a way of life with its guidance charting the coordinates of the map by which the return journey to where we came from can successfully be accomplished. The present booklet intends to be a traveller's handbook for those who like to know where they are and where they are going. fis15.pdf

"O Muslims Fasting is prescribed for you just as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may become fearful (of Allah)" (Holy Quran 2:183) Fasting helps us judge our strength in controlling our lust, greed and passion. It teaches us self-discipline so that we gain control over the factors which Satan uses as his tools against Man. Fasting is a weapon and just as any other weapon is useless, unless the user knows how to use it, same applies to Fasting. This book has been written with the aim of teaching Muslims how they can use the weapon of Fasting in a manner that is correct and beneficial in their war against Satan, thereby attaining the pleasure of Allah the Glorified and Exalted This complete guide covers all aspects of ramadhan including Saum (fasting) which is the third pillar of Islam. Includes moon sighting, fasting, itikaaf, eid, taraweeh, lailatul qadr etc.[using large font size is not allowed] fis10.pdf

This is an interesting article i found on aljazeera that i wanted to share with everyone here and its relavance to whats been going on in the past couple of days: Today is Holocaust Remembrance day. At 10am israel came to a virtual standstill, sirens wailed across cities, traffic stopped as Jews here and abroad pause to reflect on the worst genocide in history. Adolf Hitler's evil plans started with discrimination against Jews based solely on their religion before moving them through mass deportations to concentration camps before finally seeking to exterminate them. A total of 6 million Jewish men, women and children died in mankind’s darkest hour. The world, and in particular israel, rightly continues to remember these horrific events of 60years ago to ensure it never happens again. But there is increasing concern about whether the tragic lessons of the Holocaust were fully learned by israel itself? Tomorrow, April 13, 2010, a new israeli military order comes into place allowing the mass deportation of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the occupied West Bank. Any Palestinian or foreigner living in the West Bank without the appropriate id permit (receipt of which is controlled by israel) can be deported within 72 hours or even jailed for up to 7 years. Those Palestinians lucky enough to have escaped the open-air prison that is Gaza to now live in the West Bank maybe the first targeted and sent back. The vague wording of the law has concerned israeli human rights groups so much that 10 of them have signed a letter to Defence Minister Ehud Barak begging him to rescind it. The left-leaning israeli newspaper Haaretz first broke the story and its editorial today is compelling reading, saying: “The right of all Palestinians to choose where to live in the West Bank or Gaza marks a very low threshold for defining their human rights. Implementing this new military order is not only likely to spark a new conflagration in the territories, it is liable to give the world clear-cut proof that israel's aim is a mass deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank.†Palestinian leaders say the move is devoted to racism and “paves the way for an ethnic cleansing operation.†As israeli’s well know, the Holocaust started with human rights violations which turned into mass deportations and ended in genocide. Is it not time that those who support a state born of the single most traumatic event of the 20th century do everything in their power to never impose anything that resembles their own suffering on another oppressed people? No doubt those who love israel so much they cannot see its faults will attack this blog as being anti-Semitic. But hopefully on a day that remembers the horrors of the past, just maybe israel can start to rectify the wrongs of the present. source: aljazeera

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_invitation2truth(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/images/fis14.jpg[/img] This publication is a collection of two hundred authentic Ahadith (plural of Hadith) which are not in relationship with jurisprudence, but are rather advices for us in general Words_of_the_Prophet.pdf

Waalikum assalaam sister Very nicely put sister couldn’t have put it in a better word myself.

By: Mirza Yawar Baig Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010 The big question is, ‘What is social networking and how is it useful?’ Of course you will hear the usual bleating saying, ‘It is so nice to know what my sister is doing….blah, blah.’ So ask this person, ‘Why can’t you send your sister an email asking what she is doing and she can respond to you. Or even better, if you can, call your sister and talk to her.’ But no, I must talk to my sister in a space where it is not only the sister who is listening but almost anyone who cares to listen, even if that person is a total stranger. So is it about your concern for your sister or is it something else? So also in this space are pictures which really have no place outside the home – like the pictures showing you hugging your sister or wife or whoever! And so on and so on. I don’t think I need to describe all that there is to people who put it there in the first place. Yes, of course there are controls. Tell me all about them. Tell me also how come almost nobody uses them. How many Facebook profiles do you know who have the maximum control activated where only their immediate family can see them? And of course in the end, all control is only as good as the techies and geeks on the Facebook site allow. After all they can access all that information anyway. So what is really being achieved by Facebook, Twitter and so on? (Twitter?? Whoever coined that term was clever. Talk about under the belt. Who twitters? A twit!! – but then I suppose a twit doesn’t know that he is a twit, right?) So what is achieved? What is achieved is what would be the equivalent of peeping in through your window. Wanting to know what you are doing all the time. I want to know what you are doing all the time and I want you to know what I am doing all the time. Intrusion into privacy when it is done against your will is unpleasant. So what is better? Get you into a state of mind where you will volunteer to tell people all about your internal organs on your own. See the change? An intruder is an intruder only when he intrudes against your will. If you invite him in, then he is a guest, not an intruder. Same person, same you but different rules. And that’s what it is all about, the rules of engagement. So is it ‘social networking’ or is it ‘social engineering?’ The purpose is to change the rules of the society. Break barriers. Destroy the boundaries that protect us. And where does this lead to? Addiction and intoxication. Addiction to seeing what others are doing and telling others what you are doing on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis. And being intoxicated with the false feeling that you are so interesting that people are really interested in what you are doing. Not realizing or willing to believe that these are the actions of other intoxicated people. You don’t like the word ‘intoxication’? Just don’t log onto your Facebook or Twitter account for two days and monitor your heartbeat, blood pressure, tremor in your mouse, whatever and you will see what I mean. And all this for what? What is achieved with the time that you spend reading about other’s adenoids and telling them about yours? Incidentally I know what adenoids means and that you don’t talk about them. But let us not mention what facebookers really talk about! So what did you achieve? Just ask yourself this question, ‘What did I achieve by being on Facebook and Twitter (or whichever of these infernal social networks you are on) over the past month, year or whatever period.’ Remember this is a serious question because you Muslim/ah are spending your time (life) doing it. And that makes it among the first questions that you will have to answer to Allah. So what did you achieve? Prepare the answer. You will need it. Social networking is social engineering. Its purpose is to change the values and ethics of people. This is done, in its most benign form, to encourage you to indulge more and more in the consumerist society that is all consuming. We think we are the consumers. But we are in reality the consumed. Just think, how many of you buy things, see shows, go to restaurants (and other places), like or dislike things because of campaigns on Facebook and Twitter? See what is happening? Your minds are invaded, your thoughts are influenced, and consequently your actions are manipulated and you may not even realize it. Today Muslims the world over are very angry with the latest offensive of the Facebook. But an impulsive reaction will hardly do us any good. Just staying off of the offensive site for one day, as many have advocated, will only highlight our capitulation to it. It is time we rethink what are we doing with our lives and say no to social engineering. It is time to get off of Facebook, Twitter, and other similar sites that are destroying us from within. source: albalagh dot net

By: Khalid Baig Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010 With the latest in-your-face act of the Facebook, the issue is once again attracting headlines. Should Muslims react? How should they react? Where do they stand on the philosophical issue underlying all this? In the media the issue has been framed as a clash between two camps. One camp stands for freedom of expression. The other wants to curtail it. Needless to say the first camp is enlightened and virtuous. The other is a relic of the dark ages. The clash in other words is between a civilized and civilizing West and Islam that just refuses to be civilized. Once you accept this framing of the whole issue, the outcome is already decided. Are you for freedom of expression or not? It is a loaded question, and just like the yes/no question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?†no matter how you answer it, you remain guilty. Look at the typical Muslim response which begins, “We also believe in freedom of expression but…†It matters little what you say after that. It is obvious that you are trying to add exclusions and limitations to a basic moral value while the other side is asking for no such limits. It is not difficult to see which side will come out ahead. But this predicament is a result of uncritically accepting a false statement about the nature of the clash. For the real clash is not between those who are for and those who are against a freedom. Rather it is between two different freedoms. On the one hand is the freedom to insult. On the other is freedom from insult. Whether it was the Satanic Verses of the 1980s or the Cartoons of 2005 and their endless reproduction since then, if they stand for any freedom, it is freedom to insult. Pure and simple. Muslims, on the other hand, have stood for and demanded freedom from insult. Nothing more. Nothing less. These are certainly opposing values. You can be for one or the other. And the question does arise, which one is a better value. To see that let us imagine a society that truly believes in the first as a cherished moral value. It celebrates freedom to insult and guards it at all costs. Every member of it enjoys this freedom and practices it regularly. In a business everyone insults everyone else. The boss is insulting the employees, the employees are insulting the bosses. The salesmen are insulting the customers. The accountants are insulting the creditors. Everyone is enjoying the great freedom to insult. The same is true of the home. The parents are always insulting the children. The children are constantly insulting the parents. The spouses are incessantly insulting each other. And in doing so they all stand on the high moral ground because freedom to insult is such a fundamental freedom on which the society is built. Actually contrary to the claims of the pundits if the Western society was truly built on this “cherished moral value,†it would have perished a long time ago — consumed by the fires of hatred and negativity generated by this freedom. No home, no neighborhood, no village, no business, no organization and no society can survive for long if it makes freedom to insult as a cornerstone of its freedoms. Clearly most who advocate this freedom do not practice it in their daily lives. But they are making an exception in the case of Islam and Muslims. The driving force behind this is not any great moral principle but a deep rooted hatred born of ignorance. Software professionals sometimes use a term called beature. It stands for a bug turned into a feature. A bug is a defect in the software. A feature, on the other hand, is a desirable attribute. A beature is a defect that is presented (thanks to slick marketing) as a feature. Freedom to insult is also a beature. It is the growing sickness of Islamophobia in the West which is being presented as a high moral value, packaged by the slick marketing departments as freedom of expression. Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions. Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.†(Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs. As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet — from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants. Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here. What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults.

Assalamaulikum, i was reading this briliant article earlier on today and i wanted to share this with everyone The Shariah, Non-Muslim Rights and the Pundits By Khalid Baig Posted: 27 Jamad-ul-Awwal 1430, 22 May 2009 Islam's treatment of non-Muslims in its midst has been a favorite topic of discussion for the Orientalists and other pundits who make careers out of denigrating Islam. They have been singing essentially the same song for centuries now, but over time their tunes have changed. It is instructive to take a brief look at this change. Towards the end of the 19th century the Reverend Malcolm MacColl wrote at length on this pet topic of his. His 1896 book "The Sultan and the Powers" was an urgent call for the Western powers to take action against the Ottoman khalifah to save the Christians in the Muslim world. Its chapter "Islam as a Ruling System" is a searing indictment of not the Sultan but Islam itself. Realizing that his extreme views and recommendations would betray his fanaticism against Islam, he claimed that he was an advocate of religious freedom. However "My toleration ceases when the religious doctrines of one man invade the aboriginal rights of another, as they do, and have ever done, in every State, without exception, where Islam ruled supreme." He claimed that under the Shariah a non-Muslim's evidence could not be received in a court of law against a Muslim; non-Muslim places of worship were in danger; their women were at the mercy of Muslim males; and they were taxed so heavily with jizya and kharaj that more than 67% of the produce of their soil was taken in special taxes, not to mention other taxes. He combined these fabrications and distortions with a crude and extremely derogatory language for Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. And in his self-righteous rage this worthy blatantly advocated the use of force by European powers to remedy the situation. A similar article by him in the Times of London published in January 1895 so excited the Christian missionaries in India that they distributed an Urdu translation with a challenge for anyone to answer the charges. They were confident that the stunning evidence in the article would silence the Muslims for good. (A fitting response was given by Allama Shibli Nomani in two historic papers.) No Inquisitions A century later the language has changed. In a widely quoted article among the Western academicians, P. R. Kumaraswamy begins by admitting: "Systematic persecution of minorities was unheard of in Islamic history. There are no Islamic parallels to the Inquisition or the Holocaust. Even contemporary anti-Semitism in various Islamic countries in the region and elsewhere was primarily a contribution of the Christian missionaries who were active in the Islamic Middle East."(1) Nice words. But they do not go very far. He then goes on to assert that, nonetheless, the Islamic treatment of non-Muslims was bad. Because dhimmis were not equal to Muslims in law or practice. After castigating the past he moves on to declare his total dissatisfaction with the present where constitutions of Muslim countries declare that all subjects, Muslim and non-Muslim, are equal under the law. This is so because these constitutions declare Islam as the official religion and Islamic Shariah as the source of law. He complains: "Most of the Arab and Islamic states have declared Islam to be the official Religion… Furthermore, a number of countries have recognized sharia (Islamic religious law) as a major source of jurisprudence." He recognizes that Muslims want Shariah and to oppose it "would be authoritarian and dictatorial." Yet that is precisely what he wants to do because implementation of Shariah "evokes apprehension among non-Muslims of legalized discrimination." So is Islam the problem after all? No. He says: "For a dhimmi or a non-Muslim, the problem has never been what Islamic scriptures say but how they are practiced by rulers who were the followers of Islam." In his words the problem is not theology but history and not theory but practice. Yet the solution lies in disbanding the theology and overriding the Shariah. How far one will have to go to appease him? Very far. His utopia will not be achieved until he is given the charge of deciding who is a Muslim. He demands: "It is imperative that the Alawis, Ahmadiyas, and others are recognized as Muslims. Only then could they secure any meaningful role for themselves." Unlike MacColl, Kumaraswamy does not use any derogatory words for the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, and has even inserted a few words of praise for Islam. But what this smooth talking academic is asking for today is much more than the fanatic reverend had asked for a century ago. The language has been refined, but the goal posts have been moved much further while the blinders to Islamic Shariah and history remain constant. Kumaraswamy admits: "Unlike Europe, the Islamic Middle East never resorted to systematic persecution of its minority population." The crucial question is why. What made the Muslims behave differently than the other powers before and after in their dealing with the other in their midst? That investigation is central to the discussion but he does not probe it at all. What Made the Muslim Rule Different? To get an answer we can visit the court of Harun al-Rasheed (d. 809) who was a contemporary of Charlemagne (d. 814), the father of Europe. Charlemagne had forcibly converted the Saxons to Roman Catholicism. There was no forced conversion in the powerful empire of Harun al-Rasheed, in which Christians enjoyed full freedom and even high positions in the court. Not that there was never a temptation to do otherwise. When Byzantine emperor Nicephorous insulted Harun al-Rasheed and repeatedly defied him, he did get irritated. As a result he felt like taking it out on his Christian subjects. So what did he do? He asked his Chief Justice, the great Imam Abu Yusuf, as to why the Churches had been left intact in lands conquered by Muslims and why Christians were allowed to take out crosses in their processions on their holidays. The query and its response have been recorded in the marvelous Kitab al-Kharaj of Imam Abu Yusuf. He wrote that Muslims had reached a treaty with the dhimmis which spelled out these protections and the treaty could not be violated. The treaty of Hira signed by Khalid ibn Waleed included these stipulations: "Churches will not be demolished. They will not be stopped from blowing their trumpets or bringing out crosses on their religious holidays." None of the Rashidun Khalifahs had objected to it so it represented ijma (consensus), a major source of Islamic Law or Shariah. As the firm and unequivocal answer by the great scholar made it clear, the non-Muslim subjects were under the protection of the Shariah, which was not subject to change with the moods or calculations of the ruler (or of the manipulated masses as in modern democracies). It was this protection that made the Muslim rule different from all others --- before or since. The Treaty of Najran The concern for justice, which distinguishes Islamic rule from all others, can be seen in the preface to Kitab al-Kharaj where Abu Yusuf reminds the khalifah to make sure the officers he appointed displayed "justice for the dhimmis, fairness for the victim, sternness against the oppressor, and kindness for the people." It was a result of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, Salla-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who warned his followers, "Whoever wronged a mustamin (a non-Muslim under protection of a treaty) or burdened him beyond his capacity or took anything from him without the latter's will, I will be his accuser on the Day of Judgment." Similarly the Treaty of Najran, which the Prophet, Sall-Alalhu alayhi wa sallam, concluded with the Christians of Najran in 8 AH was the prototype for all subsequent treaties. It included the following terms: They will be defended against enemy attack. They will not be intimidated to convert to Islam. They will not have to go to the tax collector to pay their jizya; he will come to them. Their lives, properties, businesses, and lands will be protected. Their priests and clerics will not be removed from office. Their crosses and statues will not be destroyed. Such guarantees for personal and religious freedom were unthinkable in the tribal pre-Islamic Jahiliya society. Once introduced by Islam, they were so internalized by its followers that they determined Islamic treatment of non-Muslims throughout its history as the following glimpses will show. The Islamic Record Equality It is one thing to make pious pronouncements about equality. It is another to really consider everyone's life to be of equal worth and take the difficult decisions that may be dictated by this principle. It is in the latter test where Islamic record rises above that of others. During the time of Sayyidna Umar ibn Khattab, Radi-Allahu unhu, when a Muslim from the Bakr tribe killed a Christian of Hira, his verdict was that the killer be handed over to the heir of the deceased who could either accept blood money or kill him. The heir decided to take his revenge and the Muslim was killed. Obviously because of the deterrence such incidents were rare. However when a similar incident happened in the time of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, the fate of the killer was the same. The unequivocal legal Islamic verdict was that the life of a dhimmi was equal to the life of a Muslim and so was his blood money. Sayyidna Ali spelled out this principle: "Whoever has accepted our protection (dhimma) his blood is like our blood and his blood money is like our blood money." This was not a sound byte meant for the media. It was the law of the land. The same is true about equality in the court of law, MacColl's claims notwithstanding. A Jew or a Christian could bring out a law suit against any Muslim, even the highest office in the land and his testimony was as admissible as that of anyone else. When a Jew filed a claim for the coat of mail of Sayyidna Ali, radi-Allahu unhu, who was the khalifa at that time, Sayyidna Ali, radi-Allahu unhu, appeared before the qadi as an ordinary defendant. Similarly, when a Christian filed a property claim against Hisham ibn Abdul Malik (who later became a khalifah) in the court of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, the latter ordered Hisham to appear personally in the court. Based on the evidence the case was decided against Hisham. Property Rights It was the same with land and property rights, which were always respected. When Abu Jafar Abdullah al-Mansur (d. 775) decided to build the new capital city of Baghdad, he did not just appropriate the land. He purchased it from the dhimmis who owned it. Not only land, but Muslim even paid for the debris taken from non-Muslim properties. It happened during the construction of the Masjid in Kufa in the time of Umar ibn Khattab. The Masjid used debris from the long ago abandoned palaces and mansions of Hira. There was no legal heir to these palaces. Yet a compensation was credited to the account of the Christians living there. Again the verdict of the Shariah was clear. Imam Abu Yusuf wrote: "The khalifah has no authority to appropriate the land of the dhimmis. It belongs to them. They will continue to transfer it through inheritance and sale." Religious Rights The guarantees for religious freedom were written in the treaties Muslims signed with the non-Muslims. Obviously this included rights to their places of worship. This was enforced like anything else in the Shariah. We see this in the presence of a large number of churches from old times in the Muslim world, whether Iraq or Syria or Egypt. We also see this in the restoration of the right when occasionally someone violated it. In one incident, some churches in Egypt were destroyed by khalifah al-Hadi. They were rebuilt at government expense by Musa ibn Isa, the governor of Harun al-Rasheed, following a fatwa of Laith ibn Sa'd, the leading scholar of his time. The story of the Church of John in Damascus, next to the famous Jami Masjid is quite instructive. Successive khalifahs wanted to purchase the church to expand the Masjid. Amir Muawiya tried but the church leaders refused and he kept quiet. When Abdul Malik ibn Marwan pressured them to sell the church, the priests threatened him that anyone who destroyed the church would be afflicted with dementia or leprosy. Aggravated by that Abdul Malik did accept the challenge and the church was annexed to the Masjid. While their dire predictions did not materialize, it was nonetheless a violation of their rights as provided by the Shariah. So when Umar ibn Abdul Aziz became khalifah the Christians petitioned him and he decreed that the annexed part must be returned to them. Muslims ended up offering many properties to the Christians to win a deal that would leave the Masjid intact. The extreme care to ensure the protection of their places of worship can be seen in the actions of Sayyidna Umar ibn Khattab. It is well known that during his trip to Jerusalem, the asr prayer time came when he was visiting a church. But he refused to pray inside the church despite the offer of the patriarch. Instead he prayed on the stairs. He was concerned that if he prayed inside it might lead some later Muslims to try to take the church. To further preempt any possibility of a future misappropriation, he on his own accord, gave the church authorities a written proclamation that Muslims could not offer prayer in congregation even on the stairs. Nor could they call the adhan from it. Rights and Security An important issue in discussion of rights is how they are to be balanced against security concerns. What happened in Cyprus during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods shows us the Islamic outlook on this perennial question. After Cyprus was conquered in 29/650, the treaty called for the neutrality of its people in the wars between Muslims and the Romans. But three years later they violated the treaty and openly helped the Romans in their war on Muslims. Amir Muawiya conquered the city again and left them on renewal of the previous agreement. The pattern of signing a treaty and violating it happened a couple of times. Finally under suspicion of yet another breach of treaty, Walid ibn Yazeed expelled a group of suspects. But it was only a suspicion; there was no hard evidence. So the scholars gave a verdict that it was not permissible under Shariah to expel them and they were allowed to come back. Things did not stop here. Their attitude of defiance and helping the enemy continued even during the Abbasid period. Ultimately governor Abdul Malik ibn Salih turned to the leading scholars of his time including Imam Malik, Laith ibn Sa'd, Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, and others to get guidance from the Shariah in dealing with them. The answers ranged from no action, to a one year notice for them to change their behavior, to expulsion after paying double the value of their possessions. Of course, in a modern Western democracy the solution would have been much easier; the people could have been vilified and tried in the media and then punished by some executive order, not to mention tortured to get intelligence to protect the homeland against the real Roman threat. Employment Another indication of Muslim attitude about the others is seen in the makeup of their courts. Right from the beginning non-Muslims were welcome there. In the Umayyad period tax and accounting departments were headed by Christians and Zoroastrians. The katib (Chief Secretary) of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan was ibn Sarjan, the Christian. This pattern has been there throughout history. Even the much maligned Aurangzeb Alamgir had many Hindus holding leading positions in his court. What about Jizya? Much has been made of the jizya, a tax payable by the able-bodied men between the ages of 20 and 50 as a token of their submission to the Muslim rule and as a compensation for the military services that the Muslims provided for their protection and from which they were exempt. (That women were exempt from jizya was certainly another act of "discrimination against women" that the modern world probably would not tolerate). The word itself is an Arabicized form of the Persian gizya which was a similar tax imposed by the pre-Islamic Persian king Nosherwan for the purpose of supporting the army. It was not a Muslim invention; both Persian and Byzantine empires were used to collecting it. But like anything else Muslims brought their extreme concern for justice in its administration and use. Its purpose and nature is clear from the words of the treaty between Khalid ibn Waleed and the Christian Salooba ibn Nastoora. "I reached a treaty with you and your people on the basis of payment of jizya and provision of security. It is your responsibility to pay the jizya as long as we are protecting you and not if we do not." The last part of the above sentence was not meant for decoration. What it really meant was brought to life when in 15/635 Muslims faced the second battle at Ajnadeen in a last ditch effort by Heraclius (d. 641 CE) to remove the Muslims from Syria. He had gathered a very large army and in order to face it Muslims had to mobilize all their forces from Hims and Damascus. This meant that they would no longer be able to provide the protection they had promised to these areas. While facing the new threat was on their minds, the Muslim commander Sayyidna Abu Ubaydah did not forget the treaty with the Christians of the area. He ordered all of the jizya that had been taken from these areas to be returned to the people, which was done before the army left. Understandably the grateful Christians noted that had it been the Romans, then instead of returning any money, they would have taken whatever they could before leaving. That jizya was a payment for military services is further shown by the fact that when the people provided military services, jizya was waived. There are reports of such waivers during the time of Sayyidna Umar ibn Khattab (Armenia and Bab in Iran) and Sayyidna Uthman ibn Affan (Jarjimah). The exorbitant amount of jizya is another myth that the Orientalists have created. As detailed in Kitab al-Kharaj, there were three rates of jizya based on a person's financial condition. These were 12, 24, or 48 dirhams or silver coins per year. To put these numbers in perspective, it should be noted that anyone having less than 200 dirhams was considered to be below the poverty line and was exempted from payment. Kharaj or tax on agricultural produce was also levied on them. It was a substitute for the ushr (a 10% levy) that the Muslims had to pay and from which the non-Muslims were exempt. Role of Shariah What has been presented above are just some of the glimpses from the Muslim record in treating the other during their period of power. It is a record of justice, fairness, and religious freedom that is unmatched by anything before or since. That is why Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah who lived a life of exile in Paris (after his native Hyderabad had been taken over militarily by India) and knew first hand Europe's treatment of Muslims, said: "If Muslim residents in non-Muslim countries receive the same treatment as dhimmis did in the Islamic system, they would be more than satisfied; they would be grateful." And contrary to the common perceptions created by a dedicated propaganda campaign that has gone on for a very long period, the real reason for this unprecedented treatment was the Shariah. The Shariah assured the rule of law. It could not be changed or ignored. And whenever some one showed any lapses--- and indeed there were--- it was there to provide the needed correction. When the Companion Saeed ibn Zaid saw some non-Muslims made to stand in the sun for failure to pay jizya, he immediately went to the governor of the area to admonish him against this action. He said, "I heard the Prophet of Allah say, Allah will punish those who torture the people in this world.'" Their torture was nothing compared to the tortures being meted out today in torture chambers around the world. But there is no one today who can remind the torturers of this warning. This warning comes, not from the universal declarations of the UN that have no sacred value for the signatories, but from the Shariah that controlled a Muslim's thoughts and actions. It was the reason that "Unlike Europe, the Islamic Middle East never resorted to systematic persecution of its minority population." "Not Good Enough" The position taken by many Orientalists today is that Shariah was good for the past. We can appreciate its achievements in the dark ages. Not any more. This medicine came with an expiration date and it is no longer safe or effective. The gold standard for all human endeavors has been set by modernity and everyone must follow it. The proof: the very concept of a dhimmi is anathema to the modern mind which does not accept any division of us versus them, while it was the hallmark of the Islamic system. It sounds great --- until you start to think about it. Have we truly achieved a common homogenized mass where there is no division on any basis between people? Religions do certainly divide people between believers and non-believers. But so does secularism. It does not look kindly at those who question it. The differences being there, the real question is how you handle them. There is a fundamental difference between Islamic and Western approaches to this issue. The Western solution is just to eliminate the other through a rigorous project of assimilation. When that is not possible then the Western solution has been to create apartheid states as in South Africa and israel, or create reservations as done for the Indians in the US. Minorities in the West are constantly reminded, often by their own leaders, that unless they assimilate they will end up on reservations. To eliminate the problem of multiple categories by removing the offending categories is one approach. That is how the West "solved" the problem of the inequities between men and women; it forced the women to enter the men's world to be treated as equal. Islam, on the other hand, gave women rights without denying their femininity. It emphasized their essential humanity and considered them equally responsible in their spheres of action. But it never forced or enticed a woman to leave her home and compete with the men to get her rights. It did not give her one right while taking back another; the right to be a woman. For that it is constantly rebuked. In dealing with the other in the society, the same pattern has been repeated. Islam certainly did not call for assimilation of the non-Muslims; rather it assured the unique identity of each and gave them rights while maintaining that identity. It recognized their essential humanity and the equality of their life in ways that cannot be imagined in the Western societies. Here again it did not give the non-Muslim one right while taking back another; the right to be a practicing Jew or Christian or whatever, with full religious freedom even for practices that were anathema to Islam. For that also it is being rebuked. Do Muslims Have a Right to Live by Islam What it all boils down to is this simple question. Do Muslims have a right to live by Islam? The answer we are hearing from the pundits is no. Not in France, not in Algeria. Not in Europe, not in the Muslim world. Muslim women have no right to wear hijab in France and no right to be governed by the Shariah in Algeria. In the former they must respect the majority because it becomes uncomfortable with the sight of hijab. In the latter they must respect the minority, because it becomes uncomfortable with the talk of Shariah. Despite the great achievements the West has undeniably made in recognizing universal human rights, it still has a long way to go. While Muslims always gave the right to non-Muslims to be governed by their personal law (like marriage, divorce, family issues, inheritance, and so on), it is enthusiastically denied to Muslims in the West. While they let the church bells ring, the adhan or Muslim call to prayer does not enjoy that freedom here. While they decided that no action against minorities could be taken based on suspicions, the Western achievement has been in passing anti-terrorism laws and Patriot Acts. And pundits are glad to inform us that it is the Islamic Shariah that needs to be reformed. Sure. 1. P. R. Kumaraswamy, "Islam and Minorities: Need for a Liberal Framework", Mediterranean Quarterly 18:3 summer 2007, 94-109, 97. article from albalagh website

Qari Ziyaad patels Quranic recition can be bought from ######darul-ishaat.co.uk who are the main distributors of all him albums Sample clip: you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdarul-ishaat.co.uk/sample/qzp/s...d-surahs2/3.mp3 you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdarul-ishaat.co.uk/store/home.php?cat=62 Qari Ziyaad Patels offcial website is: ######qzp.co.za Qari Ziyaad patel also released a new album this week called 'The Gift of Durood' All praise is due only to Allah TA’ALA AZZA WA JAL, master of the worlds. Peace and salutations be upon our most noble prophet NABI MUHAMMED S.A.W - the final prophet (S.A.W), light of mankind and the most perfect of all creation (S.A.W). The aim of compiling and reciting this beautiful collection of 40 Durood and Salaam and other beautiful Duroods, is to first and foremost remind me, the reciter and subsequently the listener of the supreme importance of Durood. The extensive benefits and blessings of reciting Durood are far too numerous to enumerate here. It’s merit and virtue cannot be overstated. I also make sincere dua that Allah TA’ALA reminds us and reinforces our commitment to profusely, zealously and exorbitantly recite Durood. It is my humble hope and earnest dua that this CD serves as a reminder in that regard and that we all become steadfast in the constant recital of Durood. Fee Amanillah! Qari Ziyaad Patel SAMPLE: you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdarul-ishaat.co.uk/sample/qzp-40duroods.mp3 Track List 1. Intro 2. Intro to 40 Duroods 3. 40 Duroods (sample - you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdarul-ishaat.co.uk/sample/qzp/durood/3.mp3) 4. The Story of Qasidah Burdah the Poem 5. Qasidah Burdah 6. Durood 7. Durod-e-Tunjina 8. Durood 9. Durood 10.Durood 11. Durood-e-Ebrahim 12. Dua and Durood for wealth 13. Durood for Ramadhan 14. Nabiun Nabiun (Revised Edition) 15. Salatullah Salamullah

:Messiah: This word Messiah, what you should ask the christians is in the bible was there any other messiahs besides Jesus? OF COURSE THERE WAS! because there was many, David, soloman, even cyrus the persian were called messiah its hard to find it i the bible becasue translators cover it up, they translate the word messiah means (Anoyinted) (translate messiah it also means Christ) someone picked to do a job every king of anicient israel were called messiah, now the 'WORD' messiah doesnt look so special anymore, its a title but it doesnt elevate to some divine status. May Allah guide us all closer to the truth "invitation2truth#####/phpBB2/"]invitation2truth## ###/phpBB2/[/url] "answering-christianity/"]answering-christianity/[/url] "bible-explained"]bible-explained[/url] "about-bible"]about-bible[/url] "invitation2truth#####/answering_christianity/"]invitation2truth## ###/answering_christianity/[/url]

Concept of God in christianity In the gospel of john 14:28 My farther is greater than i Gospel of John 10:29 my farther is greater than all Gospel of matthew ch 12:28 i cast out devil with the sprit of god. Gospel of Luke ch 11:20 i cast out devil with the finger of god Gospel of john ch 5:30 i can of my own self do nothing, as i hear i judge, and my judgement is just, for i seek not my will but the will of my farther anyone who says "i seek not my will, but gods will" it means hes submitting his will to almighty god and if you translate that in to arabic it means Islam and anyone who submits his will to alimighty god is called a MUSLIM Jesus (pbuh), he never came to destroy the law of the prophets, in fact he came to confirm them and Jesus (pbuh) in Gospel of matthew ch 5 :17-20 he says "and think not that i am come to destroy the law of the prophets" these a verse from the king james version " i am not come to destroy, but to fullfill, verily till heavens and the earth pass not one jot or title shall pass away from the law and it shall all be fullfilled and who so ever shall break, one of the least commandments, and teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, and who so ever shall keep them and teach the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven, unless your rightouseness exceeds the rightouseness of the scribes and pharasis in no way shall you enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says if you want to go to paradise you have to follow each and every law, of the Testament, including god is one, he has got no partner, you cant creat images of god Jesus never claimed he was god, in fact he says he was sent by god, its mentioned in the gospel of John ch 14:24 Jesus says the words that you hear are not mine, but my farthers who has sent me. its mentioned Gospel of John ch 17:3 this is like eternal, so that you may know that there is only one GOD and jesus christ whom thou has sent. its mentioned in the books of acts ch 2:22 hear o israel, hear these words Jesus of nazarath, a man approved of god, amongst you by wonders and miracles which god did by him and you are witness to it. it says jesus of nazarath a man approved of god by wonders or miracles , which god did by him and you are witness to it. and when jesus is asked which is the first of the commandments, he repeated what was earlier sent by moses (pbuh) its mentioned in the gospel of mark ch 12:29 hear or israel the lord of a god is one god. so if you read the bible you will understand the concept of god in christianity i dont know how much plainly i can put this to you all. May Allah guide us all closer to the truth "invitation2truth#####/phpBB2/"]invitation2truth## ###/phpBB2/[/url] "answering-christianity/"]answering-christianity/[/url] "bible-explained"]bible-explained[/url] "about-bible"]about-bible[/url] "invitation2truth#####/answering_christianity/"]invitation2truth## ###/answering_christianity/[/url]

The christians say god is the beggoten son of god, and they quote John 3:16 "say for god so loved the world that he gave his only beggoten son, that who so ever belive in him shall not die but have ever lasting life" This bible which im quoting from is the kings james version, its also present in the duway version which the catholics belive. the catholics belive in 73 books and the protestant have thrown out 7 books out of the old testament saying its "apocryfy" the master of the people dont know the meaning of the word apocryfy it means doubtfull, the bible king james version and the other duway version go back to the source 300 to 500 years after the alledged crucifictaion of jesus christ (pbuh) according the revised standard version (RSV), the (RSV) goes back 200 years after the alledged crucifiction jesus christ (pbuh) closer to the source, more authentic is the source according to the (RSV), 32 scholars of the highest eminents backed by 50 different co-operating denomination, if you open the RSV to gospel of John 3:16 the word beggoten is not there because its an interpolation, its a concoction, its a fabriction, who says that? not the muslims, 32 scholars of the highest eminents backed by 50 different co-operating denomination even the RSV of the catholics edition the word beggoten is not there why? its an interpolation, its a concoction, its a fabriction, and the Holy Quran rightly says: they say Allah (god) has a beggoten a son, its indeed the most monsterous thing to say as though the skies are ready to burst open, and the earth to split in utter thunder, and the mountains to fall in utter ruin, if anyone who says Allah(god) beggot a son, its the biggest abuse you can give. as the skies to burst open, the earth to split in utter thunder, and the mountains to fall down in ruin. maybe the 32 scholars of the highest eminents read this verse in the Holy Quran Sura Maryam ch19:88-92 and they threw that word beggoten out of the bible its no longer there. "invitation2truth#####/phpBB2/"]invitation2truth## ###/phpBB2/[/url] "answering-christianity/"]answering-christianity/[/url] "bible-explained"]bible-explained[/url] "about-bible"]about-bible[/url] "invitation2truth#####/answering_christianity/"]invitation2truth## ###/answering_christianity/[/url]