Promotion - teach Islam with Yusuf Estes original "copyrighted" material

Islamnewsroom.com

This is an exclusive from the original website of Yusuf Estes, the best original argument for why Islam is the most Peaceful religion on Earth today. Don’t be fooled. Read on. Read the entire article, may Allah/God make your heart at ease with this religion and its people. Peace.

(Original version follows)                                                                                                                  J. D-N

What Does Islam Say?

Does it say 'Kill Infidels?' (no)

From "Answering Attacks Against Islam" - by yusuf estes

Question:

How [Do]We Answer Harsh Question and attacks against Islam?

Answer: Begin with the Name of Allah - and ask Him to send peace and blessings upon Muhammad, peace be upon him. And Remember "Allahu 'Alim" - it is only Allah who is the True Knower of all Things.

Someone said, "Your Quran says to kill all the Jews and Christians.."

This is absolutely not true and it is quite easy to prove.

The Quran still exists today just as it did at the time of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. You see, he never did learn how to read or write, so he memorized the entire Quran from the angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) and then he passed on this recition (Quran) to his companions and they in turn passed it on to the next generation and this practice continues even today, reciting by memory and then passing it on to the next generations. And by the way, it is exactly the same from anywhere it is recited in the world.

We know the Quran orders believers to fight in combat against those who are the oppressers, aggressors and terrorists and those who are assaulting and killing the innocent men, women and chldren. But it gives out clear orders - NOT TO Fight against those who are not fighting against you...

Now here is an example of how you might answer those folks with the harsh questions:

First say, "Thank you for your interest in Islam and the Muslims"

Continue, "It is our duty and privilege to present the truth and proof about Islam and what it represents. We desire to clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islam to help others see the true message that came with all of the prophets from Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them all."

Now be sure to mention this important point:

"The message is: Laa elaha illa lah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah)."

Now say,

"And before I begin to answer the question, I would like to ask you a question - 'If you hear something you like in the answer or something that really makes sense to you - then are you prepared(sic) to accept the message of worshipping your Lord without any partners?"

"After all, Islam is really all about this one subject anyway."

Then go to the next important area (misconceptions):

"Now let us correct some mistakes in the 'question' itself. There is not such a meaning in the Quran, ordering or even permitting the Muslims to ever attack innocent people whether they are Christians, Jews, or any other faith for that matter.

Combat is only ordered against those who are attacking or killing the innocent Muslims or fighting against the established Muslim state.

Read...

________________________________________________________

Now here is the answer -

The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.

Naturally, just as here in the U.S. we must stand up for righteousness and strive to prevent oppression, aggression and tyranny. This is the proper usage and understanding for this term, as you will discover while passing through the tafseer and explanations by top scholars today.

Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word "qital" in Arabic in this instance refers to "combat" rather than what some have used "kill" because the word "kill" is far to general, while the word "combat" appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.

It should also be noted the usage of the word "fitnah" in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, "Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of "fitnah" (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice."

We can see these verse are not designed to promote terrorism, but rather these are very orders from Above to the Muslims to be the first of those who stand out aggressively against all forms of terrorism and oppression.

Once this is in place, there really isn't a question anymore, due to the necessity as we see today, to prevent and subdue enemies of freedom, liberty and justice. In other words, we could easily say Allah ordered believers in the Quran to wage combat against terrorism - 14 centuries ago. And the "struggle against oppression, terrorism and tyranny" in the Arabic language, it is called, "Jihad."

I tell them,

"Islam declared the WAR ON TERRORISM - over 1,400 years ago!"

________________________________________________________

Details: read explanation of Quran for verses, 2:189-193 at: www.QTafsir.com

It is time to visit our website and download or bookmark our free copy of translation of Quran... First thing you do is download the Quran from our site at:

www.allahsquran.com/goodies/free.php

Then go to the verse in question and read the Arabic, then the English, then the transliteration (making the sounds with English letters). Then compare the meaning to what you have pronounced.

Here are a few of the misquoted verses:

Verses containing the word "Qital" (fighting in combat)

2.190 Fight (in combat) in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress.

2.191 And kill them (in combat) wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and

2.193 Fight them (in combat) until there is no more 'fitnah' [agression, oppression and terrorism] and worship is allowed for Allah.

2.216 Fighting (in combat) has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and

2.217 They ask you about the sacred month – about fighting (in combat) therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin],

2.244 And fight (in combat) in the cause of Allah and know that Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

2.246 Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs, "Send to us a king, and we will fight (in combat) in the way of Allah"?

3.13 Already there has been for you a sign in the two armies which met [in combat in Badr] – one fighting (in combat)

3.111 They will not harm you except for [some] annoyance. And if they fight you (in combat) , they will show you their backs;

3.142 Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while Allah has not yet made evident those of you who fight (in combat) in His cause and

3.156 O you who have believed, do not be like those who disbelieved and said about their brothers when they traveled through the land or went out to fight (in combat) , "If they

3.167 And that He might make evident those who are hypocrites. For it was said to them, "Come, fight (in combat) in the way of Allah or

4.74 So let those fight (in combat) in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah

4.75 And what is [the matter] with you that you do not fight (in combat) in the cause of Allah

4.76 Those who believe fight (in combat) in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of taghūt. So fight against the allies of Satan.

4.77 Have you not seen those who were told, "Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah"? But then when fighting (in combat) was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear Allah or with

4.84: So fight (in combat), in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself. And encourage the believers

4.90: Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you (in combat) or fighting their own people..

4.94: O you who have believed, when you go forth [to fight (in combat)] in the cause of Allah, investigate; and do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace "You are not a believer,"

5.24 : They said, "O Moses, indeed we will not enter it, ever, as long as they are within it; so go, you and your Lord, and fight (in combat). Indeed,

8.39 : And fight them (in combat) until there is no fitnah [agression, oppression & terrorism] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

• 8.65: O Prophet, urge the believers to combat. If there are among you twenty (who are) steadfast, they will overcome two hundred...

• 8.74: But those who have believed and emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - it is they who are the believers, truly. For them is forgiveness and noble provision.

• 8.75: And those who believed after (the initial emigration) and emigrated and fought (in combat) with you - they are of you…

• 9.5: And when the sacred months have passed, then engage the pagans in mortal combat wherever you find them and capture them and desiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish salat (proper worship) and give charity, let them (go) on their way.

• 9.12: And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths (sacred) to them; (fight them) so the will stop.

• 9.13: Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun (attacking) you the first time? Do you fear them? …

• 9.14: Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them…

• 9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

• 9.36: Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively.

In each case, the use of the words in English for battle, combat, fight and so on - is actually only one word in Arabic - 'qital'.

Perhaps the best way to understand a single word in today's English would be 'combat' or 'military combat' or even 'mortal combat'. (like Jihad, also, though qital is specific to combat, and not used to mean broadly "any" striving, such as "striving with their wealth and lives" - DD)

In all the cases it is to be understood as military engagement in battle or war.

(Reference: www.AllahsQuran.com/read in the search box, type the word 'fight')

Now notice the actual word 'jihad' - for example in chapter and verse - 9.44 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission from you to be excused from 'striving' with their wealth and their lives. And Allah is Knowing of those who fear him.

Check out www.AboutJihad.com

We pray to Allah to make it easy for all of us to find the correct meanings and teachings of Islam and allow us to share Islam with others, and forgive our mistakes and grant us His Paradise, ameen.

Permission to copy & distribute (with limits)

Yusuf Estes says: "I give full permission to use any and all of my writings and recordings without copyrights for anyone who is engaged in presenting the true message of the peace of Islam, provided it is done without charge and there are no alterations, additions or deletions. (signed) Yusuf Estes, February 22, 2012"

Answers: www.JustAskislam.com

Free Quran: www.FreeQuran.org

http://www.linkstoislam.com/ (another good website by Yusuf Estes - DD)


If You Care - You Share

COMMENTS

FACEBOOK - TWITTER - Chatrooms

Debate forum is counterproductive to Islamic Knowledge

Debating format is counterproductive

Debates are counterproductive to understanding Islam.
I’ve noticed something important in some debates I’ve watched the past couple of months, and that is that the Motion is sometimes rather easy for the non-Muslims to argue, and more difficult for the Muslims to argue; for a specific reason. The debate appears to be set up that way.

(I’m posting this “as is” although I should revise to add another debate. I still have to reconsider some of this theory, to be fair. Nonetheless, there are some valid points here, so please read on, and leave a comment if you have any interest in this issue.)

Tariq Ramadan vs. Douglas Murray

The motion was; Is Europe failing its Muslims

Tariq Ramadan for the motion; Murray is against the motion

Murray’s approach is different and unexpected; yes one would say that’s a good strategy for winning a debate. The first point; for Murray, debates are about winning; nothing else matters;

Unless its sports, it doesn’t matter if it was fun and everyone had a good time. In fact it’s usually considered a success, if one side gets annihilated, or humiliated.

Dirty tactics; Douglas Murray, again, brings into the debate some very unscrupulous, below the belt tactics; he brings background information. That Tariq Ramadan’s grandfather – who lived In Egypt, was an extremist; head of an extremist movement or political party. (After first posting, I realized that this information Mr. Murray uses was not mentioned in the debate "Is Europe Failing It's Muslims?" but in another debate which I watched the same day, which was about Muslim Extremism, which would of course mean that Tariq's Grandfather, as perceived by some, or by Murray who brings us this information, is an example of such extremism (although we really don't know much more about him or his views at this point). I apologize for stating otherwise at the beginning of this post. - correction).

Obviously there was time to prepare the materials or one’s arguments; a debate is not usually going to be spontaneous when a live audience is watching.

Tariq Ramadan follows a code of ethics, which probably states that he will not stoop to name calling or a smear campaign. Point no. two; uneven playing field.

What kinds of rules are there, if the debaters can embarrass one another with their family members and so on - It doesn’t seem ethical or fair-minded?

If we look at this in specific detail –

Murray says in his argument that Tariq’s grandfather was an extremist; it’s quite handy that he has found this out. Some people would say that’s fair; but consider this; the debate is about how Muslims are integrating or not into Europe; Murray argues for the motion, that Europe is not failing (its) Muslims. He changes the question, he asks, Are Muslims Failing Europe? (I will get to this later; it’s an important problem in terms of “fairness”).

The debate should focus on Muslims in Europe; which is what Tariq does. It seems like Murray just brings his opposition’s ancestors into it, to discredit him, or prove the point that; well Tariq Ramadan’s granddaddy was an extremist’, so everyone is a suspect; even Tariq might well harbor extremist feelings or an extremist agenda, or at the least he is “opening the door for X-tremists” dangerous to Britain.

Unfortunately, later on, Tariq Ramadan’s counter argument doesn’t even address this issue; which is not smart; maybe he couldn’t think of something to say, with regards to his background; Is Murray attempting to look like a MI5 saving Europe from Tariq’s connection to extremism; is he trying to score by using Islamophobia to his advantage? Point no. three; the debate enforces stereotypes about Muslims. \

There is a history of Europeans committing terrorism for religious reasons; Shin Fein is an example of an extremist group that existed In Europe not long ago, more recently than Tariq’s grandfather was ‘operating’ In Egypt; there are also relevant examples In recent history of extremists and terrorism by Muslims; i.e. 77. So why should Murray bring Tariq’s grandfather into a debate about Europe; when he was living all the time in Egypt? Shouldn’t his example better be reserved for examples of Muslim extremism in their own countries, for another debate? There seems to be no clue by the mediator (s) to stop this “sideshow”; another problem with the debating format and/or with the mediator(s) lack of skill.

Tariq’s best argument might be to argue that he himself is not an extremist, but that the fact that Murray would even bring his granddaddy into this, proves that “Europeans hate Muslims”; and they will never try to have peace or reconciliation with Muslims; because some of them have committed terrorism, so some Europeans will never forgive them or give Muslims a chance to properly integrate. The ball is in Ramadan’s court a second time, but he fails to make a strong volley. (His “gym” metaphor, as comments on the site note, fails utterly.)

As per one particular audience member’s opinion about the successful integration of Muslims into Europe, etc Tariq Ramadan could explain that he is successful and integrated, but that most immigrants will not be so fortunate; the audience seems easily manipulated by their own lack of understanding of the issues, or the whole voting process is a sham, what are their own motivations for being in the audience? I think more likely there is an imbalance here, due to the format – I’d prefer questions from the audience only to clarify what has already been said, but no comments which derail one of the opponent’s arguments; this is a debate between Ramadan and Murray, not between either of them and the audience. (Actually I’d prefer no debate format at all; I think the ‘forum’ is not civil.) About Muslim problems in Europe, he needs more stats to back this up. Muslim Jobless rates, unemployment or crime rates etc. Unfortunately, I was not able to see all the arguments, or video about the debate, to be fair, but what I did see was telling enough. I thought Tariq Ramadan’s approach at the beginning was successfully argued. He makes many valid points; maybe his overall argument was lacking a final “explosive” coup d’état. I guess Murray does that to the audience’s satisfaction.

Another thing to be said briefly about Tariq Ramadan’s position at the U of Oxford, is that, while very nice, is not as compelling against the motion “Is Europe Failing It’s Muslims” (not other Muslims, only the Muslims living there) because it is not surprising that the U of Oxford would want a person who is an Arab. They could’ve perhaps hired someone else, but Tariq admirably qualified for the position. Nonetheless, this doesn’t show how most Muslims are integrating into Europe or that Europe is helping them to integrate; Tariq Ramadan probably helped himself up by his bootstraps; or if he was from a well-to-do Muslim family, still had to merit the respect which he gets as the head of an Islamic Studies Dept. in one of Europe’s best and well-liked capital cities and a coveted destination for students of higher learning.

It’s too bad, that Wisdom of the Crowds doesn’t always hold true. We could site Hitler’s campaigns to annihilate the Jews and take over the world; while he didn’t finally succeed, 6 million Jews and so many other peoples died, either in gas chambers, or in concentration camps, or in some killing fields, etc. Had it not been for the SS or German army and many ordinary people who ‘did nothing’, Hitler would never have been able to get as far as he did.

Murray says in his argument that Tariq’s grandfather was an extremist; it’s quite handy that he has found this out. Some people would say that’s fair; but consider this; the debate is about how Muslims are integrating or not into Europe; Murray argues for the motion, that Europe is not failing (its) Muslims. He changes the question, he asks, Are Muslims Failing Europe?

Let’s think about this clear -headedly.

The original Motion is “Is Europe Failing its Muslims? Murray argues, no. Europe is not failing its Muslims. That he sees the real issue as Muslims are failing Europe focuses negative attention on the Muslims, and takes away the negative attention from Europe, where the original question had placed it.

This is what all racists and extremists, such as the Americans or Europeans do; they take the negative attention away from their own obvious faults, such as their governments’ policies of systematic discrimination - which they support - and focus it on the Muslims.

- Many non-Muslims ask why Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism.

- They ask, why can’t Muslims be like everyone else

- They say Muslims are misogynistic.

- They say Muslims are dangerous.

In fact, for every other government failing, they turn the spotlight on the Muslims, to in effect blame them. For example, I often ask people on the internet, doesn’t their country or government make sufficient laws to protect the original people? I think they do make sufficient laws, or if they lack policing, due to economic or budgetary constraints, is that not the fault of the government? Almost in any emergency, which is a catastrophe, budgets are often at fault. Ie. New Orleans, the cleanup took too long, people were stranded for over two weeks, in New York, people didn’t have electricity or water for over two weeks, etc. Europeans are aware of their own stats in regards to this.

The blame game

It is not dissimilar, or any more acceptable than what was done in history to the masses of Jewish people. Yes, Jews dressed differently, sometimes, or made money through money-lending - not something considered illegal anywhere, in this day and age (although maybe ppl didn’t like it, they at the same time believed that they “needed” money lenders; after all, who told them to go into debt, or asked too much money from them, probably other people of their own culture or religion. Their government taxed them too much and the feudal system was probably mostly to blame; was it Jews or other Christians; their employers, the landowners, prices or what have you, who/which caused their suffering?)Even if you can argue successfully that it was the Jews, who through their activities, hurt the Europeans, that they owned many properties, or owned the banks, or had unfair advantages, so to speak, then why is it that the Muslims didn’t have similar problems with the Jewish? Maybe the “crazy” Arabs were just smarter? We know that many problems in the world are not easily explained away, or helped by blaming others and ignoring our own failings.

Each accusation regards Muslims, above, stands on racist or hate propaganda. That’s all, there is no proof Muslims didn’t speak out against 911 after the attacks. There is no evidence that Muslims are misogynistic more than the average Christian, American or European. There is no evidence that Muslims hate Jews and Christians for example, or that the Qur’an bids the Muslims to kill every non-Muslim until religion is only for Allah. The Qur’an does tell Muslims to “preach in the most beautiful manner”; to whom, the people whose country they have just spoiled, plundered, pillaged, raped its women, and purged of every adult male?

Did the Muslims woo the Jews with their flamboyant Bedouin charm?

Or it was not true after all what history has for a millennia believed, that Muslims and Jews have always fought and hated each other since Abraham’s sons; one a Jew, one an Arab, according to the written history by the Orientalists and the media? It’s no coincidence, either that Islam prevented some of the natural animosity that might have arisen, had Muslims, like Christians, been permitted to deal in usury, ‘riba’in Arabic. Muslims didn’t deal in usury, but they used to borrow on guarantee of something they owned, to Jewish lenders, with a stipulation about when they would pay back their debt, or so on. There was no injustice done to either party in such dealings or other economic transactions. The only problems which seem to have arisen between the two groups were usually due to treachery by a Jew or some Jewish tribe. For example, this happened when the Jews broke their covenant with the Muslims in Medina. That led to the complete dissolution of the treaty they had with that tribe of Jews and their allies – with the allies, probably after a certain period of time had passed; such as their covenants with other Jewish people or tribes ended with the date specified for the renewals or cancellations of the same. If they had problems with some people they had the choice not to renew their covenants with allies of those people.

 There were some cases, not systematic, but of Muslim individuals who had been spurred by their “temperament” or boldness to act hastily; such as the case was when Khaled Ibn Waleed annihilated some people (it’s unclear to me whether these were non-Muslims or new converts to Islam) who he believed had refused to hear his message; he had in fact misunderstood what was being said by those people, from what can be understood in the text (reference – revising). At the time, the Prophet Muhammad, had said, “I am free from what Khaled has done”, two times.

No, it’s not right that a debate about Europe’s Muslims place in Europe, supported with either private or public monies, should be sanctioned by the British Council, and yet openly allows extreme nationalism, racism, or xenophobia to take centre stage, not as entertainment, but as a ‘serious’ form of reflection.

Palestinian victimhood

Would a normal, intelligent person today argue that to detain arrest or hurt children is not illegal? Would they defend Israel’s use of chemical weapons, such as white phosphorous, which they lob into civilian areas in daylight hours, and which also can penetrate into roofs of homes?

Muslims/Arabs deserve a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict; they deserve their state, the Palestinian state to be free of Israeli occupation. They deserve a chance for Peace with their Christian and Jewish neighbours, who are innocent of Zionist crimes. Zionism is racism. It is also the main culprit behind wars, oppression, schisms, fear of destruction, the greatest support for the “war on terror” and the first to promote hatred of religions.

The above shows that debates are counterproductive to presenting and understanding Islam.

As entertainment their value is questionable, due to the nature of some of the participants’ possible ulterior motives and ‘proofs’, such as impede true understanding of important issues and make a farce of the democratic nature intended for debates, which should aim for professionalism equal to the Toastmasters, or “Ted Talks”. The “Douglas Murray Debates” as highlighted on YouTube are heavily one-sided and reflect the obvious bias of the person who posts debates featuring Douglas Murray. People, who readily agree, almost like automatons, that Murray is an intelligent and successful speaker neglect to see the reality of his arguments steeped in what are racist and Islamophobic precursors, abetted by his silver-tongued sorcery applied to every topic. In actuality, he lacks peerless originality and ‘prophetic’ wisdom which are required of someone aiming for Giant status.

I hate to mention “Zionism” here, but alas, it is the last thing on my mind as I leave the discomfort of my writing for the relaxation of a lunch (prepared by my daughter, who has a holiday from school today.) I bid you adieu.

Part two is ready for publishing as well, look forward to it.

@comments

@Greenapple
 to you, hope you read this:

I encourage you to go to my blog. I often speak about the things being discussed by me in comments. There is more time and space in a blog post than there is in a small comment on YouTube. This is my email Diamondraw4Real@gmail.com.

If you have anything to add, or later send me your perspective on things, you're welcome. I find your attitude to Muslims (surprise, I'm Muslim!) kind of a downer. You sound brainwashed to me. I was born in Canada, and grew up Christian; my parents were very strict. I believe Islam is the truth. I know why ppl think the Qur'an tells Muslims to kill Christians, but that's not true. However, there is always going to be conflict. I rather there wouldn't be, but that is the nature of the world.

The Qur’an exhorts Muslims to strive in killing; to cut off, or amputate the enemy’s hands, or hit their necks. This is combat training, not “murder”. As soldiers in Afghanistan should know, the whole country is like a war zone, anytime they are going in they should beware of the ‘enemy’; yet they should also, not go into villages with the attitude that ever Afghan is an “enemy combatant”. They are the ones who came (voluntarily) halfway across the world, to “smoke out” bin Laden, and the rest of the terrorists. That doesn’t give them a free hand to do whatever they like in a sovereign country, even if they don’t agree with the religious or cultural practices of the majority of the people living there. I don’t agree with the attitudes expressed in the media that somehow these volunteer soldiers are anything than wholly responsible for maintaining a high level of professionalism. There should be no excuses for “bad apples”, no matter how miserable a situation they find themselves in. They signed up for “war” not a day at the beach. As such they should follow the rules (and military laws) in every situation, every task.

There are many aspects in Islam which non-Muslims don't get. You have to be Muslim to understand.Many people would consider me fundamentalist (my practice varies from day to day), but it only causes more confusion when ppl label others. You never know who is behind the veil, or the beard, that's for sure. But don't be spooked, most Muslims I've been around are normal ppl. Not all of them practice like me; maybe some are more "modern" than I am.

(Then also, some are more toward extremist; that means, they are doing some things wrong; like their preaching becomes very tough on other Muslims; some of them think, for example that Muslims like them (they pray on time, and follow the rules strictly, which is good, but they judge others more)shouldn’t supplicate in a certain form (say, “God bless you” for example) if one of the other Muslims who isn’t so strict about prayers, etc. but is not very bad, does something like give up a seat on the bus for him, he won’t say “God bless you” like he would for a Muslim like himself. The fact is, those guys have some wrong things in their ‘beliefs’ which makes them act this way.

Yet, they consider themselves Salafi, as I consider myself Salafi. It’s just the degrees to which we comply in some duties probably does vary. Some people pray at night, some people don’t. It’s not an obligation, but it was the “way” of the Prophet and his companions to do so. Many people wish they could pray at night, although they just haven’t gotten in the habit. Everything is usually a habit, or not. Most Muslims will also eat store-bought products instead of making from scratch, which some people think is wrong, because they believe that most of those product s probably have pork derivatives in them. I’ve taken readymade cake, from a shop, which is made in the stores kitchen, yet certain people still think it is not “halaal” enough. I would say they are being ‘cautious’ and I don’t mind, but I don’t want them to think badly of me for eating those things, either. But these same Muslims don’t mind buying phones for their kids, (maybe not a blackberry) or using internet for their work. (of course they panic if they get email with “haram” content, but then they usually have “computer savvy” friends, too, who will volunteer their time to help them out.) Many of their friends are professionals; esp. lots of doctors of medicine attend Islamic lectures, probably not surprisingly, because they are very caring and God-conscious (among the population) for the most part.

I consider myself a “practicing” Muslim, but here I am on the internet along with so many others. I don't believe we are being left behind. We are just a little slower, in some countries, because of lack of resources, sometimes. I am told Libya doesn't have internet everywhere, but I have spoken to relatives (in-laws) on Skype from Sirte or Bengazi, so it goes to show...

Any lack of education, modernity, or advances we are lagging in, may soon be just a think (or thing) of the past because soon there will be more Muslims from Western nations, either born Muslims; second generation, third generation, or newly converted Muslims, who will bring those things into the “tribe”.

My greater worry is that Muslims will not advance as much in their outlook on life (life is just “enjoyment for a time”) their duties to God and people, their duties to Muslims, their responsibilities to preach Islam in the best way. I’m afraid Muslims will not learn Islam properly, or else, if they are knowledgeable, they won’t put into practice their Islamic knowledge. Allah has warned us against ignorance as well as arrogance.

Sincerely wishing you a good day, D,J.

13/10/2009 by DD (from MyIslamfeed)

Extremism in the Home/Work Environment

I am on my way to realizing a dream, of telling everyone who cares to listen, or read about my opinions on many topics of interest.  I have just finished revising, adding a dictionary to one of my blogs, which I will post immediately after I can get the 'box' away from the 'kid'.  The kid apparently is an extremist, according to the definition, usually one with extreme religious or political ideas, sentiments - who will stop at nothing to reach his goals…I'm coming back to that…

In our home there is such a thing as a 'black box'…this 'box' (for short) is not the black box recorder on airplanes, no, it's the 'black box' otherwise known as 'wifi' of which most ppl who have one, it's sufficient to give them broadband, internet access, or whatever…so they can enjoy unlimited connectivity, at least that's what I thought. I apologize profusely - my ignorance of internet technology runs long and deep… kind of the 'China Wall' of ignorance in our home...

Enter, 'kid' no 1. He enjoys playing cd's/ games on the p.c. which his father generously 'loans' him until he is old enough to afford his own, in which case he'll be adult enough to have other things to do…like, oh I don't know, things that guys do, as a religious young man (hopefully), getting a part-time job while he's studying in University…

…problem arises…the 'wifi' has another box to help it, a helper…called the 'beige box'.  Black boxes (like ours) are vertical, thin from one view, from another view a lot wider (still only 5? Inches).The beige box is vertically challenged (apparently a joke I've stolen. If I get sued, I plead no 'mens rea', which means -  I don't know, it's not me, somebody else stole my joke before I used it…or in Latin, prove it!) This short flat, somewhat smaller other-colored 'box' makes a network between the p.c. in the 'kid's' room to a laptop in an unnamed person's bedroom, which is shared by a few ppl at the moment…the bed and the bedroom are shared… the laptop has a username, which is really stupid, like it knows it exists to begin with, so someone called it 'Toshiba' which is, how original? Anyway, our home has doors and in between the doors there is space, some floor, and a few meters of electrical wiring, part of the "matrix" I guess. If I tried to remove any of it and couldn't replace wire A where wire B should go, then you know, some things understandably feel lost; but we also have printer and laptop battery competing for space in the "ac. power" which are always moaning about something, like "low battery"…other ppl/wires that feel 'left out' complain about being "disconnected", etc. I've read some of these complaints by other users…basically I can't wrap my head around most of the jargon, or the explanations in any of the help articles/blogs…let K worry about it!   

…not getting any place with this…my freedom of speech is seriously being curtailed here, by 'kid' no 1...by the time 'older brother' no 1, the numero Uno, shows up for afternoon post- lunch/school's-over before-dinner- break…and wants to munch in front of the p.c. which will quickly turn into 'war of the networks' in our tiny abode, mostly a war of words, but then things sometimes get nasty…which has led to problems with the laptop, which with all its emotional problems cannot handle another stressful situation coming from the boys' room… she goes,”mmbbzzttt”. Toshiba is on sleep, may be narcoleptic, hmmm…how often does it happen, you wonder?…almost as often as big brother comes, takes the main network cable away, and another time, literally pulled too much on one of the cables (an extension) running at the time, under the door as well as through the space between the doorframe and the door to desktop, quickly and painfully cut some wiring, which resulted in the same loss of network connection …so only one person, or at least one computer with several ppl watching illegal downloaded stuff IS SATISFIED while I have to wait for a minimum 3 hours until the kids mafia feel placated enough to return to me my 'black box', my "dream box" (which I'll call it from now on).This family problem, which can be quite divisive along, children to children, parent to children, parent to parent lines, reminds me of  a song  called, "good fences make good neighbours" from the late 80's - 90's? A onetime famous boy band stole the name, I guess, from a poem by Tennyson? I can see a metaphor here, the network cables, the discord, the "wall of China", it's all beginning to make sense…I can see a wall, not the wall of China, it's not there, another wall, much taller probably than the Wall of China, also very long…it runs between homes, through homes! It goes on and on, running through the land, separating families…like the "matrix" in my home, sowing fear and discord, leaving pain and hurt, ruining their lives, disrupting life, separating families - some whose homes have literally been split down the middle. It's in Palestine; the wall is simply called "the Wall". 

 'Toshiba' is doing much better these days, I have devised a schedule, not really written in blood, but which might stop the wrong that the poor laptop, as well as 'kid no 1' has been feeling these days. Thus I explain that extremism is not always religious or political; by definition it IS "getting what you want by hurting another opposing person, group, or point of view"

"…and me", as all good stories go, "I'll be walking into the sunset", huh?

I'll be FINISHING UP this writing before you can say "blog". *

DICTIONARY

Mens rea: a judicial (term)/legalese, from the Latin; lawyers use it to mean, "my client is innocent because he 'didn't mean to' do the act/ crime"…but if the judge and/or jury believe otherwise then the defendant is found guilty (anyway). This happens a lot when circumstantial evidence is in play.

Fundamentalist: "the practice of following very strictly the basic rules     and teachings of any religion…" 

*THE END                     

Comments

Diamond Draw - 17/10/2009 5:19:39 PM

The Berlin wall is a better metaphor than the Wall of China, which was built to keep out marauders and its enemies