Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username/Email:
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 566
» Latest member: max9090c
» Forum threads: 3,614
» Forum posts: 29,360

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 58 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 56 Guest(s)
Bing, Facebook

Latest Threads
About the Noble Quran
Forum: Islam
Last Post: Muslimah
08-16-2026, 08:44 PM
» Replies: 64
» Views: 63,576
Egypt Earthquake: A Remin...
Forum: General
Last Post: Muslimah
08-15-2026, 01:45 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 66
Consider Verse 14, Surat ...
Forum: Islam
Last Post: Abu Hafsat
08-06-2026, 02:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 44
Penalty of converting to ...
Forum: Discussion of Beliefs
Last Post: Hassan Al Zahrani
08-05-2026, 12:41 PM
» Replies: 73
» Views: 52,473
What Happens When You Say...
Forum: "And remind for reminding benefit the believers
Last Post: Abu Hafsat
08-04-2026, 11:46 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 89
Are You That Strong?
Forum: Islam
Last Post: Abu Hafsat
08-04-2026, 11:42 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 46
Return and Repent!!
Forum: Islam
Last Post: Abu Hafsat
08-04-2026, 11:25 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42
The Power of Istighfar.
Forum: Islam
Last Post: Abu Hafsat
08-04-2026, 07:09 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 40
Question for Muslims
Forum: Discussion of Beliefs
Last Post: Hassan Al Zahrani
08-02-2026, 03:14 PM
» Replies: 139
» Views: 117,344
Can I Read the Quran if I...
Forum: Islam
Last Post: Hassan Al Zahrani
08-02-2026, 02:55 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 45

  Human Right And Dignity
Posted by: safayat - 06-25-2004, 03:28 PM - Forum: General - Replies (3)


On the 10th of December 1948, the United Nations Organization passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But Islam has asserted these human rights before more than 14 centuries ago. Allah Almighty ordains in the Quran, “We have honored the sons of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors above a great part of Our Creation.” (17:70).Islam also honored by prohibiting degrading, disdaining, humiliating or calling him bad names, Allah ordains: “O ye who believe! let not some men among you laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor let some women laugh at others: it may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames: Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness (to be used of one) after he has believed: And those who do not desist are (Indeed) doing wrong.” (49:11).


Allah honored man by creating him in the ever best shape, Allah ordains: “He has created the heavens and the earth in just proportions and has given you shape and made your shapes beautiful: and to Him is the final Goal.” ( 64:3). Allah has honered man and asked him alone and not to bow down to any one but him. Allah says, “ No partner hath He: this am I commanded and I am the first of those who bow to His Will.” (6:163). Allah honored by prohibiting any wordings or acts that effects mans dignity Allah says: “O ye who believe! avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: and spy not on each other nor speak ill of each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay ye would abhor it...but fear Allah: for Allah is Oft-Returning Most Merciful.O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” ( 49 12-13).


This is the dignity of mankind being in the holy Quran ultimately which asserted in the Article 1 of the UNO declaration. Allah says: all human beings in general as the sons of Adam, these generality indicates that all human beings are treated on equal footing. Allah says in this regard: “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” (49:13). Also Muhammad (Sm) said in his last sermon that: “You are all equal. Nobody has superiority over other except by piety and good action.”


MAN’S RIGHTS FOR PROPERTY:


Islam prohibited trespass and laid down the guarantees for the protection of the properties. Allah says: “O ye who believe! eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: but let there be amongst you traffic and trade by mutual good-will: nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful.: (4:29).


Allah also said: “That they took usury (interest) though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men's substance wrongfully; We have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.” (4:161).


RIGHT OF THE ORPHANS:


UDHR has in the child right as it provided in Article 25. Islam explicitly distinguished for giving especial care for orphans as so many versus: “To orphans restore their property (when they reach their age) nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.” (4:2).


RIGHT OF INHERITANCE


The Holy Quran have given great impact on right of Inheritance, Allah says, “From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women whether the property be small or large a determinate share.” (4:7)


THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENCE:


In Quran there are so many verses recognizing the legality of the right of self defence. Allah says: “The prohibited month for the prohibited month and so for all things prohibited there is the law of equality.If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (2:194).


RIGHT FOR AMNESTY:


Mans right for Amnesty is one of the important right that Islam has dealt with, while its ignored by UDHR. Islam has encouraged man to promote the value of forgiveness and tolerance between the individuals and clans without succumbing to evils or aggressors. Allah Almighty has mentioned the necessity of fighting enmity and aggression with favor and good forgiveness without surrendering or yielding thereto, so many verses in the holly Quran have induced the people to apply these refined and sophisticated values Allah ordains: “Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!”(41:34).Also:” We created not the heavens the earth and all between them but for just ends. And the Hour is surely coming (when this will be manifest). So overlook (any human faults) with gracious forgiveness”(15:85}.Also:” When those come to thee who believe in Our Signs say: "Peace be on you: your Lord had inscribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy: verily if any of you did evil in ignorance and thereafter repented and amended (his conduct) lo! He is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful “(6:54).


FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION


Islam has provided for the freedom of thought and expression from an Islamic point of view. Islam beliefs freedom of thought and expression means that a person can have complete freedom in saying the truth and advice in all worldly and spiritual matters for the purpose of serving the benefit of the humanity and protect the interest of both the individual and the community This freedom must be within the framework of the virtue and containment of vices. “Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best who have strayed from His Path and who receive guidance”(16:125).Allah also says, “Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!”(41:34}.in order to protect the individual in the human community,Allah says, “Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech except where injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth all things”(4:148).Allah also says, “Those who love (to see) scandal published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows and ye know not”(24:19).


According to Islam everybody has the right to freedom of faith and they will not subject to compulsion. Allah ordains, “If it had been the Lord's Will they would all have believed all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe!”(10:99). Allah also says, “Here is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who reject false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.”(2: 256).


PUBLIC HEALTH


Islam is keen for the protection of the public health and the protection of human community from poverty and ignorance. The prophet is reported to have said:”If you hear that there is an epidemic disease that strikes a certain region, do not enter that region and if it hits your zone you must not leave the area fleeing therefrom”(Narrated by Imam Ahmed).


JUSTICE


Islam establishes equality in the field of justice, Allah says,” O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allah even as against yourselves or your parents or your kin and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest ye swerve and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do”(4:134).


EDUCATION


Education is an obligatory duty for everybody, Prophet said”The search of education is a mandatory duty on every Muslim(Narrated by Ibn Majah).Alahh says “O ye who believe! When ye are told to make room in the assemblies (spread out and) make room: (Ample) room will Allah provide for you. And when ye are told to rise up rise up: Allah will raise up to (suitable) ranks (and degrees) those of you who believe and who have been granted Knowledge: and Allah is well-acquainted with all ye do”(58:11)..


ANTI TERRORISM


Islam does not allow indiscipline and terrorism. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Squander not your wealth among yourselves in vanity, except it be a trade by mutual consent, and kill not one another. Lo! Allah is ever Merciful unto you.”( 4.29};Allah also ordains, “Whoso intervene in a good cause will have the reward thereof, and whoso interveneth in an evil cause will bear the consequence thereof. Allah oversees all things.”(Quran;sura Nisa 4 verse;85). “O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you,in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.”(Sura Hujrat49 verse13).[/size][/size][/b][/b]

Print this item

  60 Questions For The Christians
Posted by: abu-salih - 06-25-2004, 10:45 AM - Forum: Discussion of Beliefs - Replies (53)


In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful


60 Questions For


The Christians


TRINITY


According to most Christians, Jesus was God incarnate, full man and full God. Can the finite and the infinite be one? "To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.


1.To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son. How could Jesus have the attributes of sonship and divinity altogether?


2.Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: "He that has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?


3.Christians say that Jesus was God because he was called Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, and "savior". Ezekiel was addressed in the Bible as Son of Man. Jesus spoke of "the peace makers" as Sons of God. Any person who followed the Will and Plan of God was called SON OF GOD in the Jewish tradition and in their language (Genesis 6:2,4; Exodus 4:22; Psalm 2:7; Romans 8:14). "Messiah" which in Hebrew means "God’s anointed" and not "Christ", and "Cyrus" the person is called "Messiah" or "the anointed". As for "savior", in II KINGS 13:5, other individuals were given that title too without being gods. So where is the proof in these terms that Jesus was God when the word son is not exclusively used for him alone?


4.Christians claim that Jesus acknowledged that he and God were one in the sense of nature when he says in John 10:30 "I and my father are one". Later on in John 17:21-23, Jesus refers to his followers and himself and God as one in five places. So why did they give the previous "one" a different meaning from the other five "ones?


5.Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?


6.If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the "father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord ? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?


7.If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?


8.If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrect ion?


9.Christians say that: "The Father(F) is God, the Son(S) is God, and the Holy Ghost(H) is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father". In simple arithmetic and terms therefore, if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H (meaning, "not equal"). Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself ?


10.If Jesus was God, why did he tell the man who called him "good master" not to call him "good" because accordingly, there is none good but his God in Heaven alone?


11.Why do Christians say that God is three-in-one and one in three when Jesus says in Mark 12:29: "The Lord our God is one Lord" in as many places as yet in the Bible?


12.If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time? How were those followers of Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would have taught and explained it in detail to the people.


13.Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is John speaking and not Jesus. Also, the Greek word for the first occurrence of God is HOTHEOS which means "the God" or "God" with a capital "G", while the Greek word for its second occurrence is "TONTHEOS", which means "a god " or "god" with a small "g". Isn’t this dishonesty and inconsistency on the part of those translating the Greek Bible? ? Isn’t such quotation in John 1:1 recognized by every Christian scholar of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named Philo Alexandria way before Jesus and John?


14.Wasn’t the word "god" or "TONTHEOS" also used to refer to others as well as in II Corinthians 4:4 "(and the Devil is) the god of this world" and in Exodus 7:1 "See , I have made thee (Moses ) a god to Pharaoh"?


SALVATION:


Christians say that "GOD LOST His only son to save us". To whom did God lose Jesus if he owns the whole universe?


15. If it was agreeable with God’s Majesty to have sons, He could have created a million sons the like of Jesus. So what is the big clear deal about this only son?


16.Why does the Bible say that Jesus wanted to die on the cross, when the one on the cross was shouting "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33?


17. If God had wanted to save us, couldn’t He have done that without sacrificing Jesus?


18. God is Just, and justice requires that nobody should be punished for the sins of others, nor should some people be saved by punishing other people. Doesn’t the claim that God sacrificed Jesus to save us because He was Just, contradict the definition of justice?


19. People sacrifice things they have to get something they don’t have when they can’t have both. Christians say that "God SACRIFICED His only son to save us". We know that God is Almighty; to whom did He sacrifice Jesus?


20. A real sacrifice is when you can’t get back what you have offered , so what would be the big deal about such a sacrifice if God could recover the same offering? (according to the Christians’ terminology)?


21. If all the Christians are saved through Jesus and are going to Heaven no matter what they do, then the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant and the definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant. If this is not so, then do Christians who believe in Jesus yet do not follow his teachings nor repent go to Hell?


22. How can Christians take deeds as irrelevant after becoming one when Jesus says in Matthew 12:36; "But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by the words thou shalt be condemned"?


23. Christians say that people go to Heaven ONLY THROUGH JESUS, yet Paul says in 1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-16 that the unbelieving husband is acceptable to God because he is united with his wife and vice versa, and their pagan children are also acceptable to God. So people can go to heaven without believing in Jesus according to this.


24. How come the Bible says that ALL Israel is saved although they don’t believe in Jesus? Doesn’t that contradict the claim in the Bible that the only way to heaven is through Jesus?


25. According to Christians, those who have not been baptized will go to Hell. So even the infants and babies go to Hell if not baptized, since they are born with an inherited original sin. Doesn’t this contradict the definition of justice? Why would God punish people for sins they never committed?


HOLY SPIRIT:


The only place in the Bible where the Paraclete was called the Holy Spirit is in John 14:26 "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". What has the Holy Spirit brought or taught for the last 2000 years?


26.Christians say that the Paraclete means the Holy Spirit (John 14;26). Jesus said in John 16:7-8 "If I do not go away the Paraclete will not come to you". This could not mean the Holy spirit, since the Holy spirit was said to have been there before Jesus was even born as in Luke 1:41 "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit". Here, the Holy spirit was also present during Jesus life time. So how could this fit with the condition that Jesus must go away so that the Holy spirit will come?


27.In John 16:7-8, it says: "But if go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of sins and of righteousness and of Judgment". What do "he" and "him" refer here? Don’t they refer to a man?


28.Does the Holy Spirit talk to good Christians and bad Christians as well? Is the Holy spirit with them all the time or just at certain times? When does it start visiting a person who wants to become a Christian?


29.How can you as a Christian tell if the Holy Spirit is inside another Christian? How come many Christians fooled people by claiming that the Holy spirit was inside them only to be converted to another religion later on ?


30.Does the Holy Spirit dictate what Christians should do without choice or freedom at all or does it only guide them and they have the freedom to follow or not ?


31.If the Holy Spirit dictates what Christian should do, why do Christians commit sins and make mistakes ? How can you explain the conversion to other religions and atheism of many Christians? Are they told to do that by the Holy Spirit?


32.If the Holy Spirit guides Christians only, and they are free to do what they want, then how do we know that the writers of the Gospels didn’t make mistakes in writing them?


33.If Christians believe that the Holy Spirit comes and talks to them everyday, why don’t they ask the Holy Spirit about which version of the Bible to follow since there are too many versions floating around?


MISSION OF JESUS:


Without borrowing from other religions and systems, can Christianity provide people with a complete way of life? Since Christianity is limited to spiritual life and does not provide law, how can a society decide which laws are right or wrong?


34.Why do the Christians say that Jesus came with a universal mission when he said that he was sent to the Jews only? He said to the Canaanite woman who asked him to heal her daughter from demon-possession: "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel" and also said: "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs", Matthew 15:21-28.


RESSURECTION:


If you read Matthew (28:1-10), Mark (16:1-20), Luke (24:1-12), and John (20: 1-18), you will find contradicting stories. They all agreed that the tomb was guarded for three days. However, they reported the discovery of the empty tomb differently.


Matthew (28) and John (20) reported that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the first to discover the tomb.


Mark (16) reports that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were the first to discover the empty tomb.


Mark (28) reports that there was an earthquake that removed the rock from over the tomb. He says that an angel caused it. The other gospels do not mention of an earthquake.


Matthew and Mark say that only ONE man in white clothes was sitting on the tomb when the woman arrived, and that he was an angel.


Luke says that TWO men in white clothes, who were angels, were sitting. Johns says that the two women did not meet anybody the first time they came to the tomb, but when they returned, they saw TWO people, ONE was an ANGEL, and the other was JESUS.


Matthew reports that when the guards reported this to the chief priest, the chief priest paid them a large sum of money, telling them: "You have to say that his disciples came at night and stole his body." He claims that the soldiers took money and spread the story around and since then, the story had been circulating among the Jews until today (according to Matthew). The other gospels do not report of any such thing.


35. Which narration now is more authentic?


36.Why is the appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion taken as a proof of his resurrection when there is an explanation that he was not dead because someone else was crucified in his place when God saved Him?


37.How did Matthew know of the claimed agreement between the soldiers and the chief priest? Can’t someone say that someone paid the women a large sum of money and told them to spread the word around that Jesus rose from the dead, with the same authenticity as that of the story of Matthew?


38.Why did they believe that man in the white clothes? Why did they believe he was an angel? John’s narration is too strange, since he says that Mary did not recognize Jesus (one of the two) while talking to him, and she only recognized him when he called her by her name.


39.How does an empty tomb prove that Jesus was crucified ? Isn’t it that God is capable of removing another man from the tomb, and of resurrecting him too?


40.The Gospels are believed to be the verbatim words of God, they are supposed to be dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Disciples who wrote them. If the source were the same, why shouldn’t they correspond with each other in reporting such an important event?


41.How could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be considered eyewitnesses of resurrection when the Bible implies that nobody at all saw Jesus coming out of the tomb?


BIBLE:


If the Christians consider the Old Testament as God’s Word, why did they cancel the parts of the Old Testament that dealt with punishment (example: the punishment for adultery)?


42.Why doesn’t Mark 16:9-20 exist in as many versions of the Bible while it exists as a footnote or between brackets in some other versions? Is a footnote in the Bible still considered as God’s word, especially when it addresses an important feature like the Ascension?


43.Why does the Catholic Bible contain 73 books while the Protestant Bible has only 66? With both claiming to have the complete Word of God, which one should be believed and why?


44.Where do those new translations of the Bible keep coming from when the original Bible is not even available ? The Greek manuscripts which are translations themselves are not even similar with each other.


45.How can you take two gospels from writers who never met Jesus, like Mark and Luke?


46.Why is half of the New Testament written by a man who never even met Jesus in his lifetime? PAUL claimed with no proof that he had met Jesus while on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus. PAUL was the main enemy of Christianity. Isn’t that reason enough to question the authenticity of what he wrote? Why do the Christians call those books of the Old Testament "God’s Word" when the revisors of the RSV Bible say that some of the authors are UNKNOWN? They say that the author of SAMUEL is "UNKNOWN" and that of CHRONICLES is "UNKOWN, PROBABLY COLLECTED AND EDITED BY EZRA"!


CONTRADICTIONS:


47.Concerning the controversial issues in the Bible, how can Christians decide by two-thirds majority what is God’s Word and what is not, as the prefaces of some Bibles say like that one of the RSV ?


48.Why does Luke in his gospel report the Ascension on Easter Day, and in the Acts, in which he is recognized as the author, FORTY days later?


49.The genealogy of Jesus is mentioned in Matthew and Luke only. Matthew listed 26 forefathers from Joseph to David while Luke enumerated 41 forefathers. Only Joseph matches with Joseph in those two lists. Not a single other name matches! If these were inspired by God word by word, how could they be different? Some claim that one is for Mary and one is for Joseph, but where does it says Mary in those two Gospels?


50.If Moses wrote the first books of the Old Testament, how could Moses write his own obituary? Moses died in the fifth book at age 120 as mentioned in Deut. 34:5-10.


51.In the King James Version, why does it report SEVEN years of famine in II SAMUEL 24:13 while it reports THREE years of famine in I CHRONICLES 21:12? Why did they change both to THREE years in the New International Version and other versions?


52.Still In the same King James Version, why does it say that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign in II CHRONICLES 21:12, while it says EIGHTEEN years in II KINGS 24:8? Why did thessey change in both to EIGHTEEN in the new Versions?


53.In all versions, why does it say that David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN as evidenced in II Samuel 10:18 while its says SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, in I CHRONICLES 19:18?


54.In all versions, why does it report TWO thousand baths in I KINGS 7:26 while II CHRONICLES 4:5 reports THREE THOUSAND?


55.In the King James version, why does it report that Solomon had FOUR THOUSAND stalls for horses in II CHRONICLES 9:25 while it accounts that Solomon had FORTY THOUSAND stalls of horses in 1 KINGS 4:26? Why did they change both to FOUR THOUSAND in the new versions?


56.In GENESIS 1, God’s creation progresses from grass to trees to fowls, whales, cattle and creeping things and finally to man and woman. GENESIS 2, however, puts the creation of man before cattle and fowl and woman subsequent to beast. How can this be explained?


QUR’AN AND CHRISTIANS


This section does not inquire or interrogate, but rather provides the reader with some of the Qur’anic verses that address the Christians in particular, and the people of the scripture in general. A great portion of the Qur’an pertains to or involves the Christians and the Jews and I decided to just choose verses that are related to the topic of this manuscript.


"Lo! The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then said unto him: Be, and he was." Al-Qur’an 3:59.


"Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for Lords besides Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto him).


"O People of the Scripture! Why will you argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were revealed till after him? Have you then no sense?


Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.


Lo! Those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who followed him, and his Prophet and those who believe (with him); and Allah is the Protector of the believers.


A party of the People of the Scripture longs to make you go astray; and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not.


O People of the Scripture! Why disbelieve you in the revelations of Allah, when you (yourselves) bear witness to their truth?


O People of the Scriptures! Why confound you truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the Truth? (Al-Qur’an 3: 64-71)


And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the hereafter, He will be one of the losers (Al-Qur’an 3:85).


And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, and Allah’s messenger. They slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them, and Lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain:


But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (Al-Qur’an 4:157-158).


O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter ought concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him, so believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three"! Cease! (it is ) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as defender.


The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favored angels. Whosoever scorns His service and is proud, all such will assemble unto Him.


Then, as for those who believed and did good works, unto them will He give them their wages in full, adding unto them of His bounty; and as for those who were scornful and proud, then He will punish with a painful doom." (Al-Qur’an 4:171-173).


"And with those who say Lo! We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.


O People of the Scripture! Now has our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now has come unto light from Allah and plain scripture:


Whereby Allah guides him who seeks His good pleasure unto paths of peace, He brings them out of darkness unto light by His decree, and guides them unto a Straight Path.


They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah if he had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah’s is the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He creates what he wills. And Allah is able to do all things. (Al-Qur’an 5:14:17).


"They surely disbelieve who say; Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O children if Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and you Lord. Lo! Whosoever ascribes partners unto Allah, for him Allah has forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evildoers ,there will be no helpers.


They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of the three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying, a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.


Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.


Say: Serve you in place of Allah that which possesses for you neither hurt nor use? Allah is the Hearer, the Knower.


Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the Truth, and follow not the vain desire of folks who erred of old and led many astray, and erred from a plain road." (Al-Qur’an 5:72-77)


"And when Allah says: O Jesus, son of Mary: Did you say unto mankind: take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?, he says: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then You Knew it, You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Your mind. Lo! You, only You, are the knower of things hidden.


I spoke unto them only that which You commanded me (saying); worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when You took me, You were the Watcher over them. You are witness over all things.


If You punish them, Lo! They are Your slaves, and if you forgive them (Lo! They are Your slaves). Lo! You, only you are the Mighty, the Wise.


Allah says: This is a day in which their truthfulness profits the truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure forever, Allah taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph. (Al-Qur’an 5:116-119)


"And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah’, and the Christians say: ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah fights against them. How perverse they are!


They have taken as Lord besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partners (unto him)!


Faint would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdains (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.


He it is Who has sent His messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to cause it to prevail over all religions, however much the idolaters may be averse.


O you who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (people) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom.


On the Day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of Hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which you hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what you used to hoard." (Al-Qur’an 9:30-35).


MUHAMMAD OR JESUS?


Christians claim that the prophecy in Deut. 18:18 refers to Jesus and not Muhammad. The verse says: "I will raise them up a prophet from among THEIR BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO THEE, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The only reason they resort to such interpretation is that both Moses and Jesus were prophets. Even this one contradicts their claim that Jesus was God and not a Prophet. Many prophets of the Jews had the similarity with Moses. However, if we compare Muhammad to Moses, we will find that:


Muhammad was an Arab, and the Arabs are from Ishmael, son of Abraham, while Moses was a Jew, and the Jews are from Isaac, son of Abraham. Hence, the term THEIR BRETHREN refers to the children of the first son being brethren of the children of the other. This couldn’t apply to Jesus, since he was a Jew.


According to the Christians, Jesus went to Hell for three days while Moses did not. Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses. (In Islam, none of the three Prophets went to Hell)


Moses and Muhammad were born to fathers and mothers while Jesus was born to a mother alone.


Moses and Muhammad got married and had children, while Jesus did not marry at all.


Moses and Muhammad got problems and difficulties from their people initially, but were accepted by them at the end., whereas Jesus was rejected by his people at the start and is still rejected by the Jews until today. "He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not".( John 1:11)


Moses and Muhammad had power, besides being prophets. They both performed some capital punishments, for example, while Jesus had no power over his people. "My kingdom is not of this world", Jesus said in John 18:36 .


Moses and Muhammad brought new laws while Jesus did not.


Moses was forced to emigrate in adulthood to Median while Muhammad was forced to emigrate at that stage in his life too, towards Madina . Whereas Jesus did not have such forced emigration in his adulthood .


Moses and Muhammad both died of natural deaths after which they were buried ,while the same could not be said of Jesus. He was neither killed nor crucified at all, according to the Qur’an and did not die a ‘natural’ death as could be affirmed by Christians who believe in Crucifixion.


FINAL QUESTIONS:


57.Why won’t you, Christian reader, come to hear and learn of the true religion of Jesus?


58.Have you, as a Christian , learned of Islam and if so, was it from the true Muslims?


59.As a Christian, do you agree that out of fairness and honesty you must investigate what Islam says about God, Jesus, including this life and the hereafter?


60.Being a Christian, do you also believe that we must all stand accountable to our Creator and that the Creator is Perfect and Just? As a sincere believer in God, don’t you owe it upon yourself to find out the entire unadulterated truth regardless of the consequences?

Print this item

  Urgent
Posted by: abu-salih - 06-25-2004, 10:33 AM - Forum: General - No Replies


salam alikum


to whom it may cncern in this sites { http://www.virtualcountries.com )islam is attacked by many christians and jewsh so only 2 muslims sunny are working against those . so please have atime and visit those sites and stand with kazanova3
and his brother KI UR HELP IS REALY NEEDED if and only if u can answer thier questions and u must be cool towards thim (kazanova3 since 4 yrs is working by help pof ALLAH swt towards thim so if u have the ability please help and jazak ALLAH khair . by the way when u visit above site DON'T forget to go to DISSCUSION board and select religion fourm . i knew that kazanova3 is going in vacation and he is in need for some brothers and sisters to stand with him against those ..


my ALLAH SWT PROTECT U ALL { note for example go to www.russia.com then discussion board {religion form }


salam alikum

Print this item

  Wrecking Crews Of Kashgar
Posted by: uyghur - 06-24-2004, 05:18 PM - Forum: Current Affairs - No Replies


East Turkistan(Xinjiang)'s culture being 'renovated' by Han majority


Chinese version of progress rankles Muslim minority


ANDREW CHUNG


SPECIAL TO THE STAR


KASHGAR—The Chinese word chai is made up of seven brush strokes that obliquely slash their way through each other, perhaps fittingly, since it means, "demolish."


Recently, the word was ominously painted upon dozens of mud-and-brick homes and businesses in the old Uighur neighbourhoods that make up the heart of this dusty frontier city, warning, like gang-markings for death, of their impending destruction.


Kashgar, once a Silk Road oasis on the fringes of China's northwest Xinjiang province, is under renovation.


Hundreds of traditional buildings have already been knocked down, and along with them their distinctive Uighur and Arabic architecture that evokes hundreds of years of history — the very things tourists come so far to see.


The government has also started renovating around the 15th-century Id Kah mosque — the largest Muslim worship site in China where hundreds of new stores and restaurants soon will convert the environs into a commercial magnet.


It's not surprising that China's relentless economic rise would reach its hinterland.


But the transformation, so welcome in other cities, is only making the relationship between the Chinese and Kashgar's independence-minded Uighurs — marred over the years by bombings, violence and death — worse than it already is.


"I am very worried that I will have to move far away," says Tursan, a silk and fabric seller.


"We have no other choice but to accept it. We're afraid to disagree."


Most Uighurs walking along Chasa Rd. — amid the familiar din of ruddy-faced men pounding copper, the thick smoke of charred lamb and the whiff of spiced tea — don't want their full names published, saying they fear recriminations for criticizing government policy.


All along its median, though, Uighur men — and boys — are ripping up the dirt road in preparation for a wide, new paved one. Buildings have been marked for demolition.


"When my shop is destroyed, what will I do?" a shoemaker asks. "How will I earn a living? I am so poor as it is. Just look at my own shoes."


Indeed, his toes peek out of broken, leather flaps.


"I'm not against development," he says. "But most Uighurs in Kashgar are very poor. Now, they are destroying what little we have."


For some, the old heart of Kashgar is a beautiful snapshot of history; for others, it's an eyesore.


The earthy brown adobe dwellings, some set high on lumpy hills, stand peacefully along narrow, winding alleyways that, during the day, alternate dim shade and blinding sunlight.


Most of the homes have no toilets or even running water.


Walls are slowly crumbling and nearly everyone complains they are too small.


"Some places are not safe," says driver Akbar Ablimit, who recently moved into a modern apartment and sends his children to Chinese schools.


"The government is doing a good job cleaning up the city."


Some areas will be improved rather than demolished. And residents forced to move will, in theory, be given compensation. In practice, however, many families fall through the gaps.


Even those who counsel the government on tourism issues fear it is moving too fast.


"I have advised them not to destroy too much," says John Hun, a major tour operator. "Otherwise, they will look back and say, `Where is the history?'"


One travel agent rubs his fingers together and says: "A lot of people are making a lot of money off this."


For the majority of Uighurs, Kashgar's renovation is simply another slap in the face.


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


`There are Uighurs in government, but we all know they are just dolls'


Yasin, restaurant waiter in Kashgar


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


Their identity, based on their Turkic-language and Islamic faith, is ethnically entirely distinct from that of the Han Chinese — the country's majority ethnic group.


And Kashgar is as far away from Beijing, China's capital, as Vancouver is from Toronto.


Uighurs have been struggling for independence since the 18th century, when the region they call "East Turkestan" was swallowed by the Qing dynasty.


There is a fierce mistrust of the Han, who for years have migrated — with Beijing's encouragement — to Xinjiang.


In 1949, when the new Communist government was pledging more Uighur autonomy, the Han made up just 5 per cent of the province's population. At more than 40 per cent now, they are set to eclipse the Uighurs' dominance.


In part, this has helped Beijing develop the northwest's vast mineral and oil riches, leading to 11 per cent economic growth last year — better than in the rest of China.


But observers note that it's mostly the Han who benefit with preferential access to the best jobs, better education and domination of the region's commerce.


It's true for all of Xinjiang's cities that, compared with Uighurs, the Han live in newer neighbourhoods. Signs are written in Chinese, with Uighur an afterthought.


At the Kashgar airport, announcements are only in Chinese, and absurdly, English.


Generally, the two groups stay away from each other. Han student Wen Sen says the relationship is "getting better," yet he still won't approach a Uighur on the street.


Similarly, Uighur foodstall owner Akbar says: "We don't like each other. They think we are all like (Osama) bin Laden or Saddam Hussein."


The Chinese government has harshly curtailed religious freedom in the past, and Uighurs will not forgive Beijing for using the Taklimakan Desert as a nuclear test site.


Now, they think it is the Han who have decided to destroy their homes and businesses in Kashgar.


"There are Uighurs in government, but we all know they are just dolls," says Yasin, a restaurant waiter.


Colin Mackerras, a professor of Chinese studies at Brisbane's Griffith University, says traditional culture is being lost as the city gets "Sinocized." And while development raises peoples' incomes, he adds, the Chinese "could be more sensitive about it."


"In theory, the Uighurs are in charge, but in practice the Chinese influence is much greater," says Mackerras, who studies China's minorities.


Uighur separatists show no reticence about using violence. The 1990s saw widespread riots and murders of Han in Kashgar, with the government calling in army and air support. Officials blamed a 1997 Beijing bus bombing on Uighur extremists and the United States has placed one Uighur group on its list of terrorist organizations.


In response, Chinese authorities viciously cracked down on separatist activities among Uighurs and continue to publicize the executions of those it calls terrorists.


Recently, though, keen to attract investment, Beijing has portrayed the relationship as improving and seems to have eased its chokehold on religious activities.


The provincial chairman said at a recent press briefing that the security situation "is very good."


But the relationship is anything but stable. In fact, earlier this year, a vicious gang fight between Han and Uighur middle school students brandishing knives and machetes broke out in the small Xinjiang petroleum city of Karamay, sources there told the Star.


And the renovation in Kashgar, Uighurs say, is only making people more restive.


Inside the Id Kah, a large sign explains what the government has done for the mosque over the years, including the addition of toilets and extra rooms.


"The Chinese government pays special attention to the religious and historical cultures of the ethnic groups," says the sign. "And such policies ... are very popular."


Not so, it seems, for many in Kashgar

Print this item

  Report On The Death Penalty Worldwide Lists China,
Posted by: uyghur - 06-24-2004, 05:13 PM - Forum: Current Affairs - No Replies


Payvand's Iran News ...


6/24/04


Report on the death penalty worldwide lists China, Iran and Iraq as top executioners for 2003


Hands Off Cain's 2004 report, edited by Elisabetta Zamparutti and published in Italian by Marsilio, is dedicated to Levy Mwanawasa, the President of Zambia. President Mwanawasa is also the author of the foreword to this year磗 edition.


Since his election in 2001, President Mwanawasa has given a strong boost to the process of democratisation in the country. A strongly abolitionist Baptist, he has moreover refused to sign any death warrants since he took office.


In April 2003, he set up a constitutional review commission with the abolition of the death penalty as one of the terms of reference for its tasks.


On May 21, 2003, President Mwanawasa refused to authorise the execution of scores of people, and decided to commute their death sentences to life in prison instead.


On February 27, 2004 he commuted the death sentences of 44 soldiers convicted of treason to jail terms ranging from 10 to 20 years. He has also announced that Government intends to propose the abolition of the death penalty to Parliament. In the meanwhile, he has ordered the review of all capital trials that resulted in death verdicts.


On May 7, 2004, President Mwanawasa commuted a further 15 death sentences, handed out for murder and robbery with violence, to jail terms of between 20 and 50 years.


The last execution in Zambia took place in January 1997, when in a single day, eight people were put to death. Since then, Zambia has had a de facto moratorium on capital punishment, that continues to be observed thanks to the firm beliefs of President Mwanawasa, who has declared that: "You cannot be slaughtering people like chickens and I will not sign any death warrant for as long as I remain president. I do not want to be the chief hanger."


THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTS OF 2003


The worldwide situation to date


The worldwide situation concerning the death penalty has once again registered a trend towards abolition in the past year. The countries or territories that to different extents have decided to give up the practice of capital punishment total 133, including the first months of 2004. Of these 81 have abolished the death penalty completely; 14 have abolished it for ordinary crimes; 1, Russia, as a member of the Council of Europe is committed to abolish it and in the meanwhile apply a moratorium on executions; 5 are observing moratoriums and 32 countries are de facto abolitionist, not having carried out executions for at least 10 years.


Countries that retain the death penalty number 63 - this is 3 down from 2002, when there were 66 retentionist states - and not all of these put people to death regularly. In 2003, in fact, only 29 retentionists carried out executions. This was 5 countries less that executed people than in 2002, when 34 states were recorded as having carried out executions. Yet the number of known executions for 2003 is significantly higher than the 2002 total: 5,599 executions to 4,101 the previous year. This increase is attributable to the simple fact that Chinese officials, for the first time, released near official statistics on the number of executions carried out annually in China, where information relating to capital punishment is classed as a state secret. At least 5,000 executions were carried out in the country in 2003, but the number was again probably much higher. Even this figure is already considerably higher than the ones given in previous years by the media and abolitionist organizations.


In relative terms therefore, the number of executions worldwide has in fact diminished in comparison to previous years.


Asia however remains the continent that executes the highest number of people. Considering that in China there were at least 5,000 executions, the total of executions in Asia for 2003 amounts to 5,474. In 2002, 3,946 executions had been recorded in Asia, but the number of reported executions in China, the top executioner worldwide, was always thought to be much lower than reality.


Africa continues to cut down on the use of capital punishment: 56 executions were recorded continent-wide in 2003, down 7 from the 63 registered in 2002.


Europe would be a death-penalty free zone if it wasn磘 for Belarus that in 2003 carried out at least 1 execution.


North and South America would also be death penalty free, were it not for the 65 people put to death in the United States (down from 71 in 2002) and the 3 people put to death in Cuba after a few years of suspension of capital punishment.


Top executioners for 2003: China, Iran and Iraq


Of the 63 countries worldwide retain the death penalty, 48 are dictatorial, authoritarian or illiberal states. These countries accounted for at least 5,525 executions, or 98.7% of the world total of executions in 2003. One country alone, China, carried out at least 5,000, or 89.3% of the executions that took place during 2003. Iran was responsible for at least 154 executions. Iraq, up to April 9 when US Central Command chief General Tommy Franks suspended the death penalty - as the US-led coalition invaded the country and toppled Saddam Hussein磗 regime - had already executed at least 113 people.


Vietnam carried out 69 executions; Saudi Arabia 52; Kazakhstan at least 19; Pakistan at least 18; Singapore at least 14; and Sudan at least 13.


Many of these countries do not issue official statistics on the practice of the death penalty therefore the number of executions may be much higher. In some countries, executions are completely covert, and news of them does not even filter through to the local media. Two cases in point are North Korea and Syria.


The conclusion that can be drawn from such a picture is that the definite solution to the problem of capital punishment - more than by tackling the issue in itself - is better achieved through the establishment of democracy, the rule of law and the promotion and respect of political rights and civil liberties.


Authoritarian states once again take the podium as the top executioners of the year in 2003: China, Iran and Iraq (up to April 9, 2004)


China, where reality exceeds the worst estimates


The number of death sentences passed, as the number of executions carried out, are classed as state secrets in China, nevertheless one fact emerges clearly: China is the world磗 top executioner. Information on the real extent of the judicial massacre that takes place in China is beginning to filter through sources within the ruling Communist regime. The number of people put to death in the PRC is much higher than the highest estimates by western media or abolitionist organisations.


In 2003, according to a judicial source, 5,000 people were executed in China. Chen Zhonglin, a member of the People磗 National Congress (Parliament) in Beijing, said that China carries out 10,000 executions every year. His declaration was published on the China Youth Daily in March 2004. This was the first time that a similar declaration was published by a state-controlled newspaper.


In Disidai, or The Fourth Generation a Communist Party member writing under the pseudonym Zong Hairen said 15,000 people had been sent to their death in China between 1998 and 2001. The book was published in 2002.


In June 2003, Chinese President Hu Jintao praised the 磗trike-hard?campaign launched in April 2001, that led to the execution of thousands of people, and announced that it would continue for at least another year. On December 11, People磗 Supreme Court President Xiao Yang called for the perpetuation of the campaign that had resulted in 819,000 death sentences or jail terms exceeding 5 years.


People accused of violent and non-violent crimes alike were fed to the shredder that is China磗 capital punishment system - terrorists and separatist militants, murderers and robbers, kidnappers and rapists, drug-traffickers and small time peddlers, smugglers of weapons and cigarettes, counterfeiters of banknotes and invoices, pimps and tomb-raiders, corrupters and corrupted - were put on trial in mass public rallies, forced to wear placards announcing their name and crime, and then taken to a field and shot.


China磗 Attorney General, Han Zubin, called for measures against "separatists, terrorists and adherents to evil cults" to be stepped up for the sake of "national security." In the five years up to 2003, 3,500 people had been charged with "crimes against the state", including murder, bomb attacks and arson, but also non-violent political dissent. Han confirmed that the total included suspected practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement branded an "evil cult" by the Communist authorities and outlawed in 1999.


China has also accused of terrorism activists for an enhanced Tibetan autonomy and leaders of the Uighur people in the Islamic northwest of the country.


In 2003, the practice of removing organs from executed prisoners to sell for transplants was once again denounced.


Iran, again in the top three


Iran, along with China, regularly features among the countries that execute most people in the world. Though China remains by far the most prolific executioner, Iran, in proportion to its population, applies capital punishment just as much. In 2003, 154 executions were recorded in Iran, including a woman and a minor. This total is significantly less than in 2002, when 316 executions were registered, including a woman stoned to death, but as with other illiberal countries, the real number of people put to death by the state is probably much higher. Iranian authorities do not issue official statistics on the death penalty, and HOC磗 total is based on news reports by Iranian media, that very likely do not carry news of every single execution.


Iran does not limit itself to the death penalty. Its interpretation of Sharia law prescribes whippings for sexual relations before marriage, lashings for drinking alcohol and amputation of hands and feet for petty thieves.


Iraq, the last executions under Saddam


The execution of political opponents and military 碿onspirators?- a hallmark of Saddam Hussein磗 regime - were kept up till its fall on April 9, 2003. The US Central Command suspended the use of the death penalty on that day, and the Coalition Provisional Authority upheld the ban. Capital punishment still features in Iraqi laws, and though the provisional constitution makes no mention of the death penalty, a new constitution in all probability will re-introduce it. On June 6, the newly-appointed Justice Minister Malek Dohan al Hassan affirmed that after the handover of power by the CPA to Iraqi authorities on June 30 his country would resume executions, and that the former president Saddam Hussein may be liable to it. This, HOC notes, would definitely not be the best way to present the new Iraq to the world.


Hands Off Cain recorded at least 113 executions for the first few months of 2003, the majority of which were carried out following summary trials. Past estimates for executions under Saddam Hussein磗 dictatorship seem to have fallen far short of the real number of victims - by tens of thousands. The Coalition Provisional Authority said that at least 300,000 people had been buried in mass graves. Officials from human rights organisations talked of 500,000 victims and some Iraqi political parties estimate that more than 1 million people were executed and buried in secret places.

Print this item

  What A Pic ( My First Topic In Your Thread)
Posted by: abeer - 06-24-2004, 04:52 PM - Forum: General - Replies (37)


assalam allaikum


this is a great board keep it up



this is my treat for you


[Image: mecca-out_b3.jpg]


[Image: mecca-sai_b1.jpg]


[Image: mecca-out_b2.jpg][Image: mecca6.jpg]


[Image: MasjidAnNabawi2.gif]

Print this item

  Mens Hair Length
Posted by: brother Basil - 06-23-2004, 09:31 PM - Forum: General - Replies (8)


Assalam o 'aleikom



brothers and sisters could you please answer me something ?? is it allowed for a muslim man to grow his hair long ?


I heard Men could grow there hair to shoulder length, please if any of you know and could help me i would appreciate it [Image: smile.gif]


shokrenn

Print this item

  Memos Detail U.s. Interrogation Methods
Posted by: uyghur - 06-23-2004, 05:19 PM - Forum: Current Affairs - No Replies


Rumsfeld approved use of dogs, clothing removal, hooding


JUNE 23--In a bid to counter charges that military leaders approved the torture of suspected al-Qaeda detainees, the Department of Defense yesterday released classified memos detailing the U.S. government's evolving interrogation (or "counter-resistance strategies") policies with regard to prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. On the following pages, you'll find a selection of these DoD memos, beginning with the below October 2002 request from a Gitmo commander seeking approval of certain interrogation methods, including the removal of clothing, using dogs to intimidate inmates, and "the use of stress-positions (like standing), for a maximum of four hours." In a December 2002 "action memo," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved most of the tactics, though he scribbled a note wondering about the efficacy of one approach: "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" In January 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of many of the interrogation techniques pending a DoD study. In April 2003, Rumsfeld issued a memo describing the newly approved counter-resistance techniques for "unlawful combatants" held at Guantanamo Bay. (14 pages)


Join TSG's mailing list.


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0623041doj1.html

Print this item

  The Unsettled West
Posted by: uyghur - 06-23-2004, 04:31 PM - Forum: Current Affairs - No Replies


Joshua Kurlantzick


From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2004


Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland. Edited by S. Frederick Starr. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2004, 528 pp. $89.95


Summary: Three new books detail Xinjiang's long history of oppression. As they show, Beijing's rule there has always been harsh -- but never so bad as in the last few years.


Joshua Kurlantzick is Foreign Editor of The New Republic.


You've Got Dissent: Chinese Dissident Use of the Internet and Beijing's Counter Strategies


Michael Chase and James Charles Mulvenon. Santa Monica: Rand, 2002.


China's Workers Under Assault: The Exploitation of Labor in a Globalizing Economy


Anita Chan. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2001.


Rights Beyond Borders: The Global Community and the Struggle Over Human Rights


Rosemary Foot. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.


The Tiananmen Papers


By Andrew J. Nathan


Foreign Affairs, January/February 2001


East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia


Daniel A. Bell. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.


"Xinjiang -- China's Muslim Far Northwest." Michael Dillon. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003, 201 pp. $95.00.


"Wild West China: The Taming of Xinjiang." Christian Tyler. London: John Murray, 2003, 320 pp. ?0.00 (paper, ?.99).


After 1949, Beijing's brutal pacification of Xinjiang -- a vast province in western China -- was almost completely ignored in the West for the next 40 years. Unlike other groups persecuted by China (such as the Tibetans), Xinjiang's Muslim inhabitants, the Uighurs, have had no charismatic, English-speaking spokesperson or unified exile organization; the Uighurs' few prominent exiles lived in Turkey, and they spent most of their time squabbling among themselves. Xinjiang thus rarely made it onto the agenda of foreign governments, and with the region largely closed to foreigners, few academics or human rights groups could study it.


Within the past decade, however, news from Xinjiang has started to seep out. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, China was suddenly confronted with newly independent neighbors in Central Asia -- states with close ethnic ties to the Turkic Uighurs. Uighurs began traveling to these Central Asian states, Pakistan, the Middle East, and even the United States, often returning to Xinjiang more determined than ever to fight for independence. Worried about growing Uighur separatism, Beijing tightened its control of Xinjiang, turning the region into the death-penalty capital of the world.


But unlike during past repressions, this time foreign governments and human rights organizations began to take notice -- partly because of China's greater openness, and partly because Central Asia had suddenly become an important energy producer. Massive oil deposits were found in the region -- Xinjiang itself is now known to have China's biggest petroleum reserves -- and foreign oil companies, with the backing of their respective


nations, arrived in Central Asia en masse. Germany, Iran, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and other new players began to increase their involvement in the region. Beijing, worried about losing its influence there, ramped up its own plans to develop western China as a bridge to Central Asia; these plans included increasing the movement of ethnic Han migrants into Xinjiang.


Then came September 11, 2001. Following the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., the United States entered Central Asia in force, establishing military bases throughout the region to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda -- bases that have put U.S. troops within several hundred miles of the Chinese border. Xinjiang suddenly found itself at the center of a battle between China, Russia, and the United States for control of Central Asia.


Into this tumultuous mix now come three important new books on Xinjiang. The most accessible, Wild West China, is a general history of the region by Christian Tyler, a former correspondent for the Financial Times. The other two, Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland, edited by S. Frederick Starr, head of Johns Hopkins University's Central Asia studies program, and Xinjiang -- China's Muslim Far Northwest, by Michael Dillon of the University of Durham, are more academic attempts to draw a three-dimensional portrait of modern Xinjiang's people, economy, religion, culture, and dangerously tense politics. Because western China was largely closed to foreign writers until the early 1990s, and Beijing has once more restricted journalists' access to the region since September 11, all three books are valuable additions to the little that is known about Xinjiang in the West.


Dillon and Starr do a good job of putting China's current involvement in Xinjiang into historical context. Foreign rulers have always viewed the region as a wild place needing to be tamed and have frequently treated the Uighurs as second-class citizens. Only the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), however, has gone so far as to try to destroy the Uighurs altogether, in a process of de facto demographic genocide.


Unfortunately, as Central Asia has recently grown more important, Washington and key actors in the region have essentially sacrificed the Uighurs to geopolitics. The United States has largely accepted China's attempt to link Uighur separatists to international Islamic terror networks, glossing over the Uighurs' legitimate concerns in the process. Washington has even abetted this linkage and Beijing's crackdown on various Uighur groups.


The United States, however, need not choose between Xinjiang and China. It could simultaneously defend the Uighurs' rights and fight the war on terror. Unfortunately, none of these three books offers much help in this regard, since they present only facile, familiar suggestions for how the West can minimize Beijing's repression and keep the Uighurs from becoming radicalized. They fail to mention what would be a far better approach: foreigners should use China's own weaknesses -- its dependence on foreign oil and its need to keep opening its economy -- as leverage to force Beijing to temper its repressive Xinjiang policies.


THE BAD OLD DAYS


The idea of Xinjiang as a contiguous entity is relatively new. As Tyler's book colorfully captures, from the premodern era until the mid-eighteenth century, Xinjiang was either ruled from afar by Central Asian empires or not ruled at all. Its vast, barren deserts made it difficult to conquer: in the early twentieth century, the well-traveled British archaeologist Aural Stein visited Xinjiang and was overwhelmed by its inhospitality, marveling at its "desolate wilderness, bearing everywhere the impress of death." When Chinese rulers did manage to conquer Xinjiang, they found maintaining large armies there nearly impossible. In 104 BC, Emperor Wudi sent 60,000 men to conquer the West; only 10,000 came back alive.


Tyler brings the region's premodern history to life, skillfully employing individual anecdotes to illustrate its wild past, including the introduction of Sufi Islam in the tenth century and the later development of the Silk Road trade route, which passed through Xinjiang. The other two books, which are drier but fact-filled, fill in Tyler's overly broad narrative with rich detail and more nuanced assessment.


Although the reader has to dig through the sprawl of details in these books to find central themes, the implications of history for modern Xinjiang are clear. Tyler has titled his book Wild West China because the Uighurs' relationship with Beijing resembles that of the Native Americans with Washington: as China began to develop into a state with a distinct national identity in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Chinese, with their own version of manifest destiny, began to see Xinjiang as a place inhabited by barbarians ready for civilizing. As a result of what Tyler calls "Chinese orientalism," Beijing even convinced itself that untamed Xinjiang would welcome China's intervention -- conveniently ignoring the region's historical and cultural links to the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Chinese thus underestimated the resistance Xinjiang would mount to Han culture.


By the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, as the Qing dynasty consolidated its power, it began to expand its borders, nearly doubling China's size in an effort to, among other things, protect it from the Great Game machinations of Russia and the United Kingdom. This time, when China conquered Xinjiang it came to stay, securing its annexation of the region with brutal tactics. Tyler describes the slaughter of more than a million people during this period, and James Millward and Peter Perdue, two contributors to the Starr book, detail the Qing dynasty's creation of small, self-sustaining military colonies in Xinjiang -- the precursors of China's massive modern-day military structure there.


Over the next 200 years, interactions between Beijing and the Uighurs set the stage for the worse confrontations to come. Here again, all three books are better at relating details than broader themes, but a few constants still manage to emerge. The Chinese government, unable to see Uighurs as equal to the Han, never offered them autonomy. Instead, Beijing forced the natives to do unpaid labor and barred them from local political positions. Misrule stoked local anger, and a series of uprisings resulted. In one blood-drenched revolt in 1825, tribespeople massacred 8,000 Chinese soldiers, prompting a harsh response from the central government.


As the twentieth century dawned, China's pacification of Xinjiang remained incomplete. With its central government weakened by rebellions, the overthrow of the monarchy, and general chaos, China could not completely consolidate its rule over the west. Wily local warlords took advantage of Beijing's distraction, and three times before 1949, Uighur leaders founded short-lived independent states, which remain important symbols for Uighurs today; as Dillon writes, the bank notes of the last free Xinjiang republic, crushed in 1949, are still revered by many Uighurs as symbols "of a once and future state." The last Xinjiang republic even included a relatively democratic constitution that promised freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.


THE RISE OF THE RADICALS


Although the Qing and Nationalist governments managed to conquer Xinjiang, they never attempted to colonize the vast region. After the communists took over, however, everything changed. Although some scholars see the last few hundred years of Chinese repression in Xinjiang as a continuum, the authors of these books are correct to point out that CCP rule has been drastically different from its predecessors' and has succeeded in radicalizing some Uighurs as never before.


Although it initially promised Xinjiang significant autonomy, once the CCP consolidated its hold over the country in the 1950s, it began to adopt much stricter policies toward the Uighurs. For the first time ever, Beijing had a radical ideology to spread and secure borders within which to spread it. But communist ideology, when combined with the traditional Chinese view of the Uighurs as barbarians (Mao Zedong's wife famously hated ethnic minorities) and a fear of concentrated ethnic groups, wreaked locust-like devastation in Xinjiang. Across China, the CCP targeted the wealthy, the educated, and the devout, but in Xinjiang the terror was worse. As Millward writes in the Starr book, "only in Xinjiang did the party face a majority, non-Chinese-speaking Islamic population with a well-established clerical organization." Thousands of mosques were shuttered, imams were jailed, Uighurs who wore headscarves or other Muslim clothing were arrested, and during the Cultural Revolution, the CCP purposely defiled mosques with pigs. Many Muslim leaders were simply shot. The Uighur language was purged from school curricula, and thousands of Uighur writers were arrested for "advocating separatism" -- which often meant nothing more than writing in Uighur. Meanwhile, Beijing forced Xinjiang's nomadic farmers into collectives, which, thanks to the region's limited arable land, were even less productive than those in other parts of the country. The scars left by such misguided policies remain today, and many of Xinjiang's greener parts are turning into desert.


During the postwar period, the CCP also began a campaign to change the demographics of Xinjiang while also exploiting its natural resources to feed eastern China's growing cities. Beijing forced birth control on the Uighurs and simultaneously encouraged massive Han migration into the region, using economic incentives or simply forcing Chinese to move west. The results of these policies were devastating: whereas in 1941 Uighurs made up more than 80 percent of Xinjiang's population, by 1998, they made up less than 50 percent. Urumqi, Xinjiang's largest city, is now a Han metropolis, with the few Uighurs confined to small ghetto-like areas where they pose for pictures and desperately hawk cheap carpets to visitors.


Starr and Dillon argue that such policies have had two contradictory effects on Xinjiang. Some Uighurs have simply given up. Nearly 500,000 crossed into the Soviet Union in the early 1960s or turned to drugs; Xinjiang now has a serious heroin problem, and hence a major HIV problem as well. Others, however, have rebelled. Starr argues that by targeting Uighurs for their ethnicity and religion, Mao was the first Chinese leader to "nourish one of the most serious centripetal movements in Xinjiang's long history: the rise of pan-Uighur identity." Indeed, thanks to Beijing's policies, instead of fighting among themselves, as the Uighurs had done for centuries, after 1949 many began to settle their intra-ethnic differences and build a sense of Uighur solidarity. By 1954, Uighur uprisings began breaking out in the city of Khotan, and in the 1960s, Xinjiang resisted the Cultural Revolution more forcefully than most other parts of China.


After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Uighurs saw their cousins in Central Asia found sovereign states, and resistance to Chinese rule exploded. Throughout the 1990s, large numbers of Uighurs rallied in the streets of Xinjiang's cities. Dillon writes that, like underground fires, these protests were difficult to predict: "smoldering, impossible to extinguish, and flaring up from time to time in unexpected places." Sometimes they turned violent: in one particularly bloody clash in the town of Baran in 1990, nearly 3,000 Uighurs were killed in a battle with Chinese police. Many new separatist organizations -- most, but not all, of which advocated nonviolence -- sprang up. One such group, the East Turkestan National Congress, has advocated creating a secular, democratic government in Xinjiang. But other groups have targeted Chinese installations in Xinjiang, and occasionally in Beijing, with bombing campaigns.


Meanwhile, interest in Islam surged, thanks to state intolerance and the Uighurs' greater exposure to other Muslim societies. Although Xinjiang has no real tradition of strict orthodoxy or Islamist radicalism, Islam began to seem one of the best means to resist Beijing's control. Young Uighur men began holding clandestine maxrap meetings to discuss current religious and political issues, and attendance at mosques has soared.


Beijing has responded to this latest surge in Uighur nationalism with a campaign titled, with typical Chinese understatement, "Strike Hard, Severe Repression." Thousands of Uighurs were arrested in the 1990s and many were executed at public rallies. After September 11, the number of arrests increased sharply, and Beijing embarked on a massive propaganda campaign to tie the Uighurs to al Qaeda. The Chinese government, with little apparent evidence, claimed that more than 1,000 Uighurs had traveled to Afghanistan to train with al Qaeda and other Islamist groups, and charged that Osama bin Laden himself had offered large sums of money to Uighurs to create an Islamist terrorist campaign in Xinjiang. Although the East Turkestan National Congress has explicitly condemned al Qaeda and there are few signs that the Uighurs have links with international Islamist terror groups, Beijing announced early this year that the "Strike Hard" campaign would be extended indefinitely.


(MIS) CALCULATED INDIFFERENCE


Unfortunately, outside countries, including the United States, have facilitated China's harsh repression of the Uighurs. Tyler's and Starr's volumes too often ignore this complicity. For one thing, countries in Central Asia and the West have been far too credulous in accepting that the battle in Xinjiang is part of the larger war on terror. This result can be explained, in part, by China's growing economic clout, which has allowed it, for example, to convince the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (composed of China, Russia, and several Central Asian states) to focus on counterterrorism. Beijing has also convinced Central Asian countries to deport Uighur "terrorists" -- often simply members of nonviolent Uighur separatist groups -- to China for prosecution, and to ban exile Uighur groups from operating on their soil.


Even Washington has played along. By refusing to define the opponents in its war on terror, the Bush administration has allowed China to lump its separatists into the same group as al Qaeda. The United States has even directly aided Beijing's crackdown at times -- by placing one obscure Uighur separatist group, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, on the State Department's list of global terrorist organizations, for example. As Graham Fuller and Jonathan Lippman, two contributors to the Starr book, argue, this "U.S. declaration [was] catastrophic" for the Uighurs. The United States, previously the main defender of Uighur rights (Radio Free Asia is a primary source of information in the Uighur language), had now given Beijing "carte blanche to designate all Uighur nationalist ... movements as 'terrorist.'"


Unfortunately, all three books shy away from predicting how the Uighurs will respond to this latest crackdown. Starr correctly recognizes that the Uighurs -- thanks to rising HIV rates, the environmental and social destruction caused by mass migration, a new influx of Han Chinese, the most sophisticated anti-Uighur propaganda yet from Beijing, and the perceived loss of their greatest ally, the United States -- are now more desperate than they have been since 1949. Although none of the authors spells it out, this pressure could lead the Uighurs to become even more radicalized and to turn to the very Islamist groups with which Beijing has accused them of cooperating.


Moreover, as transportation improves within China, increasing numbers of Uighurs will make common cause with other disgruntled groups in the People's Republic. Already, some Uighur leaders have made contact with Tibetan exiles and Chinese labor leaders, and Uighur exile groups have begun to emulate the Tibetan model, using the Internet to court international human rights groups.


None of the books, however, offers realistic prescriptions for how the international community can help prevent Xinjiang from radicalizing. The authors devote a few brief pages to calling on foreign actors to push Beijing to restore freedoms in Xinjiang but do not discuss the best way to do so. Certainly, Washington should not abet Beijing's crackdown by placing Uighur groups on global terror lists, and President George W. Bush could take a page from the playbook of Ronald Reagan, who maintained relations with a communist adversary (in that case, the Soviet Union) while simultaneously giving major speeches about the need to protect human rights.


But simply suggesting that China should stop its repression, without laying out how or why it might, is not very useful. Washington is not powerless.


It could, for example, convince the few nations that actually have leverage over China -- namely, the oil producers in the Persian Gulf -- to help protect the Uighurs from further marginalization. Over the next two decades, as China's economy expands, it will become the largest oil importer in the world. Already, eastern China has suffered from significant energy shortages, and the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that China's petroleum imports will rise by nearly 1,000 percent over the next 20 years. China has accordingly begun to court Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil producers. In the past, when gulf states have expressed concern about the plight of fellow Muslims in Xinjiang, Beijing has responded favorably; these gulf nations might now push China to allow the Uighurs more autonomy, as even some in the CCP have considered.


More important, the United States could push China to open up Xinjiang's economy, as it has opened the economy of coastal China. Xinjiang is one of the few places left in China where the state still dominates economic activity. The military, state petroleum companies, and state-run construction companies together represent more than 80 percent of the province's industrial assets and favor ethnic Han workers and investors. If Beijing were to reduce state control, making it easier for private entrepreneurs in Xinjiang to flourish, the Uighurs likely would benefit, since they have the best links to traders in Central Asia. Indeed, in the few parts of Xinjiang where the state has a lesser role in the economy -- the bazaars of Kashgar and other southern cities -- Uighur traders already dominate these sectors of the economy. Relaxing economic restrictions would thus be the best way to limit Xinjiang's crisis. A Uighur middle class, with some economic freedom and limited autonomy, would be less prone to radicalism. That is an outcome in everyone's interest, including Beijing's -- whether it recognizes it or not.

Print this item

  Trade Vs. Terror In Central Asia
Posted by: uyghur - 06-23-2004, 04:27 PM - Forum: Current Affairs - No Replies


The Washington Times


The trade and investment framework agreement the United States signed recently with Central Asian countries was motivated just as much by U.S. counterterror priorities as commercial considerations. The agreement is welcome, if overdue.


The United States has long had geopolitical interests in Central Asia. The five Asian nations that signed the agreement -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan -- gained independence from the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. For about 10 years, therefore, the United States has had a vested interest in ushering these countries into the global free-market system. Some of these countries, particularly Kazakhstan, are rich in energy resources, and their development will help fulfill President Bush's objective of diversifying global energy resources. The agreement is geared toward finding ways to expand trade and investment, and is broadly seen as a precursor to a formal trade agreement.


The agreement won't lead to a trade bonanza. U.S. exports to the region totaled $548.1 million last year, while imports amounted to $570.5 million. Still, Central Asian countries are an important frontier in the counterterror effort. While Muslim militancy has taken root in parts of South and Southwest Asia, it has appeared only sporadically in Central Asia. Muslim fundamentalists are trying to make inroads into the region, so the international community must remain vigilant. Trade and development will be an important vehicle for delivering hope and opportunity to the people of Central Asia, and a bulwark against nihilistic fundamentalism.


In touting the agreement, known as a TIFA, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick signaled the broad U.S. interest in the region. "We look forward to working closely through the TIFA to further strengthen our bilateral economic relationships and our relationship with the region as a whole," he said.


Central Asian countries generally have a ways to go toward improving their records on human rights and democratic freedoms. A final trade agreement could be offered as a carrot for making headway in these areas. Economic development and democratization are important building blocks for modernization and a barrier to the global terrorist threat.


Copyright ?2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.


=======================================================


June 19, 2004


Page A12


Letters to the Editor


Tighter trade ties


I find myself largely in agreement with your editorial "Trade vs. terror in Central Asia" (yesterday). We, too, welcome the trade and investment framework agreement. It will further expand U.S. private businesses' interest in Kazakhstan's rapidly developing economy.


There are many reasons why Americans should be increasingly comfortable doing business in my country. First, and perhaps foremost, we get along very well together. There are almost 400 U.S. companies in Kazakhstan, and the U.S. investment in our economy stands at $9 billion. American companies themselves estimate their investment in Kazakhstan will reach $200 billion before the decade is over.


These businesses see benefits in our growing civil society and democracy. Our president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has just called for a sweeping series of reforms designed to further modernize our political system.


One major proposal would broaden the powers of Parliament, increasing the numbers of deputies in both houses and developing a new system of forming the government through a parliamentary majority mechanism.


His proposals also would bring the budget watchdog, the Accounting Committee, under the control of Parliament, much like the U.S. General Accounting Office. Our human-rights stance would be strengthened with the introduction of jury trials and the broadening of the powers of the human-rights ombudsman.


Political life in Kazakhstan is lively. We have two major political parties, yet for our election in September, 11 parties will be fielding candidates. About half of them are opposition parties, and a new election law will ensure transparency and open competition.


"You can't just declare democracy. You can only build it through hard work," Mr. Nazarbayev said last week. We understand we have many challenges ahead, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we build prosperity and fight terrorism together.


Given the choice, any thinking person prefers trade over terror and democracy over totalitarian rule.


KANAT B. SAUDABAYEV


Ambassador


Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan


Washington

Print this item