To Allah belongs the beautiful names and pleases Him when His worshippers invoke Him by these names. The names of Allah are Asma-ul-Husna and encode His grandeur and magnanimity which reflects His majestic omnipotence. One such name of Allah is Haseeb, which linguistically means the one who will commence judgments and bring equality. All the beautiful and splendid names that belong to the Exalted lord are enlisted in Quran as well, at one place it has stated:
“Those who convey the messages of Allah and fear Him and do not fear anyone but Allah. And sufficient is Allah as
99 names of Allah and Muhammad is one such App that incorporates all the names of Allah Almighty and Last messenger along the blessings and virtues that each particular name holds. The significance of these names is that they fulfill one of the vitality of supplication etiquette's, which asks the followers to call upon Allah through divine names.
Female vs Woman, Male vs Man
A Female vs. A Woman
In the early days, kings, princes and men of status, when they used to choose a wife or even buy a slave girl, beauty was not the only factor. Her knowledge, ability to communicate and convince, her awareness of the history and the surroundings, her skills in medicine, were all taken into account, not just her beauty and femininity. When you study in the history of mankind, some of the best leaders used to seek support and consultation from their own women. Everyone knows the saying; behind every great man is a great woman.
Today, we find out that the opposite is true. Where does this come from?
Historians in the early days used to say, if you want to know the power and strength and the future of any nation, see the condition of their own women. There is a big difference between a female, a girl and a woman. A female is the biological terminology for the female of the species. A girl is a young female, who does not know what she wants in life. What then, is a woman or a lady? She is a female with a good character, a serious goal and responsibility, and who lives her life to fulfil her goal.
According to the Qur'an, the title of a woman denotes someone who carries the message of Allah, with full responsibility, with the willingness to devote and sacrifice her life for the message. The example in chapter 66, verses 10- 12 speaks for itself:
Allah presents an example of those who disbelieved: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under two of Our righteous servants but betrayed them, so those prophets did not avail them from Allah at all, and it was said, "Enter the Fire with those who enter."
And Allah presents an example of those who believed: the wife of Pharaoh, when she said, "My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds and save me from the wrongdoing people."
And [the example of] Maryam [Mary], the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.
The Qur’an gives us a spectrum of examples, starting with women who married the greatest of men but still had the highest level of disobedience, such as the wives of Nuh AS and Lut AS. On the other hand, Allah honours the wife of the Pharaoh by calling her a woman, for standing up against her husband, one of the worst tyrants in mankind, and standing firm for sabeelillah, the message and the belief, even when it led to her brutal torture and death. Further, the Qur’an shows that the ultimate journey in life, to obtain Allah’s pleasure, can be done without a husband, as was demonstrated by Maryam AS. The Qur’an shows us the example of what being a true woman means.
Today, we are at the end of time. The ummah and mankind have developed a lot of diseases from colonialism, media brainwashing and propaganda, which promotes the female to be an airhead, competing in material status and chasing flashy lifestyles - but losing herself, her principles, belief and integrity in the process. The woman has been conditioned to become weak, vulnerable and easily manipulated, for a bigger goal, which is to weaken the nation.
In the early days, people used to say that teaching one woman is like teaching a nation. This is because of the role of women as the role models and educators of their children and the next generation. If we do the opposite and ignore the potential and role of the woman, we can destroy a nation, because any nation, and the future of any nation, is measured by the strength and the character of its own women.
A Male vs. A Man
Similar to women, when a man is not a man (as in he does not have the values, goals and aim in this life), he is just a biological male: hollow, vulnerable, weak, insecure, egotistical and empty. What drives him? He would want to play the role of a man, but he does not have the qualities of one. The only way to give him assurance and to make him feel satisfied with his own character and superiority, is if he finds an equally hollow person to reinforce his own fantasy of manhood and being the one in control.
The man is supposed to be the developer and the maker of his own woman, not the breaker of his own woman. If he is empty inside and has nothing to give – in terms of values, character, guidance – it is easier for him to look for someone who is even more hollow than he is as his life partner. If he finds someone who possesses greater strength of character than he does, he will end up breaking her.
However, the woman is also partly responsible. It is a vicious cycle: she wants a material life, wealth and companionship, regardless of his manner, character and soul. If she does not develop her own qualities and character, and is content remaining airheaded and superficial, this is the kind of man who will be drawn to her.
Continue reading here: http://muslimfootsteps.com/?q=a-woman-of-substance-or-a-bimbo/page/0/1
Richard Dawkins' latest anti-Muslim Twitter spat lays bare his hypocrisy
The celebrity atheist's Twitter rant against journalist Mehdi Hasan shows he's a believer too – in his own mythology
Richard Dawkins has
accused Mehdi Hasan of not being a serious journalist for his belief
that Islam's prophet Muhammad was carried to heaven on a winged horse.
Photograph: Murdo Macleod
Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great
pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished
clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins'
technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I
suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday
afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:
" Mehdi Hasan
admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And
New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."
this is only half the fun. The real comedy comes when he lifts his face
from the pie, dripping scorn and custard, to glare at the audience who
can't see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who
don't understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of
For instance, Tom Watson, the MP who pursued Murdoch, tweeted back
almost at once: "You really are a gratuitously unpleasant man". To this
Dawkins replied "Actually no. Just frank. You'd ridicule palpably
absurd beliefs of any other kind. Why make an exception for religion?"
"You are gratuitously unpleasant; I am just frank" comes straight out of the Yes Minister catechism of irregular verbs.
But it gets better. Dawkins continues:
"A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticise A and
you're rational. Criticise B and you're a bigoted racist Islamophobe."
It is of course horribly unfair to call Dawkins a bigoted racist
Islamophobe. Anyone who follows him knows he is an equal opportunities
bigot who is opposed to Christians of every colour as well.
you will tweet, as he has previously done, that "I have often said that
Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today", then us
inferior, less rational types can easily suppose that he means what he
says, and that therefore he does think that Muslims, especially
proselytising ones like Mehdi Hasan, are spreading evil and should not
be employed by respectable magazines.
Of course Dawkins would
probably deny with complete sincerity that this is what he means – until
the next time he says it. This doesn't make him unusually hypocritical.
It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories
that are differently ridiculous to his – that the twelfth imam will return, or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse.