Woman who lost 8 relatives on 9/11 embraces Islam


By Our Correspondent


WASHINGTON, Sept 11: An American woman who lost eight relatives in the 9/11 attacks has embraced Islam. Elizabeth, now Safia Al Kasaby, 43, lives in Tampa, Florida. She is a former sergeant first class of the US Air Force National Guard. She lost one uncle and seven cousins in the attacks on the World Trade Center.


Her grandfather was a Jew and her grandmother was Catholic.


Safia said that in 1997, nearly destitute, she approached a synagogue in North Tampa for help. Officials at the shul wanted to know if she was a member. She was not. They asked her if she was really Jewish. She became disillusioned and for eight years she did not participate in organised religion.


She found Islam in 2005 on the third day of a Moroccan vacation.


At first, Safia’s family didn’t take her seriously and some colleagues at her banking job made fun of her new attire. She dared not pray at work.


Mostly, Safia kept her new faith at home, learning about her religion on web sites and Islamic chat rooms.


After a meeting with an imam at the Islamic Society of Tampa Bay Area in June, Safia felt more at ease with her new faith. But some in her family are reluctant to accept her new faith. Her eldest daughter, Sylvia, wants little to do with her. A Baptist and young military widow, Sylvia berated Safia when she showed up at her husband’s funeral wearing a hijab.


At home, Safia raises two daughters. Ten-year-old Natalia says her mother’s religion is cool.


Ada, 18, appreciates Safia’s transformation and doesn’t put up with people who make fun of Islam or stereotype Muslims. “I say, ‘Wait a minute. My mom’s a Muslim,’” Ada said. “She’s not a terrorist.”


Safia says she looks forward to the day when her religion is not an issue.


http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/12/top13.htm

Death - Jesus died and rose from the dead - Muhammad died and stayed dead.


Fighting - Jesus never fought - Muhammad fought many many times


Hearing from God - When Jesus heard from God he went to the desert to be tempted and began his ministry with boldness, (Mark 1:14-15). - When Muhammad heard from God (through an angel) he cowered, was uncertain, and wanted to commit suicide (Quran 74:1-5)


Identity - Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:24; 8:58) as well as a man.


Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6) -. Muhammad claimed to be a man.


Instructions - Jesus Received From God the Father (John 5:19) - Mohammad From an angel


Killing - Jesus never killed anyone - Muhammad killed many


Life - Jesus had the power to take life, but never did. He restored it. - Muhammad had the power to take it, but he never restored it.


No one ever died in Jesus' presence Many people died in Muhammad's presence -- he killed them.


Marriage - Jesus never married - Muhammad had over 20 wives and even married a nine year old girl.


Ministry - Jesus received his calling from God directly (Matt. 3:17).Jesus received his commission in the daylight


Muhammad received it from an angel (Gabriel) Muhammad received his words in the darkness of a cave.


Ministry Length - Jesus taught for 3 1/2 years - Muhammad taught for more than 20 years


Miracles - Jesus performed many miracles including healing people, calming a storm with a command, and raising people from the dead. - Muhammad's only alleged miracle was the Quran.


Prophecy - Jesus fulfilled biblical prophecy about being the Messiah - Muhammad did not fulfill any biblical prophecy except the ones about false teachers (Matt. 24:24).


Sacrifice - Jesus voluntarily laid his life down for others - Muhammad saved his own life many times and had others killed.


Sin - Jesus never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22) - Muhammad was a sinner (Quran 40:55; 48:1-2)


Slaves - Jesus owned no slaves - Muhammad owned slaves.


Virgin Birth - Jesus was virgin born - Muhammad was not virgin born.


Voice of God- Jesus received and heard the direct voice of God (Mark 1:10-11) - Muhammad did not receive or hear the direct voice of God. It was an angel instead.


Women - Jesus spoke well of women - Muhammad said women were were 1/2 as smart as men (Hadith 3:826; 2:541), that the majority in hell will be women (Had. 1:28,301; 2:161; 7:124), and that women could be mortgaged.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not only a great person in his own time, but is one of the greatest figures of all times for all races, colors, and nationalities. His example was excellent for the 7th-century Arabs and remains excellent for all people living in the 21st century. The Prophet Muhammad was an excellent example for the rich and poor, the young and old, the rulers and subjects, and for intellectuals and ordinary people. Allah sent him as His Prophet for all humanity.


The morality of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not restricted to just a few moral attributes, but included diverse traits and aspects of life. He was kind, compassionate, caring, generous, and humble, but he was also strong, brave, eloquent, wise, and insightful. He was a great planner, organizer, and thinker while at the same time he was also a man of faith, trust, and devotion to Allah.


He was the most merciful person in all of history. He was merciful to his family, followers, friends, and even enemies. He was merciful to the young and old, to humans and to animals. Those who persecuted him in Makkah and killed his relatives and his followers were later defeated in the battles. When they were captives under the Prophet Muhammad, he forgave them. He did not ever take revenge or retaliate. He was the most forgiving person. Even in times of war, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) never allowed the killing of anyone except those involved in the fighting; he issued clear orders against the killing of civilians, including women, children, and even those who were engaged in worship of any kind. He taught his followers to observe the sanctity of all life while engaged in a just war.


In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:


Hundreds of millions of people all over the world believe in Islam. They come from extremely diverse backgrounds and represent virtually all the known races of humanity. Further, a great number of people, both men and women, convert to Islam regularly. That thousands and thousands of people embrace Islam each year from all around the world should be seen as a testament to the peace, serenity, simplicity, and beauty of the precepts and ideals of our Prophet Muhammad's message. If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) preached violence, and led a violent life, it does not stand to reason that so many people would continuously flock to Islam on their own free will.


The Qur'an, the most fundamental scripture of Islam, teaches sanctity of life, not violence. It enjoins peace, justice, and compassion as basic tenets for all of humankind and condemns violence and aggression in all forms. [God enjoins justice and compassion and giving freely to the next of kin, and forbids lewdness, wickedness and oppression.He admonishes you so that you may take heed] (An-Nahl 16: 90).


In a society where human dignity was measured by race, ethnicity, color, status, and wealth, the Qur'an stressed the sacred bond of humanity binding all people. [O mankind, We have created you from a single pair of a male and female, and rendered you nations and tribes so that you might know one another. The most honorable of you in the sight of God is the one who is most conscious of Him. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware] (Al-Hujurat 49:13).


Even the concept of holy war is denounced in Islam because in Islam war can only be characterized as either just or unjust, not holy. The Qur'an permits only a just war, a war waged to remove tyranny and oppression, or in self-defense. The Qur'an is categorical in denouncing all wars of aggression.


[And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression — for, verily, God does not love aggressors.] (Al-Baqarah 2:190)


[Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged — and, verily, God has indeed the power to succor them.] (Al-Hajj 22:39)


Allah also forbids Muslims from attacking anyone who allows others to live in peace:


[Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.] (An-Nisaa' 4:90)


[Hence, if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war].] (An-Nisaa' 4:91)


Muhammad, thus, took up arms only in self-defense.


Muhammad was born into a tribal society where the only bond recognized was that of the tribal bond. When he preached about the unity of God and universal brotherhood between all of humankind, the powerful members of his society violently opposed him. They subjected him and his followers to relentless persecution, even to the extent of lynching some of them. They were forced to leave Makkah to immigrate to Abyssinia and then to Madinah. Even in Madinah, he was not left alone to practice his religion. The tribes from his society rallied forces to eliminate him and his followers. Numerous attempts were even made on his life.


It was in this context that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was called to take up arms to defend himself and his followers. While doing so, he never compromised the sacred principle of sanctity of life, as he and his followers were ordered to govern themselves by the firm ethics of just war and clearly defined rules of engagement.


In a milieu where the killing of a single camel unleashed numerous wars costing thousands of lives, Muhammad waged wars that can be described as minor skirmishes as their casualties were kept to a minimum on both sides. This is because nothing was more abhorrent to Muhammad than killing an innocent soul.


In order to better appreciate the ethics of Muhammad's wars, we may do well to compare him with the war heroes of the Old Testament. What we read there is total wars often involving putting entire populations to the sword. To cite a few instances:


In the cities of these nations whose land the Lord your God is giving you as a patrimony, you shall not leave any creature alive. You shall annihilate them — Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites — as the Lord your God commanded you. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)


Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels, and asses. (1 Samuel 15:2-3)


After the conquest of Jericho: "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it — men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:21)


Contrary to the above, Muhammad never allowed the killing of anyone except those involved in the fighting; he issued clear orders against killing of civilians, including women, children, and even those who were engaged in worship of any kind. He forbade the slaughtering of animals except for food. Unlike some leaders who would order kill everything that breathed to be killed, he taught his warriors not to harm innocent living creatures. He taught his followers how to observe the sanctity of all life while engaged in a just war by narrating the story of an ancient prophet: An ant stung one of the prophets of old and in a fit of anger he ordered an entire anthill to be burned down; Allah then revealed to him, "Just because a single ant stung you, how dare you burn down an entire community which glorifies God!" (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud).


We also have traditions wherein Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade his warriors from separating mother birds from their babies.


Those who consider the Old Testament figures to be sacred in spite of their "total-war policies" and their killings of entire populations and yet fail to recognize the prophetic witness of Muhammad, are clearly driven by bias and prejudice rather than objectivity or truth. They should compare Muhammad's general amnesty to the Makkans who had persecuted him and his followers, and waged wars against him for more than a decade with that of Joshua's act of putting the inhabitants of the entire city he conquered to the sword. Compare also Muhammad's interdict against the mutilation of enemy soldiers in combat with the Old Testament narrative of King David's feat of producing two hundred foreskins of Philistines as a trophy to get the hand of King Saul's daughter in marriage.


In quoting these stories of the Old Testament, I must however rush to point out, that I am — God forbid — in no way implying that we are allowed to make a value judgment about the actions of those great heroes or prophetic figures of the past; it would be unfair on our part to judge them by our own standards and laws that have evolved over the centuries. Theirs are to be strictly studied in their own specific milieu and context and must never be extended to that of ours. As the Qur'an says: [Those are a people who have passed away; theirs was what they did, and yours is what you do.You will not be questioned about their actions] (Al-Baqarah 2: 134). Historical actions and events must be judged and analyzed contextually, and this goes for all religions as well.


Now coming back to the issue of Muhammad's wars, I must further add that it is hypocritical to consider Muhammad as a man of war when we know that countless millions have perished over the last few centuries (most of which had nothing to do with Muhammad or any other religion). Indeed millions have perished in our past "enlightened" century in the course of the two world wars and other nationalistic struggles. These include countless men, women, children, and animals who have been killed or maimed or continue to be killed or maimed as a result of the use of depleted uranium, napalm, mines, and nuclear fallout.


Indeed, millions have perished in the name of godless communism and in the pursuit of nationalism, secularism, a country's national interest, and even the pursuit of natural resources. All people of conscience should heed the prophetic witness of Muhammad, when he said, "If even a little sparrow has been killed unjustly, it will appear before the Lord of the worlds crying for justice!"(An-Nasa'i, Ad-Darami, and Ahmad)


Lord alone knows how much accounting the "civilized nations" of the world will have to render for their killing of every breathing creature in the lands invaded in the name of "democracy," "freedom," "preemption," "humanitarian intervention," and even progress. Perhaps the best way to conclude this answer would be by quoting the prophetic words of Jesus (peace be upon him): "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Luke 6:41-42).


Excerpted, with slight modifications, from www.islam.ca.

there are different ways to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God, which has always been true and has never been subjected to change or distortion. These proofs can be classified into three types: the way the Qur'an was transmitted throughout the centuries, some challenging verses within the Qur'an itself, and the periodic, modern-day discoveries in the universe that were first mentioned in the Qur'an more than fourteen centuries ago.



Unlike the Bible and Old Testament that have been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days), the Qur'an was transmitted to us in an unprecedented and unique manner according to rigorous rules of transmission. The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) via the angel Gabriel, and the Prophet subsequently memorized the whole scripture.


Thousands of the Companions of the Prophet learned the Qur'an directly from the Prophet (pbuh). They memorized it and were known in Islamic history as huffaadh (the memorizers and preservers of the Qur'an). Moreover, a number of Companions wrote it down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it was compiled in its entirety immediately after his death.


The following generation of Muslims learned the Qur’an directly from the Companions. Thus the chain of teaching and learning through direct contact continued systematically, methodically, and meticulously until the present age.


Additionally, several of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were appointed as scribes to record the words of the revelation directly from the Prophet himself on parchment, leather, or whatever else was available. The most famous of these scribes was Zayd ibn Thabit, who also memorized the entire Qur’an, and he formed with the others a community of huffaadh that can be compared to academic societies of our present time.


We know the Qur’an was recorded in totality during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) and the different surahs (chapters) personally arranged by him. Many copies of the text were used for study and teaching, even in Mecca before the Hijrah, the migration to Medina.


The entire Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and trusting the fact that many scholars knew it by heart, it was not collected in one volume. It was personally arranged by him, and the Muslims memorized it in the same order. The companion Uthman reported that whenever a new verse was revealed, the Prophet would immediately call a scribe to record it. He would instruct the person to put the specific verse or verses in a particular chapter.


Furthermore, every year during the month of Ramadan, the Prophet would recite the whole Qur’an from beginning to end in its present-day arrangement, and everyday people could hear it from his own lips in the mosque. Its sequence is no mystery. Many of the Companions not only memorized it completely, they also wrote it down and even added commentary (tafseer) on their own personal copies. When the Prophet passed away, the whole Qur’an was already written down, but it was not yet compiled in book form.


During the rule of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, there was a rebellion among some distant Arab tribes that resulted in a series of fierce battles. In one particular battle, a number Companions who had memorized the Qur’an were killed. The Companion Omar worried that the knowledge of the Qur’an was in danger, thus he convinced Abu Bakr that the Qur’an should be compiled into book form as a means of preserving it once and for all.


Zayd bin Thabit was entrusted with this important task. Zayd followed strict methods in his compilation and had dozens of other huffaadh recheck his work to ensure its accuracy. Abu Bakr, who had also committed the entire Qur’an to memory, approved of the final product. After Abu Bakr passed away, the copy was passed to the Caliph ‘Omar, and then Uthman.


However as the Muslim world expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had a difficult time learning the correct pronunciation of the text. The Caliph Uthman consulted other Companions, and they agreed that official copies of the Qur’an should be inscribed using only the pronunciation of the Quraysh tribe, the Arabic dialect that the Prophet spoke.


Zayd bin Thabit was again given this assignment, and three other huffaadh were assigned to help him in the task. Together, the four scribes borrowed the original, complete copy of the Qur’an, duplicated it manually many times over, and then distributed them to all of the major Muslim cities within the empire. Two of these copies still exist today: one is in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent.


One must keep in mind that in traditional learning in the Arab world, transmission was based upon an oral tradition as well as a written one; the Arabs (and later all Muslims) excelled in accurately reporting scripture, poetry, aphorisms, etc. through the generations without change. Similarly, the chain of huffaadh was never broken, and thus the Qur'an today has reached us in two forms: the memorized version transmitted through the scholarly chain, and the written version based upon the Companions’ initial recording.


If the Qur’an had been changed, there would be huge discrepancies between these two today, as the Qur’an has reached isolated (and sometimes illiterate) communities through the memorized form of transmission without the written form to correct it. No such discrepancies have ever been recorded or reported. In other words, isolated village A in African Mali and isolated village B in Afghanistan will both produce contemporary huffaadh reciting the same words of the Qur’an, though they did not learn from a similar printing of the scripture nor has there ever been a concerted international effort to rectify would-be discrepancies.


Allah has said in the Qur’an that He alone will protect His book, and indeed He has kept His promise. The Qur’an that we read today contains the same exact words that were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 1400 years ago. This is quite a miracle, especially when you consider that no other group of people can say that their book has not been subject to change by the time it reached the present generation.


Only the Qur’an has survived through the centuries unchanged, and the language in which it was revealed, classical Arabic, still enjoys practical usage around the world. While classic English of the 14th century can be understand by very few native English speakers, the Qur’an can be understood by the vast majority of Arabic-speaking Muslims. When compared to other scriptures, the Qur’an is unique in these two respects.


Furthermore, from the prolific arts that have accompanied Qur’anic learning and transmission, we can learn of the auspiciousness and honor with which the Muslims have traditionally held the Qur’an. The visual arts of calligraphy and binding, and the vocal art of recitation represent examples of such arts, and from them we can see that veracity of transmission would be understood as a fundamental aspect of Qur’anic reverence.


As regards the proofs within the Qur'an itself, they can be found in the following Qur’anic challenges:



Surah 4, verse 82:


*{Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.}*


Surah 17, verse 88:


*{Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.}*


And Surah 2, verse 23:


*{And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.}*


http://www.islamonline.net

Where , what, how and ......


- would all you Islam / mulsim Bashers be


- what your opinons about islam would be, what was your opinion before 911


- How educated you were about islam before 911


- What are your sources of information about islam


- Do you work / live/ interact with muslims closely


It seems People are using 911 as a platform and foundation for 90% of their arguments, just as Jews use the history of the holocast for most of theirs

QURANIC VERSES RELATING ZIKR


1. ‘Therefore remember Me, I will remember you. Give thanks to Me and reject not Me.’


2. Remember thy Lord much, and praise Him in the early hours of night and morning.


3. (Talking of the wise men these are) such as remember Allah, standing, sitting, and reclining, and consider the creation of the Heavens and the Earth, and say, (after deliberation) “Our Lord! Thou has not created this in vain. Glory be to Thee! Preserve us from the doom of Fire.”


4. When ye have performed the act of Salaat, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining (We should remember him in all circumstances)


5. Send not away those who call their Lord at morning and evening, seeking His countenance (Pleasure)


6. And call upon Him, making your devotion purely for Him (only)


7. And do thou remember thy Lord within thyself humbly and with awe, below thy breath, at morn and evening. And be thou not of the neglectful.


8. And guideth unto Himself all who turn to Him in penitence; who have believed and whose hearts find satisfaction in the remembrance of Allah. Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts rest content!


9. Lo! I, even I, am Allah. There is no God save Me. So serve me and establish Salaat for My remembrance. Lo! The Hour is surely coming. But I will keep it hidden, that every soul may be rewarded for that which it striven to achieve.


10. (While talking to the unbeliever on the Day of Judgement, they will be asked whether they remember). Lo! There was a party of My servants who said, “Our Lord! We believe therefore forgive us and have mercy on us, for Thou art best of all who show mercy.”


11. But verily, remembrance of Allah is the most important.


12. (Those) who forsake their beds to call upon their Lord in fear and hope, and spend of what We have bestowed on them. No soul knoweth what joy is kept hidden for them as a reward for what they used to do.


Note: it is mentioned in a hadith that one who prays to Allah in the last portion of the night gains acceptance of Allah. If possible, you should remember Allah at this hour.


13. Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day and remembreth Allah much.


14. (while talking of the virtues of the believers) And men who remember Allah much and women who remember; Allah hath prepared for them His forgiveness and a vast reward.


15. O ye who believe! Remember Allah with much remembrance. And glorify Him morning and evening.


16. Then woe unto those whose hearts are hardened against remembrance of Allah. Such are clearly in error


17. Allah hath (now) revealed the most beautiful message of the Qu’ran, a Scripture consistent with itself, repeating (its teaching in various aspects). Whereat doth tremble the skins of those who fear their Lord, so that their flesh and their hearts soften to Allah’s remembrance. Such is Allah’s guidance, wherewith be guideth whom He will.


18. And he whose sight is dim to the remembrance of the Beneficent, We assign unto him a devil who becometh his comrade.


19. O ye who believe! Let not your wealth nor your children distract you from remembrance of Allah. Those who do so, they are the losers. (These things will not last beyond the grave and Allah’s remembrance will prove useful in the Hereafter.)


http://www.beautyofislam.org/Dhikr/Virtues1.htm

1- Muhammad the Womanizer?


Many anti-Islamics give this false claim against our beloved Prophet peace be upon him. Below is a Noble Verse and its description that insha'Allah (if GOD is willing) will shed some light regarding this issue. This Noble Verse is used a lot by the anti-Islamics to try to prove that Muhammad peace be upon him was a womanizer.


"Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and God knows (all) that is in your hearts: and God is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. (The Noble Quran, 33:51)"


The following Saying is a description for the Noble Verse:


Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: "I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this: 'You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)' (xxxiii. 51), I ('Aisha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3453)"


As we clearly see from the Noble Verse and the Narration of our beloved Prophet's wife, Aisha, may Allah Almighty be pleased with her, our Prophet did not seek women. They used to come to offer themselves to him for marriage. Allah Almighty wanted to make it more comfortable for our Prophet by allowing him to choose only the ones that he desired for marriage.


But the point of our Prophet peace be upon him seeking women and divorcing women as he pleased for his own sexual desire is a complete hoax.


Another false criticism against our beloved Prophet peace be upon him is in this narration:


Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: "Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."


Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prayers (Salat), Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367)"


In this narration, we clearly see that our beloved Prophet peace be upon him:


1- Had the opportunity to keep the woman, Safiya bint Huyai, as a slave, but instead, he honored her, manumitted her, and married her, and she became his honorable wife instead of his slave.


2- Safiya bint Huyai was chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir.


Where do you see our beloved Prophet peace be upon him being a womanizer here?


http://www.answering-christianity.com/womanizer.htm

The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence


There's nothing quite so hypocritical as an Evangelical Christian criticizing the Qur'an for (allegedly) advocating indiscriminate violence. In order to participate in this exercise in self-delusion, one not only has to turn a blind-eye to the unambiguous views of 1,400 years of mainstream Islamic scholarship, but it's necessary to pass over quite a number of explicit verses in the Bible and large portions of Christian history as well. This is discussed in a forthright and learned manner by a Yale University scholar in the following article published in the Journal of Biblical Literature:


The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence


However, in spite of the overall merits of this article, it seems that the author couldn't quell the temptation to take a swipe at the scripture of Islam. After informing us of a view that holds that the Bible is the "most dangerous" of all books, the author opines that "…other books, notably the Qur'an, are surely as lethal". Well this statement is "not quite true", regardless of the author's claim, since even though both the Bible and the Qur'an have been abused and misinterpreted, if one looks at history there's no way to justify the statement that the Qur'an is "as lethal". Indeed, in spite of the bloody activities of a vocal and militant fringe element of Islam in recent decades, the violence committed in the name of Islam over the centuries still pales in comparison to the crimes carried out in the name of Christianity. In medieval times, Muslims had nothing on the scale of the Spanish Inquisition or the Wars of Religion that Europe experienced, nor did Muslims ever put the entire population of Jerusalem to the sword or burn large numbers of heretics at the stake. If we look at the post-Enlightenment world after which many formerly Christian and Muslim nations become secularized, the case against the Bible gets even worse. In these years, the Bible was used to justify everything from race-based slavery, colonial imperialism and, until just very recently, racial segregation and apartheid. Even though Muslims have their share of racists and bigots, and ethnic discrimination and rivalries unfortunately aren't unheard of in the Muslim World, these iniquities have never been justified by appeals to the Qur'an. One should also keep in mind that the Holocaust of European Jewry was orchestrated in the same nominally Christian (not Muslim!) country that produced Evangelical Christianity and the Gutenberg Bible. Likewise, Lebanese Philangist Christians, not Muslims, carried out the largest massacre of civilians in the Middle East in recent decades. Similarly, even though Palestinian suicide bombers have caused some to cast a reproachful (albeit ignorant) glance upon the Qur'an, the fact remains that the Bible is the only scripture that contains a God-approved act of suicide in order to kill enemy civilians (Judges 16:26-30).


The true irony in all of this is that the misguided Muslims who have committed horrible acts of violence in the name of Islam in recent years are following a modern Western influenced re-interpretation of Islam which took form during the late colonial period (i.e. after Christian powers invaded Muslim countries and started to exploit them). This undeniable fact has been documented in a number of books and articles, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.


In the end, the actions of a fanatical minority of Muslims today does not prove that the Qur'an is a "lethal" book, rather it only proves that some Muslims have an interpretation of it that flies in the face of over 1,400 years of competent Islamic scholarship. If the Qur'an advocates indiscriminate violence against civilians, isn't it odd that more than a millennium of scrupulous and God-fearing Muslim memorizers, exegetes and jurists failed to realize it?

Bismillah


as salam alykom


Just for anyone who is lazy enough to read the rules on this board.


I deleted another thread of RT, to make it two, Dan and me.


Ok, before he goes, or any of the other guests start complaining, this is an open ISLAMIC board, we certainly dont mind people crticising Islam, as we never expect non muslims coming here praising and bringing good opinions about Islam. We dont expect this, neither we are here for this. We are surrounded by those who classify themselves as scholars, and have nothing to do but to just criticise Islam. Matter of fact, in many times, I see it differently, I see how they serve Islam and actually stand as proof to Quranic verses, starting from bendict, to Danemark, to any other source of crticism.


But also we will not allow a guest to come over thinking that with his/her attitude, he is actually bringing action into the board. We are not here working on a customer retention basis.


We are here to learn and help others learn. But acting with arrogance and feeling superior to others, will not help. If u feel superior to others, why remain among a group who is not fit to discuss with u? when u even in many situations fail to understand their posts, or more to say have a template that u hasten to use just to fill a space. I m really wondering.


Actually, we grew through many stages, we feel that people like this are all around us, we dont really care to decorate Islam to them, neither we need to call them to Islam. Islam is a gift. We dont beg people to take it. Islamic rituals are Islamic rituals. We dont expect u to agree with them, no. But if u want a platform of your own to slander Islam. Go ahead, u have utube and other sites, just build your own. Dont expect back that there will be any among us who agrees with u, neither we are compelled to compare of how many turkeys are slaghtered for either Christmas or thanksgiving. we are not obliged.


We are more than satisfied with our rituals, fully convinced with them, see nothing wrong with them. But to continue calling every one a name caller, a child, or ..etc. We dont accept this.


Non muslim guests are most welcome on this board, they have always been. What is more important is that we never put a sign on the gate saying either u revert or you are out.


We have quite a number of frequent visitors who made their position quite clear and they are still welcome.


There are those who want to learn how to deal with muslims, others who want to get a first hand info versus what they receive from the media, i m not going to count the motives.


But I think we made a clear point, you need to respect others, and maintain a proper conduct in house.


Hope all is clear.


admin

The Scent of Israeli Racism,


Gideon Levy


26/05/2003


Ha’aretz & PMC


http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20edito...deon%20Levy.htm


Shock is the proper reaction to the remark of cabinet Minister Gideon Ezra, who explained last week that Arabs should be used as security guards in Israel because only they have "the sense of smell needed to smell other Arabs, more so than guards who are immigrants from the former Soviet Union."


If anyone in Europe dared to say something similar about Jews, the world would be outraged, and rightly so. Another possibility is to ignore what Ezra said: What's the relevance of a low-life utterance from a marginal minister whose level of speech only casts a gloomy light on the institution he came from, the Shin Bet security service, and on his current place at the cabinet table?


On second thought, though, we should be thankful to Ezra: He has provided an apt description of the reality in which we live. We do in fact "sniff out" Arabs, all of whom are suspect in our eyes solely because of their ethnic origins.


We are all racists. Like it or not, we live in a reality of national, not to say racist, separation. A fusion of genuine security distress, the appalling terrorist attacks in the cities, the moral scars we bear as a result of decades of occupation and the faulty education we received has created a day-to-day reality here that can only shock anyone who believes in human rights.


However, we have grown accustomed to the situation and our eyes have become dim. We have grown used to seeing citizens who are made to say something, so that security guards can judge how much danger they pose on the basis of their accent. That has become entirely natural. Racism is here, but we continue to imagine that we live in a highly enlightened and progressive society.


Now Ezra has come and inadvertently held up the mirror in front of us. And what it reflects is ugly. After all, what's the difference between trying to sniff out Arabs as Ezra would do, and making passersby speak in order to see whether they have an Arab accent? An "oriental" look or an Arab accent, dark skin or traditional dress immediately create serious suspicions.


That may be understandable, but we must also be aware of the serious implications of such behavior. A society that classifies its residents according to their origin and is impassive about this behavior cannot be a just society.


The more incendiary manifestations of racism, such as the despicable obscenities you can hear at any soccer game, are the direct and inevitable continuation of this acceptance of the situation. And we haven't yet mentioned the discrimination in budgets and civil rights.


It is very difficult to be an Arab in Israel today, whether a citizen of the state or a resident of the territories.


Every Arab is considered a suspicious object unless he can prove otherwise. A few weeks ago, Dr. Mohammed Darawshe, a citizen of Israel from the Givat Haviva Institute for Advanced Studies, the education center of the Kibbutz Artzi movement, wanted to take a plane from Eilat to Tel Aviv. He had to answer dozens of impertinent and nosy questions about the purpose of his trip - and only because of his ethnic origin. There was no connection between the questions he was asked (Where did you lecture? What was the subject? Why did you come to Eilat?) and any sort of danger that was liable to accrue because of his presence on the plane. But Dr. Darawshe is an Arab, and Arabs have to be interrogated at every opportunity. It is more than likely that Darawshe will not forget the humiliating experience he underwent in Eilat for a long time, even if it's a matter of routine.


Separate lines for Jews and Arabs have long since become second nature here. There is no need to go as far as the occupied territories - where apartheid roads for Jews only and curfew for Arabs only have long been the reality - in order to witness the separation. It's here, within the country.


Under the aegis of the security situation the phenomenon has grown to worrisome proportions, far beyond what's necessary. Arab students find it difficult to rent apartments in Jewish cities solely because of their ethnic origin and without any security justification.


The country's Arab citizens are increasingly loath to venture out of their towns and villages because of the suspiciousness and humiliation they encounter in every contact with Jewish citizens or with the authorities. It is precisely because of the security needs, which sometimes oblige this sort of separation and discrimination, that unnecessary manifestations of discrimination should be reduced as far as possible.


The result is that a Jewish generation has grown up that has no experience or knowledge of contact with Arab society on an equal basis. To this generation, every Arab is only a potential danger that must be fought, and this even before the draft and the corrupting army service in the territories.


At the same time, an Arab generation has grown up that is aware of the apartheid and unwilling to accept it (along with the new generation in the territories, which knows only the armed Israeli who enters his home violently). The Arab-Israeli student, who is thrown out of a discotheque because of his accent or the way he looks, will not soon forget this situation.


In the United States, where there are similar phenomena, the civil rights organizations went mute after September 11, 2001. Now, every person whose name has a Muslim ring to it is a citizen under suspicion. And no one speaks out against this. Quite a few Muslim citizens of the United States have taken American names. In this sphere let us not take an example from the U.S. and let us not abandon ourselves to racism in the name of security.


So we have to be grateful to MK Ezra, who with his crude language, exposed the naked truth. Yes, we do sniff out Arabs.


Earth, a planet hungry for peace


The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).


The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).