Home Blog Page 161

Women Of The West: Free Or Oppressed? By Husayn Muhammad Sani

0

This is a question ordinarily one is not supposed to waggle before answering it, as the answer is quite glaring. But lamentably, our minds are so conditioned due to media brainwashing we fail to grasp the correct answer.

A friend of mine commented on my wall on how women are free in the western world. I am not surprised about his comment, because not only him, most people also believe that. The image is being projected daily in our media channels about the liberated western woman as cultured, free, and a master of her own life, with a lucrative career of her own, who can dress any rubbish she wants to wear, luring men to do her bidding, and no man can kick her, or tell her what to do. The media tell us the western women are more respected because they can choose to wear a skimpy top to show off their new breast implants and the abs it took six months of torture in the gym to develop. This is in contrast to the poor, oppressed Muslim woman, covered from head to toe, with no free will, no right, no nothing, and is blindly blackmailed into following this desert religion that is dominated by men. The media projects this Muslim woman as a slave, trapped in the four walls of her home, or prison. But once we scratch beneath the surface of both these media images, we find the truth to be blatantly different.

Firstly, the western women got this so-called freedom not long ago, and they have had to fight pungently to get it. They fought the church [for ruling women as evil because of Eve’s temptation against Adam]. They also fought hard to be granted right of suffrage, to vote. [remember the suffragettes movement of women in the 18 century against their infringement of right to vote]. America only allowed women to vote in the nineteen Amendment to its constitution in 1920. United Kingdom achieved that in 1928. With the WW2, while men were away getting killed, there was shortage of work-force in the industries of the Western world, and women were allowed to replaced them.

Thus, women were introduced into gainful employment not because of their right to be employed, but because of shortage of men; because of materialism. This is the reason of objectification of women today in the western world by capitalists. It is normal in adverts to see women stripped naked to sell everything from cars to mineral water. She is only being valued by how much pleasure or money she can give a man, making her a worthless piece of meat with no self-respect and esteem. In the West, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. As this asset depreciates quickly, she is over anxiously obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems. These standard lead to eating disorder, plastic surgery, a massive cosmetic industry, and a whole array of magazines to push the new ‘must have’ fashion of the season.

As an adolescent, a typical young girl’s role model is Kim Kardashian, Rihanna, Britney Spears, or Nicki Minaj, these are singers whose acts approximates a strip tease. From these irresponsible women she learns that she will only be loved if she gives sex. She learns to ‘hook up’, rather than to demand true love associated with patient courtship. As a result, dozens of men knows her before her husband does. Because of this wrong and morally retarded philosophy, she loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened, aggressive, and old before she gets married.

And when finally, she is married, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed, and even if she bore a child, she is unfit to breast milk him, because of her fake plastic breast. She practically becomes confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother. At her prime age she struts practically naked in front of millions on TV, celebrated as a Celebrity, a term nearly in meaning with a ‘corporate whore’. A feminist, she belongs to herself.

In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in “oppression” and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason. But the over-sabi feminists altered this. ‘What a man can do, a woman can do’ they says. This is a very dangerous and mischievous statement, equating woman with man, and thus, subjecting woman into unfit work of a man which insult her majesty, honour and nature. We know that treating unequal equally is an act of inequality.

In contrast, the Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the “nest” where her children are born and reared. She is the “home” maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband. She is a pillar-rock of the family stead. To say she is ubiquitous is a lie, for the opposite is the fact. She is scarce. She is not a chattel, or sex object that can be possess with money. She is a jewel of inestimable value. To say her beauty is revealing is a lie, for the opposite is the fact. She is guarded in screen against unwarranted glance, save her lucky husband. The hijab the western world are criticizing represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

Wearing of modest cloth is the zenith of civilization. It was never backwardness as the western media portrays. Sociologically, man in early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What the Muslim women are today and what they are wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It’s the removal of clothes again that is a regression back to the ancient times.

Back to the topic, Western women: Free or oppressed?. Now you answer yourself.

© Hussain.

 

Credit : Aledeh.com

WHY HUG…..?

0

WHY HUG?
By
Sanni Kay. Yusuf

Hugging, especially someone who had been seen for a long time, is a sign of deeper love. It is highly encouraged, even religiously speaking. But apparently, not with the opposite gender.

Giving its peculiarity, hugging is supposed to be a male-to-male, female-to-female, husband-to-wife, brother-to-sister, elderly-to-minor phenomenon. Religion apart, that is common sense. That is reasonability. That is rationality.

A grown-up lady with the various qualities of puberty, maturity in her physique hitting her chest against that of a gender counterpart in whose body chemistry too, are characteristics of a grown-up man, all in the name of hugging, defies logic.

Hugging is hardly done without having a feel of some highly sensitive areas of the huggers’ bodies. Isn’t it abnormal for a man to feel the state of a woman’s sensitive organ at the top – an organ that is supposed to be exclusive of her husband? Isn’t it bad enough that the most sensitive parts of the huggers’ bodies, even though there is a cloth-barricade, are having a free contact with each other?

It is more perturbing that, in the name of hugging, some people peck or even kiss each other. They say it is civilisation. What then is exclusively reserved for the partner? Nothing!

This is what we see in movies – local and international. They keep portraying hugging between genders as the only way to go in welcoming visitors and to show that a friend is loved. Unfortunately, the young ones, teenagers for that matter, have followed suit. It baffles the more that clerics equally wallow in this disorder. This is no civilisation, nor is it a part of sociability. It is just a borrowed abnormal style of the west that we embraced acquiescently, dogmatically. It wasn’t Nigerian, neither was it African.

If you must hug, do so with your wife/husband and a fellow gender, not with another man/woman’s wife/husband.

MUSLIMS WITHOUT ISLAM – 1

0

 

Islam today is faced with a greater challenge from modernists, extremists, liberals, rationalists who lay claim to Islam than those who declare themselves to be non-Muslims. It is very important to note that these people cannot kill the religion as it is protected by Allah but it is necessary to sensitize a potential victim against the evils of the above listed vices in light of Islam.

We have so many people who want to be called Muslims but do not want to be Muslims. While some are just ignorant, some are led by desires. They tag those who call to pristine Islam extremists, fanatics, fundamentals with the extremists calling them moderate Muslims same with the non-Muslims who call the modernists moderate Muslims not knowing that Islam is moderate by default.

Islam is moderate in such a way that it creates a balance between life and death as a Muslim is not desperate or crazy about the dunya nor about death same way it maintains a balance between extremism and liberalism, both defined by compromise and distortion of the fundamental tenets of the religion. If then Islam is moderate by default, we cannot have “moderate Muslim”. Who moderates moderation?

A non-Muslim posted about the marriage of the Bukola Sàràkí’s daughter to a non-Muslim asking other Muslims to learn from him, I copied a comment from the post;

“Not all muslims are as barbaric as the northern folks…. That’s why they would labbel others who are not like them as ‘fake muslims’ ”

SubhanAllah !!! I am not concerned about  someone else’s daughter’s marriage but its effect on Islam and Muslims at large is of great concern.

There is freedom to tag the author of this piece an extremist, fanatic or fundamentalists but here are proofs that it is not permissible to give our women to non-Muslims meaning that it is not a northern thing and those who do not are not extreme but just submitting to Allah’s will as them term “Islam” implies.

“And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember”

[al-Baqarah 2:221]

“…then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:10].

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The Muslims are agreed that a non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim, and a non-Muslim man cannot marry a Muslim woman

Read more here : https://islamqa.info/en/100148

The words of Allah (SWT) are clear and we cannot keep quiet because we would be tagged extremists/fanatics. It is shameful when we have people who are proud to be called moderate Muslims when they misrepresent the Deen in reality.

We have seen “Muslims” today who want to walk around without Hijab, some campaigning for gender equality, women leading Solah or worshipping on the same row with men, Solah in English etc and when we ask for evidences, the next thing is “extremists” worthy to note that if these are important aspects of the Deen, people will run from them.

Many see what the Qur’an and Sunnah say but want to follow desires then wish their action is right though they know it is not right then resort to warped interpretation of Qur’an verses all based on wanting to be Muslims without practising Islam.

Allah’s aid is sought.

 

To be continued…
. Bashir Lucas Samson Lukman

 

1SAMUEL 13:1 THE UNRESOLVABLE CONFUSION

0

1 SAMUEL 13:1. THE UNRESOLVABLE CONFUSION

I write spasmodically and intermittently to make an avowal and asseveration on one of the unresolvable confusion and discombobulated variances of the Bibles.

Our Christian brethren are fully brain-washed into believing that the Bible is a divine book authored by 40 men who were inspired by the Holy spirit. Moreover, they are taught to believe that Christianity is the correct belief that everyone should have. Thus the ideology of the state is thrust upon them from the very beginning of their existence in this world.

However, when some Christians are exposed to the glaring discrepancies in the Bible, they begin to question the validity of their own beliefs and the authenticity of the Bible. The seekers of truth often reach a point of confusion upon realizing that there are contradiction, variations, anachronism and among others in the supposed book of God. After thinking to a very great extent, a sincere truth-seeker will come to the conclusion that, the Bible is not the word of God, While some may insist on doing blind belief after knowing the faults of the Bible.

Allaah “God” gave us minds and intellects to enable us to make a crucial decision on what is right and wrong. Below is the text in 1samuel 13:1 from the available Bibles. Dear reader, you can check up the same chapter and verse if you have other version of the Bible that is not quoted here. Some verses quoted below are from Chinese Union Version (CUVS), Chinese New Version (CNV) and Arabic Bible (AB). This verses are quoted purposely for those who can read and understand Chinese and Arabic language.

AMPLIFIED BIBLE (AB)

Saul was  [FORTY] YEARS old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV)

Saul was THIRTY YEARS old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.

KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)

Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel.

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (NWT)

Saul was ??? YEAR when he began to reign

DOUAY RHEIMS BIBLE (DRB)

Saul was a CHILD of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel

CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH BIBLE( CEB)

Saul was a YOUNG MAN when he became king

NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (NEB)

Saul was FIFTY YEARS when he became king

HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE (HCS)

Saul was 30 years old when he be came king, and he reigned 42 years over Israel.

REVISE STANDARD VERSION (RSV)

Saul was _____year when he began to reign

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION (ESV)

Saul lived for ONE YEAR and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel,

CHINESE UNION VERSION SIMPLIED
(CUVS)

扫罗登基年四十岁;作以色列王二年的时候,


YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION (YLT)

A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea two years he hath reigned over Israel.

ARABIC BIBLE (AB)

كان شاول ابن سنة في ملكه وملك سنتين على اسرائيل. 

DARBY BIBLE TRANSLATION (DBT)

Saul was ….. years old when he became king and he reigned two years over Israel

CHINESE NEW VERSION (CNV)

:掃羅登基的時候年三十歲,作了以色列王四十二年(原文缺完整的年數,這裡是按《七十士譯本》加上的)。

NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (NEB)

Saul was 50 YEARS when he became king

BOOK OF MOMON

the book of 1samuel has been removed.


GOOD NEWS BIBLE

Omitted text

it was omitted, why is the verse omitted? A question to our Christian brethren.

The above head-scratching puzzle from the Bibles worth a point to debunk the authenticity of the bibles.

This is a striking variable confusion from Bibles, and according to the Bible in the book of 1Corianthians, God is not author of confusion. We read…

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

If God is not the author of confusion according to the bible, then the Bible is not from God.

By Bashir Habeeb A

Rohingya running out of space to bury their dead

0
ngladeshi villagers pray by the bodies of Rohingya Muslim children who drowned while crossing over from Myanmar into Bangladesh [Dar Yasin/AP Photo]

 

Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh – Eighteen-year-old Rohingya refugee Amir Mia is carrying his deceased grandfather’s body through the Balukhali expansion camp in the Bangladeshi port city of Cox’s Bazar. He is taking his grandfather to be buried in a graveyard that was created after the recent influx of Rohingya refugees, fleeing violence by the Myanmar army that the UN has described as ethnic cleansing, began on August 25.

He was elderly and died of age-related diseases, he explains as he winds his way through the camp’s narrow, muddy lanes.

As various waves of Rohingya refugees have fled Myanmar over the past few decades, filling the camps, which have in turn expanded, camp residents have buried their dead wherever they could find the space. Without any land being set aside for graveyards by the Bangladeshi government, the refugees have identified their own sites.

The small graveyard in which Amir is burying his grandfather already looks overcrowded. The graves are packed closely together, temporary bamboo fences separating one from another.

In the neighbouring Kutupalong registered camp, 16-year-old Mohammad Alam, who was born in Bangladesh after his parents fled Myanmar in the 1990s, explains that his father is the leader of one block of the camp and a gravedigger who is responsible for digging graves for the residents of his block.

The graveyards have become overcrowded, Mohammad explains, with three or four bodies being placed in each grave after the recent influx of refugees.

“Unlike life, death is an inevitable truth and here no one can be buried peacefully as we must dig old graves to make new ones,” Mohammad elaborates as he stands at a tea stall beside one of the new graveyards in the Kutupalong expansion camp.

He has seen people burying their dead in front of their houses, he adds. “New refugees don’t know about this place. They don’t know where to go or what to do. I have seen a family burying a dead body just beside their newly built house.

“A few days later, the rain had washed the sign of the grave away and more new refugees came and built their tent over that grave.”

 

‘I dug up one grave more than four times’

Fifty-two-year-old Nur Hossain has been living in the Kutupalong registered camp for the past 26 years. He was a farmer back in Myanmar, but in Bangladesh he works in a soup factory in the camp and as a gravedigger.

He came here in the early 1990s, with his wife and three sons.

“The Myanmar army killed my brother Komol Hossain in early ’90s. They took him to be a slave and two months later, we were informed that he had died. We … don’t know how he died,” says Nur.

“They [the Myanmar army] said we don’t belong in Myanmar.

“Along with my family members I fled to Bangladesh to save my life …

“We live like prisoners here – free but not allowed to work outside [the camps]. Even after death, we do not have a specific place [to be buried],” he says.

“I dug up one grave more than four times for burial. One of our oldest graveyards is now somebody’s garden.”

Nur says death scares him more than anything. “When I dig graves, I always say Allah’s name, as [I know] I have to die some day. This fear of death haunts me all the time.”

‘I don’t know whose grave I will share

Nazu Mia came to Bangladesh when he was an adolescent. He’s now in his early 40s, and says he’s accepted his fate. “My life spent in a jail [refugee camp]. I will be here until my death and I don’t know whose grave I will share in my next life after death,” says the gravedigger who lives in the Kutupalong registered camp.

“We buried dead bodies in the old graveyard which was allocated for the refugees of the ’80s. In all graves, more than three dead bodies were buried. Now the situation is worse: people are living over new graves,” he explains.

“We have been asked if we need food, shelter and health assistance but no one asked if we need a bigger place for a graveyard or if we need to expand an old one. Even the place that has been allocated for new refugees is very small. In future, we might bury more than 10 dead bodies in a single grave.”

“We need more space for graveyards otherwise people will start digging graves in their own houses. It will take a decade to transform houses into tiny personal family graveyards,” Nazu says.

“Won’t we get a place to rest in peace?”

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA NEWS

Misgoded reading continued

0

Click here for previous session

 

 

The Trinity

The Three in One, the One in Three? Not so!
To my own God I go.
It may be He shall give me greater ease
Than your cold Christ and tangled Trinities. —Monotheistic rendition of Rudyard Kipling’s “Lispeth”
The Trinity: the foundation of faith for some, the focus of ridicule for others, but a
mystery for all. And that should be no surprise. To quote the authorities, “The word does
not occur in scripture…”
104
and, “The doctrine of the Trinity as such is not revealed in
either the OT or the NT …”105
So where did it come from?
The Greek trias for “triad” was “a word first used of the Trinity in the Godhead
by Theophilus of Antioch, who names as the Triad ‘God and His Word and His Wisdom.’” 106 This, at the very least, is a triad that makes some sense once a person
accepts that God’s words are an expression of His wisdom. Why Theophilus felt
compelled to separate God from His attributes is a separate and largely irrelevant issue.
History indicates that the Latin word trinitas was first proposed in 220 CE by
Tertullian, a third­century writer and early Christian apologist from Carthage, who
theorized the co­sharing of divinity between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The fact that
Tertullian was a lawyer tickles the fancy of those who have noticed that
incomprehensible words and doubletalk frequently originate from lawyers and politicians
(many of whom are lawyers anyway, but with the added political requirement of lacking
even the minimal ethics of the legal profession). One wonders what was in Tertullian’s
fine print, and upon what evidence he based his theory. What spawned the theory that
somehow escaped the minds of the gospel writers, the disciples, and even Jesus himself?
A person should not expect to find definitive scriptural reference, for “The formal
doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and
fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT.”
107 The best one can hope for are passages
which appear to suggest the Trinity, in concept if not in name.*
The formal doctrines of the Trinity and divine sonship both sprang from the
Council of Nicaea and were incorporated into the Nicene Creed—“A profession of faith
agreed upon, although with some misgivings because of its non­biblical terminology, by
the bishops at Nicaea I (325 CE) to defend the true faith against Arianism” (italics mine). 108 Now, stop. Rewind, and play again. The bishops of Nicaea derived the doctrine
of the Trinity based on non­biblical terminology, pronounced theirs the “true” faith and
then labeled Arius, whose Unitarian doctrines were taken from the Bible, a heretic?
Normally, in religious discussion, we prefer to avoid the term “bass ackwards,” but in
this case …

 

 

……continue reading……

At-Tauhid reading continued

0

Click here for previous session

 

 

 

(To feel secure against the Plan of Allah
contradicts Tauhid)

Allah the Most Exalted said: “Did they then feel secure against the Plan of Allah? None feels secure from the Plan of Allah except the people who are lost.” (7:99)

He the Almighty said: “Who despairs of the Mercy of his Lord except those who are astray?” (15:56)

Narrated Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him) Allah’s Messenger (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) was asked concerning major sins then he (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said,

(1) Associating others with Allah;

(2) To lose hope of relief from Allah and

(3) Thinking oneself secure from the Plan of Allah,” 

Abdur-Razzaq reports from Ibn Mas’ud (May Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: The greatest of the major sins is Shirk -associating others with Allah, thinking oneself secure from the Plan of Allah, to despair of the Mercy of Allah, and lose hope of Allah’s Relief” .

 

Important issues of the Chapter

1) Explanation of the verse in Al-A’raf (7:99)

2) Explanation of the verse in Al-Hijr (15:56).

3) The severity of punishment promised for the one who thinks himself safe from the Plan of Allah.

4) The severe punishment promised for the one who despairs of the Mercy of Allah.

 

 

……continue reading…..

Allaah's Name

0

ALLAAH’S NAME.

Allaah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’aala) has names and they are “Husna”. Every name of Allah implies a perfect attribute.

Allaah is “Al-Ismul-A’zam” the greatest name which contains all the divine attributes and the sign of the essence and cause of all existence. Allah does not resemble any of His creation. The word Allah refers to Allah’s name only, nothing else can assume this name or share it.

The name Allah contains meanings that indicate the non-resemblance of Allah to anything else. They are as follows…

1. Wujud — Being: Allah exists.

2. Qidam — Existence from all eternity: He is before the before. He did not become. He always was.

3. Baqa — Existence to all eternity: He has no end. The Last is He.

4. Wahdaniyya –Uniqueness: He is unique in Essence, Single in Quality. He has neither opposite nor parallel. All creation is in need of Him. All creation has become by the order of “BE”

5. Mukhalafatuni-I-hawadith — Transcendence: He is the creator bearing no resemblance to the created.

6. Qiyam bi-nafsihi
— Self-subsistence : He has no need of space, but space needs Him.

THE PERMANENT ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAAH.

Allah is perfection. The extent of this perfection is infinite. The greatest name of Allah, contains eight essentials indicating His perfections. They are as follows…

1. HAYYAN – Life: Being Alive, being Eternal, never ceasing to be.

2. ILM – Knowledge: Allah has knowledge of all things; there is nothing unknown to Him.

3. SAMI’I – Hearing : Allah hears; There is nothing that He does not hear.

4. BASAR – Sight : Allah sees; there is nothing unseen to Him.

5. IRADA – Will : Allah does whatever He wills, and thus He is always praise as “The doer of whatever He wills”.

6. QUDRA – Power : There is nothing for which Allah lacks capacity. He always prevails.

7. KALAM – Speech : Allah speaks, though not with a voice like ours, nor with the sound we make.

8. TAKEEN – Creativity : Allah has created everything that exists, and He goes on creating. If He wishes. He destroys, Nothing can oppose His command.

GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF ALLAAH’S NAME

FIRST CLASSIFICATION

1. There are names which imply beautiful attributes – Asmaa ul Jalal (Rahman, Raheem, Wadud, Lateef, etc) which make a person love Allah more.

2. Asmaa ul Jamal – Names which imply “might” attributes (Aziz, Qawy, Adheem, Qadeer, Qahhar, Jabbar,etc) It brings fear and magnification.

SECOND CLASSIFICATION

1. Allaah’s names indicate transitive attributes – Actions of Allah to the creation like As Samee. Al Khaaliq Ar-Razzaq. While some imply intransitive attributes Like As-Samad, Al Aziz, Al Qawwi, As-Salaam, Al-Awwal, Al-Aakhir, Al-hayy.

THIRD CLASSIFICATION

The 99 Names can be divided into 3 groups which are: JALAL “MAJESTY”, JAMAL “BEAUTIFUL and KAMAL “PERFECTION”.

The attributes of Allah that fall under the name of Jalal are known to us through His infinite and divine Majesty which are apparent through His creation throughout the universe.

The attributes of Jamal, on the other hand, become evident with their plentiful blessings, which we respond to with gratitude.

The Kamal names reveal works of art that have been created with perfection and wisdom.

The names that are mainly Jalal and Jamal are also symmetry in the names: He‘s both, merciful and wrathful, beautiful and majestic, forgiving and just, and so on.
The response to divine Jalal is fear, and the response to jamal is hope.

In a well known tradition it says ―Iman lies between khawf and Raja – “that faith is situated between fear and hope”

This implies that a correct relationship with Allah, is to understand all His names in a manner appropriate to each.
“When I want to talk to Allah I say prayers and when I want Him to talk to me I recite Qur’an”- Ali(RA)

By Bashir Habeeb A

Misgoded reading continued

0

Click here for previous session

 

 

Given non­conformity in understanding, one comes to grasp the survival­based
need of the early church to define a belief system, whether true or not. And this is exactly
what was done in 451 CE at the Council of Chalcedon, which declared the dogmatic
definition that has dominated Christology ever since: “One and the same Christ, Son,
Lord, only­begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without
division, without separation.”
102
Anyone who embraces the evidence of this chapter recognizes the above quote as
a statement, but not a truth. Even if the church fathers conceived the nature of Jesus to be
“without confusion,” the same cannot be said of his followers. Confusion, division and
separation have plagued the seekers of truth in Christianity since the time of Jesus.
As Johannes Lehmann points out in The Jesus Report,
So the concept of “the son of God” led to a misunderstanding
which had undreamed­of consequences. Anyone with only a superficial
knowledge of the East knows that the Orientals like picturesque speech …
A simple liar is a son of lies, and anyone who can go one better becomes a
father of lies. The phrase “son of God” is on the very same level of speech
and thought.

In Semitic linguistic usage this description says nothing more than
that a bond exists between a man and God. A Jew would never even
dream of thinking that the son of God meant a genuine relationship
between a father and a son. A son of God is a blessed man, a chosen
vessel, a man who does what God wants. Any attempt to take this image
literally and so deduce the divinity of the son contradicts the facts. 103
Understanding “son of God” to be metaphorical rather than literal permits
resolution of a multitude of Christian doctrinal difficulties. In addition, recognizing “son
of God” to mean a prophet or a righteous individual, and nothing more, challenges the
Christian with the focused Qur’anic teachings. Allah specifically teaches, “the Christians
call Christ the Son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate
what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded
away from the Truth!” (TMQ 9:30)
But lest a person misunderstand, the point is not that one book has it right and the
others wrong. No, not at all. The point is that all three books—Old Testament, New
Testament, and the Holy Qur’an—have it right. All three books teach the Oneness of God
and the humanity of Jesus, thereby reinforcing one another. So all three have it right.  What has it wrong is not the books of scripture, but the doctrines which have been of
such illegitimate origin as to have been derived from “non­biblical categories.”

 

..…..continue reading……

At-Tauhid reading continued

0

Click here for previous session

 

 

 

(Put your Trust in Allah)

Allah the Almighty said: “Put your trust in Allah if you are believers indeed.” (5:23)

He the Most Exalted said: “The believers are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and
when His Verses (this Qur’an) are recited unto them, they (i.e., the verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone).” (8:2)

He said: “O Prophet (Muhammad (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) ) Allah is sufficient for you and for the believers who follow you.” (8:64)

He said: “And whosoever puts his trust in Allah, then He will suffice him.” (65:3)

Narrated Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him) “Allah (Alone) is sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us),” was said by Ibrahim (May Allah be pleased with him) when he was thrown into the fire; and it was said by Muhammad (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) when they (i.e. hypocrites) said, “Verily the people (pagans) have gathered against you (a great army), therefore, fear them, but it
only increased them in Faith”. (Al-Bukhari and An-Nasa’i)

 

Important issues of the Chapter

1) To have trust (Tawakkul) in Allah, is a religious duty.

2) Trust upon Allah (Tawakkul) is a condition of Faith (Iman).

3) Explanation of the verse in Al-Anfal (8:2).

4) Explanation of the verse in Al-Anfal (8:64).

5) Explanation of the verse in Al-Talaq (65:3).

6) Importance of the words “Allah (Alone) is sufficient for us and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us).” These were the words said by Ibrahim (May Allah be pleased with him) and Prophet Muhammad (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) at the time of
distress.

 

…….continue reading……

English