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.

Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 70's there has been a magnifying glass placed over the status of muslim women. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass that has been used is an unusual one. Unusual in the sense that it is very selective about which items it will magnify; other items it will distort to such a degree that they will no longer look familiar. I remember once reading in an "in depth" article about the lives of muslim women. This article "explained" that at any time a man can divorce his wife by simply stating "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you". This article can lead anyone ignorant of the Islamic ruling regarding divorce to believe that in less than five seconds the woman is left with no husband and is left to care for herself (and possibly children) by any means necessary. The question that immediately popped up in my mind was, "Did the author innocently write that out of sincere ignorance or was it another of the many attempts to degrade the religion of Islam and its followers (muslims)?" It may be my own paranoia, but I tend to believe it was the latter of the two.


The truth of the matter is that Islam has the most humane and most just system of divorce that exists. Firstly, many options are taken and tried before coming to the decision of the divorce. If the man and woman decide that they can no longer live together successfully as a husband and wife, the husband (in most cases, not always) pronounces the divorce by saying "I divorce you". At this point the waiting period begins. The waiting period lasts for three menstrual cycles to assure the woman is not pregnant. This period allows the couple time to think about what they are doing and if this is what they really want to do. There are no lawyers involved to antagonize an already delicate situation.


In the case that it is realized, that the woman is pregnant, the waiting period lasts the entire time she is pregnant. During the waiting period (whether the woman is pregnant or not) the man is obligated to provide food, clothing and shelter to the woman as he did before the divorce pronouncement. If the couple carries the divorce through to the birth of the child and the woman suckles the baby, the man is obligated to feed and clothe both his ex-wife for the time the woman suckles (the maximum being two years). After this weaning, the child will be provided for by the father until he/she is no longer in need of support.


It is quite ironic that in such an "advanced society" as America, there are divorce cases in which women are being forced to pay alimony to their ex-husbands. Can this and many other things we know about the American system of divorce compare to the Islamic system of divorce?


I have also read stories wherein it is stated that women are forced to marry men without their consent. This in no way resembles the marriage system in Islam. In Islam the woman marries the man of her choice. She may even marry someone that her mother and/or father objects to. The point is that it is the woman who makes the final decision as to whom she will marry. Once the man and the woman decide that they are interested in one another for marriage, a dowry is decided upon. A dowry is not a brides price but, it is a gift from the groom to the bride. They agree upon a gift that is affordable by the groom. In the time of the Prophet (sas), often things such as livestock and money were given. This is a wise decision in the event that a woman becomes divorced or widowed, she has some financial security to fall back on even if it is for a limited amount of time. Once the man and woman are married, the man is required to clothe, feed, shelter and educate her (or allow her to be educated) in the same manner as he does himself.


The last distorted image that I will cover is that of the muslim women's dress. The western influenced media portrays our dress to be outdated and oppressive. Needless to say however, I differ with these adjectives. Our dress code does not hinder us from doing anything productive in our lives. Muslim women maintain a variety of jobs, non of which are devalued nor hampered due to their dress code. And as for the timing of muslims women's dress during these contemporary times, it seems most appropriate due to decreasing morals in the world today.


For those who say that Islamic dress is outdated, they speak from great ignorance. The decreasing molarity and trials of this time makes Hijaab even more in need. More than ever before sex crimes are rampant. Although this society tells women they can wear what they want to wear, anytime a rape occurs the woman is the one put on trial an one of the first questions is, "What were you wearing?" This concept seems as though it is a set up directed against the so called contemporary woman. Also there is a direct correlation between the respect a man has for a woman and the amount of her body her body she displays flauntigly.


(Written by a Christian convert)

One of Sayyid Qutb’s masterpieces – Now translated into English “The Religion of Islam”, is a fascinating study of Islam as “The Deen (complete way of life)”, and not just a religion of some rituals, as Christianity and Judaism are.


http://www.geocities.com/abyassin/Qutb1.html

Has anyone ever purchased any clothing from SHUKR Islamic Clothing
? Their URL is: www.shukronline.com
.

Has anyone ever purchased any clothing from SHUKR Islamic Clothing
? Their URL is: www.shukronline.com
.

Has anyone ever purchased any clothing from SHUKR Islamic Clothing
? Their URL is: www.shukronline.com
.

Has anyone ever purchased any clothing from SHUKR Islamic Clothing
? Their URL is: www.shukronline.com
.

"Israel does not spy on the United States of America." - Mark Regev, a spokesman at the Israeli embassy in Washington


Prior to 9/11, the FBI had discovered the presence of a massive spy ring inside the United States run by the government of Israel. This seems a harsh gratitude from a nation, which obtains 10% of its annual budget from the American taxpayer, $3+ billion a year. Over the years, American taxpayers have been required to send Israel more than four times what the US spent to go to the moon.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html


Salaam, Shalom, etc