Ok, I'll try to keep this short. I've been contemplating the Iraq war a lot recently and I've come to these conclusions:


The U.S. war against Iraq is, obviously, wrong on so many levels. However, the liberal argument that at least America will spread Democracy to Iraq is just as weak. Iraq is not ready for democracy. If true democratic elections were to be held, Americans would not want to see who the Iraqi people choose to lead them.


Democracy cannot be forced. America was once a land for rich White free men. Women didn't vote, Blacks were slaves, Indians were non-human, and the only people who mattered were rich White guys. Democracy came from internal struggle and reform. The argument that the U.S. has to spread democracy around he world is pointless.


There has to date been no major feminist movement, no secular movement, and no ethnic movements for peace in Iraq or Afghanistan. Without these, Democracy is impossible.


So I think that the next time Americans say that the U.S. is doing the arab world a favor, we should counter that if Iraqis want democracy, they will demand it. Until then, no amount of bombs or invasions will bring it quicker. It didn't work when the British were imperializing the world and it isn't working now.


Democracy, according to Socrates, is the fairest form of government. It is also the most desireable, but it cannot be forced. It has to start from the ground up.

Did anyone get to see the Lunar eclipse? If you did, did you say the prayer?


Also..... it might be off topic for the General board... but.... can someone post the prayer?

I thought I was the only one who asked the question a long time ago..... but I've been noticing in other forums.... that women are married to non-muslim men, and are unable to revert unless they get a divorce.


What I don't find reasonable..... is that there are women.... who really want to take their shahada..... and they can't..... why break up a family and mess up kid's lives?


I'm sure people can go on living their lives and that God knows what's in their hearts... but reading something today reminded me of how I felt. That was actually the reason I decided to forget about reverting..... because it's never going to be possible.


I'm married to a Catholic man, there is now way in heaven or earth he would be a muslim.... he hates religion... and he has deeper negetive feelings for muslims. I have two small children, 5, and 3. Divorce is the only way? Why would a whole family be broken up like that?


There are women all around the world who have this problem. But I have to ask a question.....


If I said that I wanted to make shahada right now..... what would you say? No, I'm sorry you have to go to hell because you won't get a divorce? Would anyone refuse me or any Christian married woman for that matter?

Asked for details of the Prophet’s (pbuh) external appearance, Hazrat Ali (as) said – “He was of medium height, neither very tall nor very short. His complexion was pinkish white, his eyes were black; his hair was thick, glossy, and beautiful. A full beard framed his face. The hairs of his head were long, falling to his shoulders. They were black. His gait was so energetic that you would have said that he tore himself from the rock with each step, and yet at the same time he moved so lightly that with each stride he seemed not to touch the ground. But he did walk proudly, as princes do. There was so much gentleness in his face that once in his presence it was impossible to leave him; if you were hungry, you were satisfied by looking at him and thought no more of food. Any man suffering from an affliction forgot his troubles when in his presence, charmed by the gentleness of his features and his discourse. All who saw him agreed that they never met, neither before nor after, a man whose discourse was so delightful. His nose was straight; there were gaps between his teeth. Sometimes he would let the hair of his head fall naturally, at others he wore it knotted into two or four bunches. At sixty-three years, no more than fifteen hairs on his whole body had yet become white with age….” (‘Universal History’, by Tabari (d. Baghdad 310 AH).


Allah knows the best.

According to Rocky Mountain News, Colorado GOP Senate candidate Pete Coors managed to offend the American Muslim community twice in one day yesterday. He was reported saying – ‘Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus are pretty tolerant of other people's religions,’ and then offered his own interpretation of the Qur’an, saying, ‘It does tell you if you don't go along with their beliefs, you are infidel and can be subject to jihad. Radicals take it to an extreme.’


Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American Islamic Relations responded to the comments by saying ‘unfortunately it’s all too representative of Islam bashing we see in Zionist circles.’ A recent poll by CAIR found that a quarter of Americans believe a number of anti-Muslim stereotypes, and negative images of Muslims, created by Zionist media, are 16 times more prevalent than positive ones.

Written by Sister A Abdullah


There is a lot of debate among Muslims as to whether or not it is required for a Muslim woman to cover her face and hands in addition to the rest of her body when appearing in public or in front of non-Mahrem men. The purpose of this article is not to fall on either side of that debate, but to urge all Muslims to show respect for sisters who have chosen to wear either the khimar (full face covering) or the niqab (face covering which leaves the eyes exposed.) Some Muslims give these sisters a hard time, saying that they are doing above and beyond what has been commanded by Allah SWT, and that the "extreme" appearance of these fully-veiled women projects a bad image to the non-Muslims who already view the Muslim woman as weak and oppressed. They argue that such individuals, upon seeing fully-veiled Muslim women, will be "turned off" by "Islam, and we will have forever lost potential Muslim converts, or even the understanding and sympathy of the non-Muslim community.


Think about it carefully: would we ever think of criticizing a Muslim who fasts extra days outside of "Ramadan? Do we belittle the Muslims whose prayers exceed the prescribed daily five? Are we upset when Muslims give more zakat than required by Islamic Law? Of course not. We admire such people for their apparent dedication to Allah SWT, just as we should admire Muslim women who cover their faces for the same reason. Whether they veil because they take the so-called "most-conservative" viewpoint that covering the face is a requirement of Islamic Law, or because they simply believe that they will earn extra reward from our Lord and Creator for doing something more. Praise be to Allah, veiled women are engaged in halal, and that is the bottom line.


As for the question of non-Muslims being "turned off" by Islam upon seeing fully-veiled Muslim women, Muslims should not waste time and energy worrying about such matters. To the contrary, some non-Muslims are not critical of the face-veil at all and are so intrigued by it that they actually become interested in Islam as a direct result of seeing fully covered Muslim women.


One non-Muslim woman wrote about her impressions of the face-veil in our local newspaper after crossing paths with a veiled woman on a busy city street. The writer was struck by the confidence with which the Muslim woman walked, seeing all that was around her, but not being seen by others, secure in the knowledge that no man could make a lewd comment to her about her shapeless body and invisible face. She confessed a twinge of jealousy as she contemplated her own short skirt and tight blouse, realizing in a split second that, no matter how much she tried to convince herself otherwise, society's men were probably not judging her solely for her intellectual and professional capabilities. She now felt embarassed in front of the Muslim woman who must've, she imagined, felt somewhat sorry for a "liberated" western woman like herself who could not even make it from one end of the street to the other without fear of harassment. (Please note that these were the writer's own sentiments and my intention is not to put her down but to show that there is more to equal rights than rules and regulations: it also has to do with belief, mindset and the reality of how men and women interact with one another as opposed to how we think they should in a perfect world.)


Contrast this powerful piece of writing to an article authored by a Muslim woman in another newspaper. In it, the woman practically begged non-Muslims not to judge Islam by the face-veil, which, she claimed, is a mere cultural tradition having nothing to do with Islam. This article served to divide local Muslims into two camps, understandably upsetting veiled women and their families. Even if one wanted to take the "least-least conservative" point of view and say that the veil is nothing more than a cultural tradition, it should not be forgotten that such a tradition has sprung forth from a culture of Muslims who are seeking the reward and pleasure of Allah, Most High. We should, in fact, respect the sisters who, in spite of the intense scrutiny placed upon them by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, continue to veil, refusing to abandon a halal garment which provides them (and the community as a whole) with extra doses of security, honor and pride.


Islam is a light that Allah SWT puts into one's heart, and He will undoubtedly help those sincere individuals who are seeking the Straight Path to get there one way or another. It really has nothing to do with what people "think about Islam." One of the best things we can do as Muslims is to behave well, dealing with people kindly and fairly, remembering that it is ultimately up to the will of Allah, Most Glorious if a particular individual is to become a Muslim or not. We should never think that we have to change the good things about ourselves in order to attract new converts to Islam. This strategy is not only demoralizing to one's iman, but it also does not work.


In conclusion, I would like to note that I do not wear the face-veil myself (only the basic hijab) but that I do have enormous respect for the women who cover their faces. I was prompted to write this article after hearing from many of my fully-veiled sisters in faith that some of the harshest criticisms they receive are from within the American Muslim community itself and not from non-Muslims as they had anticipated before adopting the veil. I really think that all Muslims should realize how much courage and confidence it takes to veil one's self in modern-day America and that we should be their best supporters in the struggle for the Muslim woman's right to veil.

If a Jewish text mentions that Jesus (as) was supposed to be, or claimed to be God, that information was certainly obtained by Jews via Christians and Christian traditions and dogma, which had had centuries to develop, and not directly through any historical events, nor as we have seen, even from the New Testament, which Jews would certainly not waste their time studying, unless arming themselves for polemical disputes. There is absolutely no reliable independent historical evidence to be found concerning Jesus in Jewish tradition, as it is all late material, set down long after the Christians themselves had already decided to make Jesus (as) into their God.


Many Christian apologists, for example, like to take the reference to Jesus (as) in Tacitus as independent proof of his existence, when in fact, with its late date, it merely supplies proof that Christians existed, along with their beliefs and dogma, which were hardly a secret ... not that I am denying Jesus (as) existence!


For example, the great missionary, Shamoun writes:


Christian Author Michael Green quotes a rabbi named Eliezar, writing about AD 160, who writes:


"God saw that a man, son of a woman, was to come forward in the future, who would attempt to make himself God and lead the whole world astray. And if he says he is God he is a liar. And he will lead men astray, and say that he will depart and will return at the end of days." (Green, Who is this Jesus?)


Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and saw that there was a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray. Therefore God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written, 'God is not a man that he should lie.' And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said, 'Alas, when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live- of what nation which heareth that man who hath made himself God." (Yalkut Shimeon, according to Midrash Y'lamm'denue)


Muslims don’t have to ‘dip so low’ to prove the existence of Jesus (as). Muslims believe in Jesus’ existence, because God’s Final Testament (Holy Qur’an) says so.

Nonviolence?


The Sword


of St. Michael


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Israel Shamir


In The Dune, a visionary film that predicted the US invasion of the Middle East, the spiritual leader of the Resistance is asked:


"Will we ever have peace?"


"We'll have victory", he replied.


"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our heart, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence."


- Mohandas K. Gandhi


The rule is often forgotten by modern proponents of pacifism and non-violence. They preach non-violence to the oppressed as the panacea for their troubles. Not surprisingly, non-violence gets very good media coverage and is supplied for downtrodden in great abundance.


The Holy Land received recently a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi who went teaching non-violence to the Palestinians in Ramallah. Good idea, wrong place: non-violence is the daily bread of vast majority of Palestinians, while their 'violence of the oppressed' is a rare and precious thing; without it, non-violence has no meaning. The lion's share of violence is done by the Jewish state, though it is often "suspended violence", as an Israeli philosopher and a friend of Palestine, Adi Ophir, has called it


"-- violence suspended as the Damocles sword, as a suspended sentence ready to uncoil any moment. Pacifiers leave the suspended violence in place; that is why instead of seeking peace we may seek victory."


What is more annoying is an attempt to establish non-violence as the only acceptable way, as a religiously orthodox norm of dissent. "Nothing justifies violence", or "Two wrongs do not make a right" - one hears these pseudo-wisdom cracks daily. It is not true from any point of view; even from the highest moral ground, violence is justified and commanded in order to save another person's life and dignity. A saintly man may follow the Sermon of the Mount advice to the dot and turn his right cheek to be slapped; but he may not pass by a rapist or a murderer at his vile deed and leave him unchecked. He must kill him, if there is no other way to stop the murderer. We are free to give up our life and dignity, but we have a duty to defend others. Equally, justice is "doing wrong" by imprisoning, fining or executing a man for he did "wrong" by murder or rape; in such a way "two wrongs make one right", indeed.


This simple rule is sometimes forgotten, often intentionally, by non-violence preachers. In the T-net discussion (Reproduced Here), a pacific Indian-Canadian, Ardeshir Mehta claimed that: "One can be a Christian, or one can advocate violence, but one can't be both."


He was neither, but words of Christ are often quoted with the same ease Nietzsche quoted Zarathustra. The radical South African, Joh Domingo retorted: "Do I justify Palestinian violence? No, I support it".


Is violent resistance wrong


and a non-Christian act?


This question brought to my mind a picture I have seen in Medina del Campo, a small Castilian town that hosted an exhibition in memory of Isabella la Catolica, the Queen of Columbus and Granada. The picture by her contemporary El Maestro de Zafra (Alejo Fernandez) was one of the most striking and impressive of the art of his period, of any period, period. In the midst of an Apocalyptic battle, amongst saints and angels, devils and dragons, on the deep blue background, shone a handsome, calm, serene countenance of St Michael with raised sword in one hand and the embossed shield in the other. A visage of supreme beauty, somewhat androgynous as angels are, the serene St Michael knew no hate; fury clouded not his calm blue eyes. Anger furrowed not his brow crowned with cross, but his sword was not a toy and it was raised to smite.


Tucked away in a deep valley lies the Palestinian village of En Karim, where red and purple bunches of bougainvillea embrace its delightful Visitation Church, which marks the meeting of the two expecting mothers. In its second storey, there is a big painting of the Lepanto maritime battle, with the Virgin as the battle spirit, the Commander of the Celestial Army and the Defender of Faith, akin to the St Michael of Castilians, to Nike of Greeks and to Valkyries of the North; a manifestation of Christ, who said, 'I've brought you not peace but sword', the sword of St Michael.


The Christian faith contains seemingly contradictory ideas; this is one of its unique qualities. It includes the example of St Francis of Assisi who considered it his best pleasure to be humiliated and thrown into snow. But it also includes the risen sword of St Michael. These two opposites are harmonized by our love to God and to our fellow human being. This love can cause us to give everything including our life, and it can cause us to take life, as well.


As our friend and philosopher Michael Neumann eloquently stated, "Christianity is a religion of love, but not of cloying, hippy-dippy love. The repentant sinner is loved. The sinner persisting in sin is abhorred, but receives God's love if or when he receives the grace to repent. Think of Tertullian: what we learn on Judgment Day is who, in the end, is hated. We must always love our enemies, but not the enemies of God."


Too often, non-violence grows not out of humility and self-sacrifice, but out of self-preservation and fear, fear of supporting the right side in the war. It is easier to be "against wars and violence" in general than it is to stand against an aggressor and invader, especially if your country happens to be the aggressor and invader.


Thus, in Italy, Communist leader Fausto Bertinotti has proclaimed that he is "Against the Iraqi War for he is a pacifist and against wars in general'. After such a statement, he had no reason to demand the return home of Italian soldiers. And he did not. What a change for a party that had once taught the ringing words of that great rebel, Chairman Mao, "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun"!


True, the Italians have found themselves in a tight corner. For the second time in the last sixty years their country has chosen a wrong partner - two times too many! Sixty years ago, young Italian soldiers went with Hitler to Stalingrad; today, their sons and grandchildren proceed with Bush to Baghdad. Still, then as now, a painful duty of an Italian man of conscience is to wish the speedy victory to the people who shoot at Italian troops, be it Russian soldiers on Volga River or Iraqi resistance fighters on Euphrates.


Some wars are silly: nobody knows why the WWI was fought - there was not even a Helen to be brought home from the banks of Spree River. In such a war, one should not fight. But in this war we have a right and a wrong side, and we are duty bound to support right against wrong.


Regarding the Third World War waged in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is not enough to be "against the war" and preach non-violence "to both sides". One has to give full moral support to the fighters who resist the invader just as the Russians resisted the German and Italian aggression in WWII. In the same way, good Americans supported the Viet Cong against their own army; and good French - like our friends Ginette Scandrani and Serge Thion - supported the Algerian resistance. Pacifism offers a coward's escape from facing moral choice.


The moral record of pacifism is far from perfect. Many readers have heard of a wartime American book by a Dr. Kaufman who proposed to sterilize the Germans to get rid of the war drive. The German propaganda ministry reprinted this book by the millions to steel the spirit of their fighters and to remind them that they were defending not only their Fatherland but their Fatherhood as well. Not many people know that the same Dr. Kaufman proposed to sterilize Americans, too - he was a convinced pacifist and thought there was nothing like mass sterilization to bring universal peace.


Another great pacifist, Lord Bertrand Russell, advocated nuking Soviet Russia in order to bring peace. Father of non-violence Mahatma Gandhi advised the Jews to commit mass suicide to shame their Nazi oppressors, while his political career ended with one of the biggest massacres in human history. In short, pacifism is a quirky, doubtful and unsuccessful idea.


In the past, the enemies of Christ tried to convince Christians (in my view Muslims are Christians too, for they believe that Jesus is Christ) to accept non-violence and pacifism by various sophisms. The entertaining (if anti-Christian-to-extreme) Judaic best-seller of the fourth century, Toledot Yeshu, tells us of a cunning Jew who came to the first Christians and told them he was sent by Christ. He indoctrinated them (the book says) in the name of Jesus:


"Christ suffered in Jewish hands, but he did not resist. Likewise you should suffer whatever Jews do to you and not cause them any damage just like Jesus. If a Jew demands that you walk a mile, walk even two miles; if a Jew hurts you, do not hurt him back. If a Jew strikes your right cheek, offer him your left cheek out of your love to Jesus and do not cause Jews any trouble, big or small. If a Jew insults you, do not punish him but tell him: "It is your arrogance that speaks;" and let him go freely. If you want to be with Jesus in the Better World, you should suffer all the evil caused to you by Jews and repay them with good deeds and mercy".


We do not know whether such an indoctrination attempt ever took place in the murky years preceding Constantine's conversion, (the 4th Century AD is when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and Christianity became the official faith of the Roman Empire), but if such an attempt was made, it failed profoundly as many an insolent Jew learned to his peril. It is not that Christians forgot the words of Jesus (his pacific message did not relate to Jews in particular), but the Christian faith is not a collection of his sayings; it is manifested in the living body of the church, in her doctrine and praxis, and it includes the flowers of St Francis and the sword of St Michael.


The society, like everything in the universe, is in the best state when there is a balance between the yin (the passive, female principle) and yang (the active, masculine principle). Christendom was powerful when its yang was strong. Then, the church blessed many warriors and was blessed by them. St George the Dragon Slayer and St Joan of Arc wielded sword. The Western Church knew Knights Templar and St John's, and the Eastern Church venerates St Alexander Nevsky who defeated the Germans and St Sergius who prayed for victory over the Tartars. For war may have a spiritual meaning; and we may acknowledge that "war is a possible ascetical and immortalizing path", as Julius Evola summed up the medieval Christian tradition. Our Muslim brothers implied it by their double concept of a Minor Jihad (war for faith against the oppressor) and the Major Jihad (war for faith in the soul of man).


Now yin element won over the spirit of the west, while its natural un-subdued yang parted with harmony. The Peace movement is dominated by women, and it is not a coincidence. In his article Little Old Ladies for Peace, the reviewer of the Pardes, Owen Owens notes the makeup of the Peace Camp crowd as "female, old and short". For sure they are blessed, but their prevalence is a sign of misbalance. Beside the Yin Peace Movement, there is - or there should be - the Yang Victory Movement. They, the fighters with AK machineguns cautiously treading the narrow streets of Nablus or Faluja, the French farmers of Bove crushing McDonalds with their bulldozers, the demonstrators of Seattle and Genoa, partisans of Che Guevara and rebels of Mishima are the latter day Christ warriors, holding out against the ultimate anti-Christian force in the history of Christendom. Hail the warriors; hang not on their shooting arm. Maybe we won't have peace; but we'll have victory.


http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Ins...aintMichael.htm

I understand that Islam is not the Quran alone but is made up of a lot of different things including the hadith and sunnah. I have questions about all of them that maybe someone can help me with.


1. If the Quran is complete, the "final guidance" for mankind, and it commands people to pray, why does it not, then, instruct people HOW to pray? This is learned mainly from sunnah, I believe. Meaning, in most cases someone else has to teach any new Muslim how to pray.


If the details are not contained in the Quran which are supposed to be the direct words of God, then is it really necessary to go through all the rituals and movements? Why wouldn't God be pleased just that we are communicating with him and why would his word need people to explain it?


2. My other issue (at present) is about a hadith I read that seems rather odd to me. And that's an understatement. It seems like make believe.

Quote:Allah's Apostle said, "(The Prophet) Moses was a shy person and used to cover his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the children of Israel hurt him by saying, 'He covers his body in this way only because of some defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other defect.' Allah wished to clear Moses of what they said about him, so one day while Moses was in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone and started taking a bath. When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his clothes so as to take them, but the stone took his clothes and fled; Moses picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying, 'O stone! Give me my garment!' Till he reached a group of Bani Israel who saw him naked then, and found him the best of what Allah had created, and Allah cleared him of what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moses took and put his garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allah, the stone still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks. THIS IS WAS WHAT ALLAH REFERS TO IN HIS SAYING:-- "O you who believe! Be you not like those Who annoyed Moses, But Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, And he was honorable In Allah's Sight."

<b>I'd rather kill myself than remove veil, woman tells court </b>


27.10.2004


1.00pm - By ELIZABETH BINNING


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...section=general


A Muslim woman has told a court she would rather kill herself than give evidence without wearing a veil.


Fouzya Salim was questioned for an hour and a half today at the Auckland District Court on why she should be allowed to continue wearing the veil when she gives evidence in an insurance fraud case.


Judge Lindsay Moore has agreed to permit the veil during today's hearing before deciding whether to allow it when he hears the case.


Defence lawyer Colin Amery does not want Mrs Salim or Feraiba Razamjoo - the sister of his client - to wear veils when they give evidence against Abdul Razamjoo.


The women wear burqas whenever they are outside the home, but Mr Amery said the court could not assess the women's demeanour as they gave evidence if their faces were covered.


But Mrs Salim today told the court: "I would rather kill myself than uncover my face and sit here."


She said it would be too embarrassing to appear in public with her face uncovered. She also expressed discomfort at being in the same room as the defendant.


Her husband yesterday said that the wearing of veils was a part of Muslim culture. "It's our tradition, our religion, our culture. We have to respect and try to protect it," Mr Salim said.


His wife, who was born in Afghanistan, always wore her burqa in public. She would consider venturing out without it only in an extreme emergency.


She did not cover her face inside the home, but none of Mr Salim's male friends or extended family were allowed to see her. When visitors came, men and women sat in different rooms.


If Mr Razamjoo did see Mrs Salim's face, it would be the ultimate embarrassment for the entire Salim family, ruining their reputation and dignity.


The hearing continues.