Denying Women Access to the Mosque: A Betrayal of the Prophet

by Shamima Sheikh

An 'ignorance' that's frightening

I was prompted to put together these few thoughts after a meeting with a group of architects (who are also popular mosque designers in South Africa) and students who presented their proposals for the WITS mosque. The architects expressed their certainty as to where a woman may be located in a mosque, saying that any other accommodation was bid'ah (innovation). A young student presenting his design said women and men reading alongside were unacceptable; they had to be completely separated (he said that women should be accommodated in a gallery). His other assumption was that men at WITS could not control their libidos.

It was their certainty that their beliefs and perspectives were actually the Prophetic tradition and that anything else was bid'ah that I found frightening. I was in no doubt about the sincerity and love these men have for the Prophet (pbuh). It is because of this and my own love for Islam and the Prophet (pbuh) that I feel the need to inform them about what I've come to learn about women and the space they occupied in the Prophet's mosque.

Women's Space in the Prophet's Mosque

Women occupied the back rows of the Prophet's mosque, where they could be seen and heard by the rest of the congregation. (Remember that the Prophet's mosque was fairly small.) Ibn Abaas (ra) said:

"Once the Prophet came out (for the 'Id prayers) as if I were just observing him waving to the people to sit down. He then, accompanied by Bilal, came crossing the rows till he reached the women. He recited verse 12 of chapter 60 to them and asked: 'O ladies, are you fulfilling your covenant?' None except one woman said 'Yes'. The Prophet then said: 'Then give sadaqah.' Bilal (ra) then spread his garment and said 'Keep on giving alms'." [1]

Access to the Imam

Direct contact between the Prophet, as the imam who led the prayers, and those who attended the prayers seems to have been an important element in the Friday khutba:

". . . On Friday he (the Prophet) preached the khutba leaning on a staff. . . And the people were in front of him, their faces raised toward him, they listened as they watched him. . . ."[2]

The idea that the mosque is a privileged place, the collective space where the leader debates with all the members of the community before making decisions, is the key idea of Islam which today is presented to us as the bastion of despotism. Everything passed through the mosque which became the school for teaching new converts how to do the ritual prayer, the principles of lslam, how to behave towards others in places of worship and elsewhere. Was it fitting to come armed or not? Could one have buying and selling there? (the Prophet and his Makkan supporters were originally merchants) Could one keep prisoners of war in the mosque courtyard (to keep better watch on them) or not.

The mosque was a space where dialogue between the leader and the people could take place. The apparently simple decision to install a mimbar in the mosque was treated by the Prophet as a matter that concerned all Muslims. The Prophet used to say the Friday prayers standing, leaning against a palm trunk. One day he announced that standing made him tired. Tamim al-Dari answered: 'Why not build a pulpit like I have seen in Syria?' The Prophet asked their advice on the question, and they agreed to the suggestion. [4] A Madinah carpenter cut a tree and built a pulpit with a seat and two steps up to it. Other versions say that the Prophet was urged to take his place on the mimbar at the time of prayer so that everybody could see him, because in a few months the number of Muslims had grown considerably, and this seemed a more plausible reason than fatigue. The Prophet was only 54 years old at the time of the Hijra and was in the prime of life.

From access to denial of access

In the Kitab al-Jum'a (Book of Friday) of Imam Bukhari (d. 256H),[5] who wrote two centuries after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), he quotes the hadith:

"Do not forbid the mosques of Allah to the women of Allah."

A half-century later (300H), Imam Nasa'i, wrote his al-Sunan. In his chapter on al-masjid, he gives specifications for the rows between men and women: how crowded they may be and how far from each other. He states that a man has no right to forbid his wife to go to the mosque. He quotes the Prophet: "When a woman asks authorisation from one of you to go to the mosque, let him grant it to her."[6]

Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597H), wrote a book on the laws that govern women in Islam and devoted his chapter 24 to 'Women's Friday Service'. He had to acknowledge that they had a right to the service since the hadith on the subject was incontrovertible. However he raises three issues:

1. On the question of rows he said 'the prayers of men who are seated behind women are worthless.'[7] It often happened that men came to the mosque late and were blocked by the rows of women. It is very easy to imagine the fatal next step: ban women from the mosque, since the mere presence of women risked creating a problem.

2. Ibn al-Jawzi then asks a question which in itself contains a betrayal of the ancient texts: 'Is it permitted for women to go to the mosque?' And his answer: 'If she fears disturbing men's minds, it is better for her to pray at home.'[8]

3. He cites Bukhari's key hadith in which the Prophet stresses that the mosques of Allah are not forbidden to women. He concludes by saying that 'the Friday service is not a duty for women'.[9] And, 'A woman should try to avoid going out as much as she can.'[10]

But it is in reading modern authors like Muhammad Sadiq al-Qannuji, the twentieth-century Indian scholar (d. 1308H), that one notes the institutionalisation of the exclusion of women from such a crucial place as a mosque. In his chapter on "What has been said on the fact that the Friday sermon is not a duty for women", he brings out a dubious hadith which says: "The Friday service is a duty for all Muslims, with four exceptions: slaves, women, children, and the ill."[11]

We are certainly a long way from the Prophet's mosque, open to all, welcoming all those interested in Islam, including women. The mosque now suffers a betrayal of Muhammad's (pbuh) ideal community: women are declared strangers to the place of worship. Women, who had the privilege of access to the mosque as sahabiyyaat (companions of the Prophet) very quickly became polluting, evil beings.

Sexual Men and Invisible Women

The premise that women 'distract' men from their spiritual endeavors and that they stimulate sexual urges rests on a certain understanding of what it means to be human, and a certain understanding of what constitutes maleness and femaleness.

This argument operates from the premise that our focus of control, and our focus of self as human beings, as Muslims, is outside ourselves, and that men have weak inner centres since, upon seeing and listening to women, they are overcome by irresistible uncontrollable sexual urges. By such reasoning we imply that man are incapable of taking moral responsibility for their behaviour and relations.

The solution is to manipulate the external environment – women must be invisible – to keep men's responses in check. This raises important questions: What does this say about man's capacity to take full responsibility for his spirituality? On what understanding of humanity are these arguments based?

In order that we believing men and believing women, God-conscious men and God-conscious women, can reclaim our full humanity, reclaim our Islam, we need to revolutionize our categories of maleness and femaleness. We must reject the idea of uncontrollable male sexuality and evil women.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

"The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His apostle. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."[12]

Therapy for Male 'Sexuality'

For those men and women who view each other only as sexual beings, the mosque precinct – a holy precinct – can be therapeutic. On seeing women in the holy precinct, the depraved soul has to recognise that women are not just sexy beings but spiritual beings, members of the ummah, their sisters in faith. If women are invisible in this holy precinct his perception of women as just sexy beings will not be challenged and he will never be able to reclaim his full humanity, his Islam.

May Allah guide us and help us respect each other

[ 1] Bukhari, vol. 2, no. 95

[ 2] Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, vol, l, p, 238

[ 3] One of the most fascinating descriptions of the Prophet's mosque is in Imam al-Nasa'i, Sunan, vol. l, pp. 31- 59

[ 4] Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, vol. l, p. 250

[ 5] Askalani, Fath al-bari, vol. 3, p. 34

[ 6] Imam Nasa'i, Sunan, vol. 2, p. 32

[ 7] Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab ahkam al.nisa' eirut: Al-Makbba al-'Asriyya, 1980, p. 201.

[ 8] Ibid., p. 202.

[ 9] Ibid., p. 205.

[ 10] Ibid., p.209.

[ 11] Muhammad Sidiq Hasan Khan al-Qannuji, Husn al-uswa bima tabata minha allahi fi al -niswa (Beirut: Mu'assasa al.Risala, 1981) p. 345.

[ 12] Qur'an (9:71)

Sources:

Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam

Sa'diyyah Shaikh, Sexual men and Spiritual women

Presented to the Jamaat Khanna Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand - 1995. Shamima was a 'community member' of the committee that was negotiating with the university administration for a new mosque complex and participating in decisions regarding the design of the complex. She argued for women to be accommodated in the 'main space' of the mosque.

by Jay Bookman – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

September 29, 2002

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said, stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal- Constitution.

CONTRIBUTORS TO 2000 REPORT

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

Paul Wolfowitz

Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.

John Bolton

Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen

Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby

Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim

Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone

Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0.../29bookman.html

by Imad Khadduri

Former Iraqi nuclear scientist

YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (Canada)

Monday, March 10, 2003

(YellowTimes.org) – On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), submitted, in accordance with U.N. Resolution 1441, his third report to the Security Council on Iraq's nuclear non-capability.

ElBaradei's report unequivocally disproved most of Colin Powell's alleged "evidence" of Iraq's continued nuclear weapons program after the end of the 1991 war that Powell so brazenly offered in a theatrical presentation to the same Security Council just a month earlier on February 5, 2003. Powell's pathetic response to ElBaradei's report would be laughable were it not for the moral crime the Bush administration is about to commit in Iraq.

ElBaradei's report confirmed the following:

The alleged Iraqi attempt of procuring Niger's uranium in the late nineties was based on unauthentic documents supplied by American and British intelligence. This brings to mind the "scientific report" hurriedly brought by UNSCOM inspectors to Baghdad in 1994 demanding an explanation of the report's claims of a continued effort by Iraq to develop its nuclear bomb design in the years following the 1991 war. As part of my responsibility in the issuance and archiving of all scientific reports emanating from the nuclear weapons development program before the 1991 war (except for the centrifugal enrichment process), it was not difficult to discern the intimate knowledge and accuracy of the authors' competence in preparing that fake report with regards to the intricacies of our own documentation procedures. However, the tell-tale use of Iranian synonyms for key words employed in that fake report, such as the reference to the two part core of the atomic bomb as a "dome" in Iranian parlance instead of the "hemisphere" as used by Iraqi scientists, quickly laid to rest the authenticity of that fake report. With the aid of an Iranian-Arabic dictionary that we provided to the UNSCOM inspectors, they left without further ado.

The aluminum tube fiasco, so widely publicized on America's CNN and FOX networks, has been proven to be a reverse-engineering attempt by Iraqi military engineers to manufacture locally the combustion chamber for a solid propellant rocket. That attempt extends back to the mid-eighties. The extra tolerances, to which Powell so despairingly clung in his unabashed retort, were no more than extra precautionary steps on the part of the engineers to ensure the success of their attempts. One may assume that these engineers would have indeed been surprised to learn from the American "experts" that such tolerances, if further pursued, would be suited for equipment in a uranium centrifuge process.

Having forbidden, under the economic sanctions, the import of pencils to Iraq for fear that the graphite inserts might be used for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons, the attempt to produce locally small magnets for all sorts of civilian use was interpreted in the fertile imagination of the American "experts" as proof of a possible rejuvenation of a uranium centrifugal enrichment process. ElBaradei's team of scientific experts in the field of uranium centrifugal enrichment, which probably has cost millions of dollars paid by Iraqi funds from the Oil for Food program, confirmed the simple and evident truth: the unfettered civilian use of such magnets.

Only the fourth and final fictitious piece of "evidence" presented by Powell in his February 5, 2003 report to the Security Council was unfortunately missing from ElBaradei's exposition. Powell deliberately lied, either knowingly or deceived by Iraqi defectors' lies, when he claimed that the declarations we, as Iraqi scientists, had signed several times upon the penalty of death prevented the Iraqi scientists from exposing sensitive information to the inspectors. The truth of the matter is that these declarations ordered us not to hide any sensitive reports and documents in our homes. The Iraqi government did not want to be held responsible for hidden documents when the U.N. began to inspect Iraq. We signed four or five such declarations starting in 1992. The last such pledge was conducted in the middle of 1997. The head of the Military Industrialization Corporation, the agency in charge of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development, assembled and chaired a meeting of about six hundred senior Iraqi scientists and engineers from all walks of activities in the above fields. He pointed to the fact that we had already signed a few of these declarations. He was willing to forgo all of the previous declarations if we would sign one final such declaration. In order to save us any further embarrassment or unintended folly, he urged us to go back to our homes, farmhouses and family lodgings and do one final thorough search for these documents. In the event that we did find some documents that we had inadvertently missed during our initial searches, we were to put them in a nameless envelope, and deposit them on a table in an empty assigned room, without any questions asked, with full reprieve from the previously signed declarations. He gave us three days to carry out that final search. We signed the final declaration as we left that meeting in 1997. Is the information provided by American intelligence services that systematically distorted?

During my recent FOX TV Heartland show interview with John Kasich about a week ago, I was one dimensionally bombarded with flimsy arguments by the anchor on the abundance of "Iraqi defectors have told of nuclear weapon sites" and who am I to refute Khidhir Hamza, the infamous "bombmaker" who has been claiming the existence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program for a year now on CNN, along with speaking to American congressional committees and right wing "think tanks." What is stopping these defectors from informing ElBaradei and the UNMOVIC inspectors on the ground in Iraq of the locations of these phantom establishments for the production of these weapons or their components?

Two weeks ago, CBS declined to interview me for the "60 Minutes" show after they were "counseled" by a well paid consultant from Washington D.C., who claimed to be a former UNSCOM inspector. The consultant warned CBS that the CIA had a wealth of information, unknown to me, on the existence of a continuing nuclear weapons development program in Iraq throughout the nineties. If this were true, why wouldn't the CIA save Colin Powell's face and provide this information to the IAEA and UNMOVIC? The American and British intelligence services did in fact provide, upon Blix's challenge to them in mid-December of 2002, a list of about 25 suspected sites, one of them marked red for extra "hush hush" care in case the Iraqis got wind of the information and would try to hide the evidence. The inspectors duly visited and inspected each one of these sites and they found nothing incriminating. In fact, they even stated that U.S. intelligence was providing them with nothing but "garbage after garbage after garbage." Is the American media that systematically manipulating the American people?

Unabashedly, Bush gave a speech on March 07, 2003, portraying the gathering dark clouds of a criminal war against Iraq, in the terms of a poker game. He challenged other countries opposed to the criminal war to "show their cards" while the U.S. and the U.K. would conveniently keep their cards hidden.

Lest he misses the point, he is playing a game of Russian roulette, and his fig leaf has fallen.

[imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada. He has been interviewed by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, FOX, the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear program. This article was originally printed in YellowTimes.org.]

Imad Khadduri encourages your comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1143

The saving of one little boy must not be a cover for the crime of this war and we should not forget its true horror.

by John Pilger

April 22, 2003

Last Sunday, seated in the audience at the Bafta television awards ceremony, I was struck by the silence. Here were many of the most influential members of the liberal elite, the writers, producers, dramatists, journalists and managers of our main source of information, television; and not one broke the silence. It was as though we were disconnected from the world outside: a world of rampant, rapacious power and great crimes committed in our name by our government and its foreign master. Iraq is the "test case", says the Bush regime, which every day sails closer to Mussolini's definition of fascism: the merger of a militarist state with corporate power. Iraq is a test case for western liberals, too. As the suffering mounts in that stricken country, with Red Cross doctors describing "incredible'' levels of civilian casualties, the choice of the next conquest, Syria or Iran, is "debated'' on the BBC, as if it were a World Cup venue.

The unthinkable is being normalised. The American essayist Edward Herman wrote: "There is usually a division of labour in doing and rationalising the unthinkable, with the direct brutalising and killing done by one set of individuals ... others working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of the experts, and the mainstream media, to normalise the unthinkable for the general public.''

Herman wrote that following the 1991 Gulf War, whose nocturnal images of American bulldozers burying thousands of teenage Iraqi conscripts, many of them alive and trying to surrender, were never shown. Thus, the slaughter was normalised. A study released just before Christmas 1991 by the Medical Educational Trust revealed that more 200,000 Iraqi men, women and children were killed or died as a direct result of the American-led attack. This was barely reported, and the homicidal nature of the "war'' never entered public consciousness in this country, let alone America.

The Pentagon's deliberate destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, such as power sources and water and sewage plants, together with the imposition of an embargo as barbaric as a medieval siege, produced a degree of suffering never fully comprehended in the West. Documented evidence was available, volumes of it; by the late 1990s, more than 6,000 infants were dying every month, and the two senior United Nations officials responsible for humanitarian relief in Iraq, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, resigned, protesting the embargo's hidden agenda. Halliday called it "genocide".

As of last July, the United States, backed by the Blair government, was wilfully blocking humanitarian supplies worth $5.4bn, everything from vaccines and plasma bags to simple painkillers, all of which Iraq had paid for and the Security Council had approved.

Last month's attack by the two greatest military powers on a demoralised, sick and largely defenceless population was the logical extension of this barbarism. This is now called a "victory", and the flags are coming out. Last week, the submarine HMS Turbulent returned to Plymouth, flying the Jolly Roger, the pirates' emblem. How appropriate. This nuclear-powered machine fired some 30 American Tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraq. Each missile cost ?700,000: a total of ?21m. That alone would provide desperate Basra with food, water and medicines.

Imagine: what did Commander Andrew McKendrick's 30 missiles hit? How many people did they kill or maim in a population nearly half of which are children? Maybe, Commander, you targeted a palace with gold taps in the bathroom, or a "command and control facility", as the Americans and Geoffrey Hoon like to lie. Or perhaps each of your missiles had a sensory device that could distinguish George Bush's "evil-doers'' from toddlers. What is certain is that your targets did not include the Ministry of Oil.

When the invasion began, the British public was called upon to "support'' troops sent illegally and undemocratically to kill people with whom we had no quarrel. "The ultimate test of our professionalism'' is how Commander McKendrick describes an unprovoked attack on a nation with no submarines, no navy and no air force, and now with no clean water and no electricity and, in many hospitals, no anaesthetic with which to amputate small limbs shredded by shrapnel. I have seen elsewhere how this is done, with a gag in the patient's mouth.

One child, Ali Ismaeel Abbas, the boy who lost his parents and his arms in a missile attack, has been flown to a modern hospital in Kuwait. Publicity has saved him. Tony Blair says he will "do everything he can'' to help him. This must be the ultimate insult to the memory of all the children of Iraq who have died violently in Blair's war, and as a result of the embargo that Blair enthusiastically endorsed. The saving of Ali substitutes a media spectacle of charity for our right to knowledge of the extent of the crime committed against the young in our name. Let us now see the pictures of the "truckload of dozens of dismembered women and children'' that the Red Cross doctors saw.

As Ali was flown to Kuwait, the Americans were preventing Save The Children from sending a plane with medical supplies into northern Iraq, where 40,000 are desperate. According to the UN, half the population of Iraq has only enough food to last a few weeks. The head of the World Food Programme says that 40 million people around the world are now seriously at risk because of the distraction of the humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

And this is "liberation"? No, it is bloody conquest, witnessed by America's mass theft of Iraq's resources and natural wealth. Ask the crowds in the streets, for whom the fear and hatred of Saddam Hussein have been transferred, virtually overnight, to Bush and Blair and perhaps to "us''.

Such is the magnitude of Blair's folly and crime that the contrivance of his vindication is urgent. As if speaking for the vindicators, Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, reported: "[blair] said they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right.''

What constitutes a bloodbath to the BBC's man in Downing Street? Did the murder of the 3,000 people in New York's Twin Towers qualify? If his answer is yes, then the thousands killed in Iraq during the past month is a bloodbath. One report says that more than 3,000 Iraqis were killed within 24 hours or less. Or are the vindicators saying that the lives of one set of human beings have less value than those recognisable to us? Devaluation of human life has always been essential to the pursuit of imperial power, from the Congo to Vietnam, from Chechnya to Iraq.

If, as Milan Kundera wrote, "the struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting", then we must not forget. We must not forget Blair's lies about weapons of mass destruction which, as Hans Blix now says, were based on "fabricated evidence". We must not forget his callous attempts to deny that an American missile killed 62 people in a Baghdad market. And we must not forget the reason for the bloodbath. Last September, in announcing its National Security Strategy, Bush served notice that America intended to dominate the world by force. Iraq was indeed the "test case". The rest was a charade.

We must not forget that a British defence secretary has announced, for the first time, that his government is prepared to launch an attack with nuclear weapons. He echoes Bush, of course. An ascendant mafia now rules the United States, and the Prime Minister is in thrall to it. Together, they empty noble words - liberation, freedom and democracy - of their true meaning. The unspoken truth is that behind the bloody conquest of Iraq is the conquest of us all: of our minds, our humanity and our self-respect at the very least. If we say and do nothing, victory over us is assured.

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/132938

From Arutz Sheva Israel Broadcasting Network

by Ariel Natan Pasko

March 26, 2003

Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us. Even the anti-Semites, like Patrick J. Buchanan and Congressman Jim Moran know it. Pat Buchanan has been accusing the neo-conservatives, what he calls the War Party - i.e., the Jews and their followers in America - of pushing the United States into this war. He's also blamed Prime Minister Sharon and Israel for wanting the war. That's what he said in a recent article, "Whose War?" Rep. Moran recently came out of the closet saying, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." Other anti-Semites have also been saying it.

They're both right, and dead wrong. True, most Jews in America and Israel want the US to capture Saddam Hussein and his gang, disarm Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction, institute some form of regime change, and introduce freedom and democracy. But so do most Americans, many Iraqis, and many other freedom-loving people in the region and around the world. Although it might be in Israel's interest to see the 'neighborhood bully' - Iraq - have its non-conventional weapons confiscated, it is also in America's interest, it is also in Europe's interest, it is even in Russia's and China's interest - they have both been plagued by Islamic terror in recent years. And, though they might not like to admit it publicly, it is even in the interest of Arab states in the region.

Nobody who thinks about it for a couple of seconds should want a dictator like Saddam Hussein - who has already used chemical weapons on his own citizens, the Kurds, and his neighbors, the Iranians - to have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Whether he uses them himself or passes them off to terror groups like al-Qaida, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, the Chechens, or Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who wants some nut cases releasing Small Pox, Anthrax, or VX Nerve Gas onto innocent civilian populations?

However, we already knew that this war is for us - i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal - our sages - throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People.

Simply put another way, if all the world is a stage, then the Jews - and especially those in the Land of Israel - are the lead actors on the stage of history, and the goyim - the nations, i.e. the gentiles - have supporting roles, while the evil-doers are props and background scenery. As our tradition states, G-D - the great playwright - created the world for the sake of the Jewish People, and it is our responsibility to implement the Torah - absolute morality and the blueprint of creation - in it.

Stop and think for a moment: the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev - just before - Purim. This Gulf War began motzei - just after - Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, "The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor." (Book of Esther 8:16)

Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the proto-typical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons - all hanged - and the Jews kill 75,800 members of the anti-Semitic - i.e. Nazi - party of the time.

This is not so different from the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, when 23 Nazi war criminals were tried. Originally 11 were to have the death penalty imposed if found guilty. Everybody in those days thought that they would be shot - as is customary in military executions - or get the electric chair - as was common in the United States. But when the judges announced the verdict of guilty, they also said that hanging would be the method of execution. Two hours before the execution, they found Hermann Goering dead in his cell. He had committed suicide. That left only 10 Nazis to execute.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. In Megilat Esther (9:7-9), when it describes the execution of Haman's ten sons, their names are listed in a vertical column. If you look at the Hebrew closely, you'll notice extra-small letters in three of the names. The first name, Parshandata, has a small tav. The seventh name, Parmashta, has a small shin. The tenth name, Vayzata, has a small zayn. Hebrew letters are also used as numbers, as well as for dates in the Jewish calendar. Tav, shin, zayn numerically means 707, corresponding to the year 5707, which began with Rosh HaShanah - the Jewish New Year - on September 25, 1946. On October 16, 1946, as foreshadowed in the names of Haman's ten sons, ten Nazi leaders were hanged as war criminals. And if that doesn't impress you, out of nowhere, with the rope around his neck, Julius Schtreicher - editor of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper - shouted out with flaming hatred in his eyes, just as the trap door opened, "Purimfest 1946!" It was reported in the international press of the day.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, or crying, "anti-Semitic slur", we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin-Laden, and the other dictators, terrorists and mullahs of the region, are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.

Great things are yet to come. The Hebrew month of Adar is a time for 'increasing joy'. Purim is a time for celebrating our salvation from enemies who plot our destruction. Adar falls at the end of the calendar for months and the end of the winter. And after Adar comes Nisan - or Aviv, meaning springtime.

Springtime is a time of rebirth and regeneration after a longdark winter. Pesach - Passover - Z'man Cherutainu - the time of our freedom - falls in Nisan. In Nisan, we were redeemed from slavery in Egypt, and the future redemption will be in Nisan.

Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook taught that we were liberated from Egyptian bondage in order to bring liberation to the entire world. The Torah repeats three times that we departed Egypt in the springtime (Exodus 13:4, 26:15, and Deuteronomy 16:1), because our freedom is not only the spring of our people, but also the spring of the entire world and its inhabitants. The objective of our liberation is to perfect the world under the reign of the Almighty, as G-d promised Abraham, "and through you all the families of the earth will be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)

Yes, the war is for the Jews. But it is also for all decent, peace-loving and freedom-loving people. Just as when the Jews were saved from Egyptian slavery, liberated, given the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and brought into the Holy Land, the world now has a great opportunity to rid itself of the Hamans, Hitlers, and Pharaohs who want to kill or enslave them today.

In the Purim story, Mordechai told Queen Esther, when she seemed apprehensive about approaching the king to ask for help to avert Haman's plan of genocide, "If you remain silent at this time, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from elsewhere, but you and your father's house will perish." (Book of Esther 4:14) That is what we should tell the Pat Buchanans, the Jim Morans, and all those in America and around the world who say that the Jews are behind America's war in Iraq. That is what we should tell all those in the ‘Anti-War Movement’ who are against America.

Pat Buchanan really is Anti-American, though he hides it well. Who could imagine an isolationist America, disengaged from the world, as he advocates? Terrorists and terrorist states would multiply. It would end up bringing more tragedies like September 11th to America. Rather than blame America's support for Israel for September 11th, as he and Jihadist Muslims have done, Israel, America, and their allies will lessen the threat of mass murder, through war on Iraq, on other terror-regimes, and on terrorist groups.

Great things are coming, for the Jewish People, for the State of Israel, for America, for the Western democratic world, and for all those who aspire to be like them. And why should we apologize for that?

by Nathan Guttman

April 7, 2003

WASHINGTON - An unusual visitor was invited to address the annual conference held last week in Washington by AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States: the head of the Washington office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), Intifad Qanbar. The INC is one of the main opposition groups outside Iraq, and its leaders consider themselves natural candidates for leadership positions in the post-Saddam Hussein era. Qanbar's invitation to the conference reflects a first attempt to disclose the links between the American Jewish community and the Iraqi opposition, after years in which the two sides have taken pains to conceal them.

The considerations against openly disclosing the extent of cooperation are obvious - revelation of overly close links with Jews will not serve the interests of the organizations aspiring to lead the Iraqi people. Currently, at the height of rivalry over future leadership of the country among opposition groups abroad, the domestic opposition and Iraqi citizens, it is most certainly undesirable for the Jewish lobby to forge - or flaunt - especially close links with any one of the groups, in a way that would cause its alienation from the others.

"At the current stage, we don't want to be involved in this argument," says a major activist in one of the larger Jewish organizations.

In the end, Intifad Qanbar did not attend the AIPAC conference.

At the last moment, he was asked by the American administration to go to northern Iraq to help organize opposition to Saddam there. In his place, another well-known opposition activist spoke to the conference, Kana Makiya, who is less identified with the Iraqi exile organizations.

The Jewish groups maintain quiet contacts with nearly every Iraqi opposition group, and in the past have even met with the most prominent opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi. The main objective was an exchange of information, but there was also an attempt to persuade the Iraqis of the need for good relations with Israel and with world Jewry.

"You have to be realistic about your aims," says one Jewish activist. "You have to understand that Iraq will be an Arab state, and that it won't want to adopt a controversial foreign policy."

Nevertheless, the Jewish activists make it clear they do expect the future Iraqi regime to obligate itself not to be aggressive toward Israel and adopt the mainstream view of the Arab world, "perhaps something like the position taken by Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states," says the activist.

Sources in the Jewish community noted last week that while Chalabi's people expressed positive opinions vis-a-vis Israel in conversations with Jews, Adnan Pachachi, another opposition leader who recently founded an opposition movement that competes with the Iraqi National Congress, said last week in London that he does not expect good relations between the new Iraq and Israel, as this would be antithetical to Iraqi interests.

Prayer for soldiers

Aside from the annual AIPAC conference, two other major events in the United States last week underscored the gamut of opinions and perspectives in the American Jewish community on the war. The positioning of the AIPAC people behind the coalition forces and behind those who sent them is not surprising. AIPAC is wont to support whatever is good for Israel, and so long as Israel supports the war, so too do the thousands of the AIPAC lobbyists who convened in the American capital.

There is no such uniformity among the various religious Jewish movements, and indecisiveness is still very much the case. In Los Angeles, members of the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly gathered and tried to clarify their position on the war. The 350 rabbis shelved the discussions that were on the original program, and devoted all of their time to the question of whether they were for or against the war. In the end, the issue was submitted to an executive council, which issued a draft resolution that offered support for the war, albeit with reservations.

"Judaism affirms the permissibility of war as a response to life-threatening aggression, current or anticipated," read the statement drafted by the Conservative rabbis, who confirmed that they were in agreement with the idea of a preemptive war such as the one declared by President Bush. The movement's rabbis also expressed support for the efforts of coalition forces to remove the threat of terror and nuclear weapons, and expressed support for the soldiers themselves. The movement qualified this by stating that Judaism "affirms the supreme value of peace and peacemaking," although it could accept wars conducted for the purposes of defense.

The rabbis also called for "continued restraint" in conducting actions among civilian populations and for harming non-combatants to be avoided as much as possible.

Nevertheless, the Conservative movement went through its share of trial and tribulation before reaching this draft resolution. Before the war and in its initial days, Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, the movement's primary educational institution, was one of the most prominent spokesmen against the war. The U.S. was entering an "era of darkness," he said, adding the war was motivated by political, not defensive, aims.

Once the war began, however, Rabbi Schorsch took a step back. In a New York Times article, he declared that he did not want to criticize the war at a time when soldiers were engaged in combat. Many viewed this as a restatement of his views.

To a great extent, the approach taken by Schorsch reflects the path taken by the Conservative movement. Despite the wide diversity of opinions within the movement on the eve of the war, and the numerous reservations voiced, as soon as combat began, those with criticism opted to declare their support and minimized their criticism. The resolution approved in Los Angeles last week is a product of this process.

The dilemma is more pronounced among Reform Jews. They also convened last week to formulate a joint position, and they too were careful not to launch any strident criticism of the war itself. The Reform movement is considered the home of liberal Jewry, and its membership is thought to be people who were the driving force of the civil rights movement of the `60s. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Democratic members of Congress who came to address the conference, including Senator Edward Kennedy and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, were received with thunderous applause. The sole Republican representative, Congressman Eric Cantor, sufficed with a modicum of polite applause.

Sharp criticism was voiced from the podium at President Bush on a variety of issues, but criticism of the war in Iraq did not take central stage.

"While there is a spectrum of views in the Reform movement on the Iraq war, there is a consensus that it does not take the place of all the other wars - against poverty, hatred and exploitation," said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

The only decision relevant to the war was agreement on a prayer for the welfare of the soldiers at the front, and recognition of the fact that there are a variety of opinions on the war. The resolution that was adopted is very far from constituting an expression of support of any kind for the war, but is also far from constituting criticism of it.

The situation is simpler among the Orthodox. Immediately upon the outbreak of the war, the Orthodox Union, the umbrella organization of the community, released a statement that expressed unequivocal support for President Bush and his decision to launch the war on Iraq, which was described as having "noble aims."

So far, the only poll that has been sought to gauge Jewish opinions on the war - conducted a month before it broke out - found that 56 percent of Jews were supportive of the war. The rate is said to be even higher now, corresponding to increased support for the war among the American populace in general.

Secret relations with Saudi Arabia

Last week, the United States decided to alter the flight paths of its Tomahawk cruise missiles, which had been passing above Saudi Arabia, in response to Saudi complaints that four of the missiles had fallen in its territory and endangered residents of the kingdom. A similar request was voiced by Turkey, after it developed that the IQ of some of the smart bombs was not high enough for them to find their way to Baghdad, and they landed on Turkish soil.

The Saudi request to cease firing the missiles above its territory is illustrative of a fact that all of the sides are trying to conceal - that from the outset Saudi Arabia agreed to place its air space at the disposal of the Americans for the purpose of launching missiles at Iraq from ships in the Red Sea.

Saudi Arabia is the hidden player in the American war on Iraq. Prior to the outbreak of combat, it made it publicly clear that it opposed the war and declared that it would not cooperate with the Americans. As opposed to the first Gulf War, in which Saudi Arabia was a major partner and a main base of departure for the military forces in Iraq, it is now sitting on the sidelines, ostensibly uninvolved. Nevertheless, well-informed American sources report that the two countries agreed it would be better to obscure the military cooperation between the two sides, which have reached agreement to allow America to exploit many of Saudi Arabia's strategic assets.

The trajectory of the cruise missiles above Saudi Arabia is but one example. It is further charged that the Saudis are also permitting the United States to use Saudi air space for intelligence flights and that the main U.S. Air Force base in Saudi Arabia is assisting by providing flight control of the aircraft conducting bombing missions in Iraq. This American base was supposed to play a major role in the war, and serve as a home base for most of the bombing sorties, but in the early stages of preparations for war about six months ago, the Saudis made it clear they would not permit the Americans to take off from Saudi soil to bomb Saddam. However, once the crisis atmosphere faded somewhat, the Americans realized it would be possible to reach quiet understandings with the Saudis. One if them is that while America would not take off from Saudi Arabia, it would be able to use its air space, and provide flight control from its territory.

Another understanding has to do with oil. American war planners feared that one of the immediate repercussions of the war would be a steep spike in oil prices, due to both the suspension of albeit limited Iraqi oil exports (of 1.7 million barrels a day) and the generally nervous wartime market. In this case, Saudi Arabia again entered the picture. Many weeks before the first shot was fired in the Gulf, the Saudis stepped up the pace of oil production in order to compensate for a possible shortage, reaching a rate of production higher than anything in the past 20 years.

The United States is buying up the surplus and laying in a stockpile, while simultaneously ensuring that world oil prices remain stable. When the war ends, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will again be able to out their relationship from the closet.

One American source declared that the American public would be surprised to discover just how critical was the Saudi contribution to the American war effort. The kingdom is not enjoying much support from American public opinion. On the day after, Washington and Riyadh will have to find a way to overcome the other obstacles that have hurt relations of the two countries in the past two years: the attitude toward Crown Prince Abdullah's peace plan, the issue of Saudi cooperation in the terror investigations, and the continued massive presence of American soldiers on Saudi soil.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/Sh...l?itemNo=281270

As Salam Alykom

Insh a Allah in this topic we will explain the word إذا of SuratuNnasr.

The Surat says:

“إذا جاء نصر الله والفتح ورأيت الناس يدخلون فى دين الله أفواجا فسبح بحمد ربك واستغفره إنه كان توابا”

The word إذا here does not serve as if no it serves as when, in other words the Surat would be when the victory of Allah is achieved. Another word here we also need to explain is كان توابا. It certainly does not mean He was. No but it rather confirms that He is the One Who grants repentance that is why the preceding sentence is a command for the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم to glorify Allah and ask for His forgiveness because He is the One who grants repentance.

All those who have been following the news recently will undoubtably

come across the situation in the Southern Phillipiines, where a group

of "Islamic Militants" have taken a group of western tourists

hostage. Unfortunately, most of us do not know the true situation of

the brothers and sisters in that region, so are unable to comment on

the situation. Insha'Allah, the article attached is intended to

provide us with some background details, so at the least we can be

aware and feel concerned about the state of the Muslims there.

Finally, I by no means condone the actions of the kidnappers there,

but doubt that an Islamic group is really behind it. And Allaah know

best.

The Moroland (presently known as 'Southern Philippines') is composed

of Mindanao island (the second largest island of the Philippine

islands) the Sulu archipelago, Palawan, Basilan and the neighbouring

islands.

The Moroland has the area of 116, 895 square kilometres (more than

one third of the whole Philippine islands), with the population of

more than twenty million of which 12 million are Muslims. The rest

are Highlanders (native inhabitants) and the Christian settlers from

Luzon and Visayas.

Arrival of Islam

The arrival of Islam at the Moroland was in the year 1210 AC, that is

more than three centuries before the arrival of Christianity brought

by Ferdinand Magellan (a Portuguese who was then working for Spain)

to the region in the year 1521 AC.

Islam was introduced to the Moros by some Arab merchants and Islamic

missionaries. Very soon after the arrival of Islam, the Islamic

Sultanates were founded under the reign of the Moro Sultans

themselves, such as;

* the Sultanate of Sulu embracing Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Palawan and the

neighbouring islands

* the Sultanate of Maguindanao where most of the Muslims are now

living.

The Spanish Invasion

The Spanish Invaders, led by Ferdinand Magellan, upon arriving at the

Philippines in the year 1521 AC had imposed the Cross and the

doctrine of Trinity upon the inhabitants by way of the sword.

Consequently, the inhabitants of Luzon and Visayas were all baptized

to Christianity. Of course, there had been an Islamic resistance

in Manila led by Raja Sulaiman and Lakandula, but that did not last

long after the martyrdom of the two said leaders in the battlefield.

None of the Islamic relics in Manila were left by the Spanish vandals

except for a fort known as 'Intramoros.'

On the 10th of December 1898 AC, the "Treaty of Paris" was agreed

upon by America and Spain by which the latter had to cede the

Philippines to the former. What is quite puzzling is that, inspite of

the fact that Spain was not able to subjugate the Moros, she included

the Moroland in the deal.

The Philippines Annexation of the Moroland

For more than three centuries the Spanish attempted to subjugate or

to exterminate the Moro Muslims, followed by the forty seven years of

the Americans attempt, which were all in vain.

The political approach of the Americans seemed effective in winning

over the response of the Moro Sultans and Datus to come to agreement,

whose conditions included the non-interface of the Americans in the

local affairs of the Moro Sultans and Datus. On this basis,

the 'Kiram-Bates' Treaty was signed on the 2nd August 1899. Similar

deals were made with the Sultan of Maguindanao.

On the 2nd March 1904, President Roosevelt of America, without moral

and ethical considerations, unilaterally declared the treaty null and

void.

On the granting of independence to the Philippines by America in the

year 1946, there was a strong objection by the Moros to the inclusion

of the Moroland but neither the Americans nor the christianised

Filipinos had listened to them, knowing that the Philippines is an

American agent in the region. The existence of American military

bases in the country is an obvious reflection of this fact. This is

not surprising as the Moroland is very rich of natural resources and

mines, not to mention the fertility of its soil.

The Moro Jihad at Present

The Moro Jihaad has been in three phases:

First Phase: the Moro Jihaad against the Spanish invasion (1521 -1

898) 377 years

Second Phase: the Moro Jihaad against the American colonisers (1898 -

1946) 47 years

Third Phase: the Moro Jihaad against the Philippine crusade (1970 -

present).

Since the granting of the Philippines Independence in the year 1946,

the Manila government launched 'settlement programs' for the

Christians from Luzon and Visayas in the Moroland. Prior to that the

Moro Muslims had been enjoying the administration of the region by themselves as the Provincial governors, the Municipal mayors and the Barangay captains were among themselves. The Christian settlers, with the assistance of the Manila government, started to take over the strategic politic and socio-economic posts soon after their influx into the Moroland.

The Question of Genocide

Obviously, the motive of the Manila government behind the influx of

the Christian settlers into the Moroland is not a mere settlement but

to carry out its genocide campaign against the Muslims. This has been

reflected by the organisation of the Christian militia (armed)

movement known as 'ilaga' to strike terror against the unarmed Moro

civilians, especially among the rural areas. A large series of

massacres and arsons were carried out. The Moro civilians leaving

their homes and farms were compelled to seek refuge in the urban

areas dominated by Muslims.These are the chances taken by the

Christian terrorists to take over farms and lands vacated by the Moro

refugees.

The Moro Youth Responded

The genocide campaign of the Manila government had reached an

alarming point. So the Moro youth and students, both domestic and

abroad, specially those who were studying in Arab and Islamic

countries led by Salamat Hashim had no choice but to organise

the 'Moro National Liberation Front,' to face the challenge. While

the 'Front' was still at the stage of organisation, a conflict between

Nur Misuari and one of the then Cairo graduates (a doctor) broke out as

both expressed aspirations to the chairmanship of the 'Front.' Sheikh

Salamat Hashim, who was the leader of the whole group did not insist

to the chairmanship to avoid further dispute and eventual failure. So

Misuari became the chairman of the 'Front.'

After a few years of the start of the struggle Misuaris' inefficiency

had unveiled itself and most, if not all, of the field commanders

signed a petition that Misuari should step down and give way for

Salamat Hashim to assume the chairmanship, but Misuari cunningly

insisted to stay and Salamat Hashim has to lead the 'Front' in

accordance with the choice of the majority.

In order to avoid confusion, the members of the Central Committee had

decided to replace the word 'National' with the word 'Islamic' so the

true 'Liberation Front' aiming at the reestablishment of a sovereign

Moro Islamic State was given the title 'Moro Islamic Liberation

Front.'

The Military Strength of the MILF

* 120,000 men (six divisions) regular Islamic Armed Forces of which

more than 80% are well armed;

* 300,000 militiamen and even more.

The Demand of the MILF

The demand (objective) of the 'Moro Islamic Liberation Front' is

precisely no less than Independent (sovereign) Moro Islamic State.

Why Economic Underdevelopment?

The Moroland is rich of natural resources and mines, aside from the

fertility of its soil, yet quite behind in economic development

because of being neglected by the Manila government. Since annexation

of the Moroland by the Philippines, a vast amount of Pesos is being

generated by the crusade Philippine government out of the Moro wealth

on the account of the Moros themselves.

Unless, the would-be Moro sovereign Islamic State is established, no

real economic development is expected

Sheikh Abu Zahir

Taken from 'The Call of Islam' Issue 23 Vol 5

La Ilaha Illa ALLAH, Muhammadan Rasulullah.

Shaykh ‘Alee bin Abdur-Rahmaan Al-Hudhayfee

Rabee‘ul-awwal 8, 1424 (May 9, 2003)

http://www.khutab.org/eng/23/mdn/Khutbah128.htm

_______________________________________________

All praise is due to Allaah, Lord of all the worlds. Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon the Messenger, his household and companions.

Fellow Muslims! The greatest goal of Islaam is to extend kindness to self and kindness to the creatures. It is this goal that determines the position of one before Allaah in this world and the Hereafter. It is also this kindness that determines man’s position among his fellow human beings. All obligatory and forbidden things are based on this kindness. Allaah has made it obligatory in all His legislations.

The Messenger of Allaah said, “Allaah has ordained kindness on everything. When you kill (an animal) kill (it) kindly and when you slaughter (an animal), slaughter (it) kindly. Let anyone of you sharpen his knife and let him give rest to his slaughtered animal.”

The Prophet’s statement, “Allaah ordained kindness on everything” has two meanings:

One: That Allaah has ordained perfection on every obligatory duty and that a Muslim should do it in the best perfect form; that he should endeavour to do as much supererogatory aspects of it as he can and that he should refrain from all aspects of forbidden things. Allaah says,

“Leave (O mankind, all kinds of) sin, open and secret.” (Al-An‘aam 6:120)

Performing obligatory acts in the perfect form and refraining from forbidden things are the greatest acts of doing kindness to oneself. The greatest act of kindness to oneself is to actualise the belief in the Oneness of Allaah by worshipping Him alone without associating any partner to Him. Other things follow this great fundamental.

Two: Every one is commanded to be kind to all creatures. Allaah gives an absolute and general command about kindness when He says,

“And do good. Truly, Allaah loves the good-doers.” (Al-Baqarah 2:195)

He also says,

“Indeed, Allaah orders and good conduct.” (An-Nahl 16:90)

Allaah also ordains kindness in a specified and detailed form. He ordains that the parents, the relatives, the neighbours, the poor, the weak, the distressed, the orphans and others should all be treated with kindness. Being kind to the creatures entails being generous to them and refraining from harming them. The most comprehensive verse on kindness in the Qur’aan is the word of Allaah that says,

“Worship Allaah and join none with Him in worship; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allaah does not like such as are proud and boastful.” (An-Nisaa 4:36)

And His word, “Verily, Allaah enjoins Al-'dl (i.e. justice and worshipping none but Allaah Alone - Islaamic Monotheism) and Al-Ihsân (i.e. to be patient in performing your duties to Allaah, totally for Allaah's sake and in accordance with the Sunnah (legal ways) of the Prophet (peace be upon him in a perfect manner), and giving (help) to kith and kin (i.e. all that Allaah has ordered you to give them e.g., wealth, visiting, looking after them, or any other kind of help), and forbids Al-Fahshâ' (i.e. all evil deeds, e.g. illegal sexual acts, disobedience of parents, polytheism, to tell lies, to give false witness, to kill a life without right), and Al-Munkar (i.e. all that is prohibited by Islaamic law: polytheism of every kind, disbelief and every kind of evil deeds), and Al-Baghy (i.e. all kinds of oppression), He admonishes you, that you may take heed.” (An-Nahl 16:90)

The neighbour who is near is the Muslim neighbour who is a relative and the neighbour who is a stranger is the one who is an unbeliever. The Prophet said, “Neighbours are three:

1. A neighbour who has only one right. That neighbour has the least right.

2. A neighbour who has two rights.

3. A neighbour who has three rights. This is the neighbour who has most rights.

The neighbour who has only one right is a neighbour who is an unbeliever and who is not a relative. He should enjoy the right of neighbourliness. The neighbour who has two rights is the Muslim neighbour who has the right of brotherhood in Islaam and the right of neighbourliness. The neighbour who has three rights is the one who is Muslim and is a relative. This neighbour has the right of Islaamic brotherhood, the right of neighbourliness and the right of blood relation.” (Al-Bazzaar and others)

Some scholars interpreted the ‘companion by the side’ as the wife while some interpreted it to be travel companion. It can also be interpreted, with a greater reason, as the companion at home.

Among the greatest act of kindness to the people is to treat them according to the teachings of Islaam. This include being truthful with them, respecting them, being patient with them, saying kind words to them and treating them the way one will like to be treated. Allaah says,

“O you who believe! Fulfil (your) obligations.” (Al-Maaidah 5:1)

Allaah also says,

“O you who believe! Be afraid of Allaah, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds).” (At-Tawbah 9:119)

Allaah also says,

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allaah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety.” (Al-Maaidah 5:8)

He also says,

“You (true believers in Islaamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” (Aal ‘Imraan 3:110)

The Messenger of Allaah said, “The compassionate people will be shown mercy by the Merciful Lord.”

Allaah also says,

“And the (faithful) slaves of the Most Gracious (Allaah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness.” (Al-Furqaan 25:63)

Allaah also says,

“And eat up not one another's property unjustly.” (Al-Baqarah 2:188)

‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir narrated that the Messenger of Allaah said, “O ‘Uqbah! Shall I not tell you of the best of the conduct of this world and the Hereafter? It is to join the tie of kinship with one who severs it, to give him who deprives you and to forgive him who does wrong to you.” (Ahmad and Al-Haakim)

The Messenger of Allaah also said, “There is nothing in the scale (of good deeds) that is heavier than good conduct. The one who has good conduct can achieve, through his good conduct, the position of one who performs (voluntary) fasting and prayers.” (Ahmad and others)

The Messenger of Allaah also said, “I have seen a man moving about in Paradise simply as a result of a harmful tree which he removed from people’s way.” (Muslim)

Dear brethren! Be kind to yourselves and others in the light of the acts of worship, which Allaah enjoined on you. Allaah says,

“And march forth in the way (which leads to) forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious; those who spend (in Allaah's Cause) in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon men; verily, Allaah loves the good-doers.” (Aal ‘Imraan 3:133-134)

Brethren in faith! Fear Allaah as He should be feared and get prepared for the horrors of the Day of Judgement. For this world will soon come to an end and the Hereafter is near with its everlasting bliss or painful punishment.

Brethren in faith! Kindness, which Allaah enjoined, must be shown to both humans and animals. Allaah says,

“So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it.” (Az-Zalzalah 99:7-8)

The Messenger of Allaah said, “While a man was walking on a road. He became very thirsty. Then he came across a well, got down into it, drank (of its water) and then came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. The man said to himself "This dog is suffering from the same state of thirst as I did." So he went down the well (again) and filled his shoe (with water) and held it in his mouth and watered the dog. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals?" He said, "(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” (Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim)

The Prophet also said, “Any man who grows a tree or plants a plant and then a bird or a human being eats from it, it will be counted as charity in his credit.”

Dear brethren! Fear Allaah and always be kind to yourselves by carrying out righteous deeds and refraining from forbidden things. Also be kind to your fellow creatures, that your Lord may let you enter the Honourable Abode and ward away from you a painful punishment.

http://www.khutab.org/eng/23/mdn/Khutbah128.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->

Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.

http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/yS...SSFAA/TXWolB/TM

---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

__________________________

"By Al-`Asr (the time). Verily! Man is in loss, Except those who believe (in Islaamic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, and recommend one another to the truth [i.e. order one another to perform all kinds of good deeds (Al-Ma`roof المعروف) which Allaah has ordained, and abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds (Al-Munkar المنكر) which Allaah has forbidden], and recommend one another to patience (for the sufferings, harms, and injuries which one may encounter in Allaah's Cause during preaching His religion of Islaamic Monotheism or Jihaad, etc.)." [Al-Qur'aan, Al-`Asr (103): 1-3]

Source:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/therightpath/messages

[list:57ee37ba0b]

[u:57ee37ba0b]فضل القرآن الكريم وقارئه [/u:57ee37ba0b]

ورد في فضل القرآن الكريم والحث على تلاوته وتدبره والتأثر به آيات وأحاديث وأقوال لسلفنا الصالح كثيرة جدا نكتفي بذكر بعضها مما يؤدي الغرض المقصود والله أعلم .

أولا : الآيات التي تدعو لتلاوة القرآن وتدبره والتأثر به:تذكر وتدبر هذه الآيات البينات بقلبك وقالبك : [list=]1)

قال الله تعالى : { الله نزل أحسن الحديث كتابا متشابها مثاني تقشعر منه جلود الذين يخشون ربهم ثم تلين جلودهم وقلوبهم إلى ذكر الله ، ذلك هدى الله يهدي به من يشاء ، ومن يضلل الله فما له من هاد } [الزمر 23]

. 2) قال الله تعالى : { إنما المؤمنون الذين إذا ذكر الله وجلت قلوبهم وإذا تليت عليهم آياته زادتهم إيمانا وعلى ربهم يتوكلون . الذين يقيمون الصلاة ومما رزقناهم ينفقون. أولئك هم المؤمنون حقا لهم درجات عند ربهم ومغفرة ورزق كريم } [ الأنفال 2-3] .

3) { يا أيها الناس قد جاءتكم موعظة من ربكم وشفاء لما في الصدور وهدى ورحمة للمؤمنين } [يونس57] .

4) { وننزل من القرآن ما هو شفاء ورحمة للمؤمنين ولا يزيد الظالمين إلا خسارا } [الإسراء 82] .

5) { إن هذا القرآن يهدي للتي هي أقوم ويبشر المؤمنين الذين يعملون الصالحات أن لهم أجرا كبيرا . وأن الذين لا يؤمنون بالآخرة أعتدنا لهم عذابا أليما } [الإسراء9-10] . 6)

{ كتاب أنزلناه إليك مبارك ليدبروا آياته وليتذكر أولوا الألباب } [ص29] . 7)

{ ولقد يسرنا القرآن للذكر فهل من مدكر }[القمر 17]

8) { لو أنزلنا هذا القرآن على جبل لرأيته خاشعا متصدعا من خشية الله ، وتلك الأمثال نضربها للناس لعلهم يتفكرون } [الحشر21] .

9) { وإذا قرىءالقرآن فاستمعوا له وأنصتوا لعلكم ترحمون } [ الأعراف 204] ثاتيا:

[u:57ee37ba0b]الأحاديث التي تدعو لتلاوة القرآن وتدبره والتأثر به[/u:57ee37ba0b]

:1) روى البخاري والترمذي وأبو داود عن عثمان بن عفان رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ((خيركم من تعلم القرآن وعلمه )) .

2) روى البخاري ومسلم والترمذي والنسائي وأبو داود عن أبي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : (( مثل المؤمن الذي يقرأ القرآن مثل الأترجة : ريحها طيب وطعمها طيب ، ومثل المؤمن الذي لا يقرأ القرآن مثل التمرة لا ريح لها وطعمها حلو ، ومثل المنافق الذي يقرأ القرآن مثل الريحانة ريحها طيب وطعمها مُر ، ومثل المنافق الذي لا يقرأ القرآن كمثل الحنظلة لا ريح لها وطعمها مُر )) .

3) وحذر صلى الله عليه وسلم الأمة من نسيان القرآن تحذيرا شديدا ، روى البخاري ومسلم عن أبي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (( تعاهدوا هذا القرآن فوالذي نفس محمد بيده لهو أشد تفلتا من الإبل في عقلها )) .

4) روى البخاري ومسلم عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ( الذي يقرأ القرآن وهو ماهر به مع السفرة الكرام البررة ، والذي يقرأ القرآن ويتعتع فيه وهو عليه شاق له أجران )) .

5) روى مسلم عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : (( إن الله يرفع بهذا الكتاب أقواما ويضع به آخرين )) .

6) روى أبو داود والترمذي عن عبدالله بن عمرو بن العاص رضي الله عنهما عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ((يقال لصاحب القرآن : إقرأ وارتق ورتل كما كنت ترتل في الدنيا ، فإن منزلتك عند آخر آية تقرأها )) صحيح الجامع 8122

7) روى الترمذي عن عبدالله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (( من قرأ حرفا من كتاب الله فله حسنة والحسنة بعشر أمثالها ، لا أقول ألم حرف، ولكن ألف حرف ولام حرف وميم حرف)) صحيح الجامع 6469

8) روى مسلم عن أبي أمامة الباهلي رضي الله عنه قال : سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : (( اقرأوا القرآن فإنه يأتي يوم القيامة شفيعا لأصحابه )) .

9) روى البخاري ومسلم عن عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنهما عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : (( لا حسد إلا في اثنتين : رجل أتاه الله القرآن فهو يقوم به آناء الليل وآناء النهار ، ورجل أتاه الله مالا فهو ينفقه آناء الليل وآناء النهار )) .

10) روى مسلم وأبو داود عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : (( ... وما اجتمع قوم في بيت من بيوت الله يتلون كتاب الله عز وجل ، ويتدارسونه بينهم إلا نزلت عليهم السكينة وغشيتهم الرحمة وحفتهم الملائكة وذكرهم الله فيمن عنده ))

11) روى البيهقي عن عصمة بن مالك رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (( لو جُمع القرآن في اهاب ما أحرقه الله بالنار )) حسنه الألباني في صحيح الجامع 5266

12) روى مسلم عن أبي ذر رضي الله عنه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (( إن ناسا من أمتي سيماهم التحليق يقرؤون القرآن لا يجاوز حلوقهم يمرقون من الدين كما يمرق السهم من الرمية هم شر الخلق والخليقة )) [/list:u:57ee37ba0b].

[u:57ee37ba0b]ثالثا : بعض أقوال الصحابة عن القرآن الكريم وقارئه[/u:57ee37ba0b]

1[list=]) قال ابن مسعود رضي الله عنه : ( ينبغي لقارىء القرآن أن يعرف بليله إذا الناس نائمون ، وبنهاره إذا الناس مفطرون، وببكائه إذا الناس يضحكون ، وبورعه إذا الناس يخلطون ، وبصمته إذا الناس يخوضون ، وبخضوعه إذا الناس يختالون ، وبحزنه إذا الناس يفرحون ... )

2) قال عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه : ( كنا نحفظ العشر آيات فلا ننتقل إلى ما بعدها حتى نعمل بهن ) وروي عنه أنه حفظ سورة البقرة في تسع سنين وذلك ليس للإنشغال عن الحفظ أو رداءة الفهم ولكن بسبب التدقيق والتطبيق ..

3) قال عبدالله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه : ( إنّا صعب علينا حفظ ألفاظ القرآن وسهل علينا العمل به ، وإنّ من بعدنا يسهل عليهم حفظ القرآن ويصعب عليهم العمل به ) .

4) قال عثمان بن عفان وحذيفة بن اليمان رضي الله عنهما: ( لو طهرت القلوب لم تشبع من قراءة القرآن ... ) .

5) قال عبدالله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه : ( إذا أردتم العلم فانثروا القرآن فإن فيه علم الأولين والآخرين ) .

6) قال أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه : ( رب تال للقرآن والقرآن يلعنه ) .

7) قال عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنهما : ( لقد عشنا دهرا طويلا وأحدنا يؤتى الإيمان

قبل القرآن فتنزل السورة على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فيتعلم حلالها وحرامها وآمرها وزاجرها ، وما ينبغي أن يقف عنده منها ، ثم لقد رأيت رجالا يؤتى أحدهم القرآن قبل الإيمان ، فيقرأ ما بين الفاتحة إلى خاتمته لا يدري ما آمره ولا زاجره وما ينبغي أن يقف عنده منه ، ينثره نثر الدقل !! ) .

8) قال ابن مسعود رضي الله عنه : ( لا تهذوا القرآن هذ الشعر ولا تنثروه نثر الدقل - أي التمر الرديء وفي رواية الرمل - قفوا عند عجائبه وحركوا به القلوب ولا يكن هم أحدكم آخر السورة ) .

[u:57ee37ba0b]الغاية والثمرة من قراءة القرآن[/u:57ee37ba0b][/size:57ee37ba0b]

<span>لا بد من الحضور الفاعل الحي المؤثر أثناء تلاوة القرآن وتدبره والتعامل معه ، بكافة المشاعر والأحاسيس والانفعالات ، فلا يكون هدف قارىء القرآن مجرد الأجر والثواب فقط فهذا وارد وسيحصل عليه إذا أخلص النية بإذن الله </span>

<span>.. كما لا يكون هدفه حشو ذهنه بالعلم والثقافة وزيادة رصيده من العلوم والمعارف لأن الوقوف عند الثقافة وحدها لا يولد عملا ولا التزاماً ولا سلوكا ، كما لا يكون هدفه الرياء ولا يبتغي من تلاوته عرضا من الدنيا أو غير ذلك .. </span>

<span> على قارىء القرآن أن يتلقاه بجميع مشاعره وأن يكون القرآن دليلاً عملياً لحياته في يومه ونهاره .</span>

<span>. عليه أن يتلقاه بجميع أجهزة التلقي في جسمه وأن يربط بينها ويحولها إلى برنامج يومي وسلوك عملي وحقائق معاشه ، وأن يكون قدوته في ذلك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كما تقول عائشة رضي الله عنه : ( كان خلقه القرآن ) وكذلك يقتدي بالصحابة رضي الله عنهم الذين يتلقون القرآن تلقيا للتنفيذ فور سماعه . </span>

<span> وعلى قارىء القرآن أن لا يخلط بين الوسائل والغايات ، وأن لا يجعل من الوسائل غايات لأن كل ما يستخدمه أثناء التلاوة لا يعدو أن يكون وسائل توصله إلى غاية واحدة محددة .. فالتلاوة والتدبر والنظر ، وما يحصل عليه من حقائق ومعلومات وتقريرات والاطلاع على التفاسير والحياة مع القرآن لحظات أو ساعات كل هذا لا يجوز أن تكون إلا وسائل لغاية ، فإن وقف عندها واكتفى بها فلن يحيا بالقرآن ولن يعيش معه ولن يدرك كيفية التعامل والتأثر بالقرآن </span>

<span>.. إن الثمار التي يريدها قارىء القرآن لن تكون إلا في تحقيق الغاية التي حددها القرآن الكريم للمؤمن المتدبر</span>

<span> .. قال تعالى : { أفمن شرح الله صدره للإسلام فهو على نور من ربه فويل للقاسية قلوبهم من ذكر الله أولئك في ضلال مبين . الله نزل أحسن الحديث كتابا مثاني تقشعر منه جلود الذين يخشون ربهم ثم تلين جلودهم وقلوبهم إلى ذكر الله . ذلك هدى الله يهدي به من يشاء ..} الزمر 22-23 إن الغاية المحددة هنا هي ( الهدى ) باعتبارها وردت خاتمة للآيتين اللتين تحددان كيفية التلاوة وتصفان أحوال الذين يقومون بها وتسجل مظاهر الثاثر والتغير والانفعال عليهم ، ثم تبين الثمرة لهذه التلاوة وتحدد الغاية منها وتدعو المؤمن إلى أن يلحظها ويسعى إلى تحقيقها </span>

<span>.. وهناك آية أخرى تقرر غاية أخرى للتلاوة وهي قوله تعالى { أو من كان ميتاً فأحييناه وجعلنا له نورا يمشي به في الناس كمن مثله في الظلمات ليس بخارج منها } الأنعام 122 الحياة العزيزة الكريمة التي تليق بالمؤمن وتبارك عمره وترفعه وتزكيه </span>

<span>... الحياة التي لا بد أن يجعلها غاية له من تلاوته وثمرة له يجنيها من رحلته فيه ونتيجة عمله يحققها من تعامله مع القرآن . هذه غاية التلاوة وثمرة التعامل مع القرآن ونتيجة التدبر وكل ما سواها وسائل لتحقيقها .</span>

<span><span>[u:57ee37ba0b]خطوات التأثر بالقرآن[/u:57ee37ba0b][/size:57ee37ba0b]</span></span>

<span><span>1[list=]) استحضار الجو الإيماني ومعايشة الحالة الإيمانية التي سيتقدم بها الفهم والتدبر وذلك بان يراعى آداب تلاوة القرآن والتي سنذكرها فيما بعد إن شاء الله . </span></span>

<span><span>2) تلاوة القرآن الكريم والوقوف على كل آية وتدبرها والانفعال معها . </span></span>

<span><span>3) تسجيل الخواطر والمعاني لحظة ورودها أو بعد الانتهاء من القراءة .</span></span>

<span><span> 4) الاطلاع على تفسير مختصر لبيان كلمة غريبة أو تحديد معنى غامض أو معرفة حكم خاص ، فهذا الاطلاع للتوضيح أو التصويب أو الاستدراك مثل كتاب زبدة التفسير للشيخ محمد سليمان الأشقر . </span></span>

<span><span>5) محاولة تطبيق كل آية في كتاب الله تمر أثناء القراءة في الواقع واستخراج العبر والعظات من </span></span>

<span><span>قصص السابقين وتدوينها والرجوع إليها بعد الرجوع إلى تفاسير السلف . </span></span>

<span><span>6) الحرص على حفظ الآيات في الصدر كما فعل سلفنا الصالح وكما كان يفعل عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه كان يحفظ العشر آيات ولا ينتقل إلى غيرها حتى يطبقها وتكون واقعا عمليا في حياته . </span></span>

<span><span>7) الاطلاع على تفسير مطول يتوسع صاحبه في مباحثه ويستطرد في موضوعاته ويعرض ألوانا مختلفة من المعارف والثقافات مثل تفسير ابن كثير وتفسير الطبري وتفسير السعدي وأضواء البيان للشنقيطي .. وغيرها . </span></span>

<span><span>[u:57ee37ba0b]آداب تعين على التأثر بالقرآن [/u:57ee37ba0b]</span></span>

<span><span> وهذه الآداب منها ما هو واجب ومنها ما هو مستحب بالنص ، ومنها ما هو مرغب فيه عند بعض العلماء وليس فيه نص .. أولا : آداب قلبية</span></span>

<span><span>[list=]</span></span>

<span><span>1) أن يخلص لله في قراءته بأن يقصد بها رضى الله وثوابه ويستحضر عظمة منزل القرآن في القلب ،فكلما عظم الله في قلبك وخافه قلبك وأحبه كلما عظم القرآن لديك ، وأن يتنبه إلى أن ما يقرؤه ليس من كلام البشر وأن لا يطلب بالقرآن شرف المنزلة عند أبناء الدنيا .قال ابن مسعود </span></span>

<span><span>رضي الله عنه : لا يسأل عبد عن نفسه إلا القرآن فإن كان يحب القرآن فإنه يحب الله ورسوله . </span></span>

<span><span>2) التوبة والابتعاد عن المعاصي عموما فهي تذهب بنور الإيمان في القلب والوجه وتوهن القلب وتمرضه وتضعفه ، فالقلب المريض أبعد الناس عن التأثر بالقرآن ، وعلى وجه الخصوص ينبغي على العبد أن يبتعد عن معاصي أدوات التأثر بالقرآن وهي القلب والسمع واللسان والبصر ، فاستخدام هذه الأدوات في الحرام يعرضها لعدم الانتفاع بها في الحق . ومن أخطر المعاصي وأعظمها صدا عن التأثر بالقرآن وتدبره ، سماع الغناء والموسيقى وآلات الطرب واللهو التي تصد القلوب عن القرآن وهذه من أعظم مكائد عدو الله إبليس التي كاد بها كثير من الناس فأبعدهم عن القرآن وتفهمه والتأثر به . </span></span>

<span><span>3) أن يحضر القلب ويطرد حديث النفس أثناء التلاوة ويصون يديه عن العبث وعينيه عن تفريق نظرهما من غير حاجة . </span></span>

<span><span>4) التدبر ومحاولة استيعاب المعنى لأنها أوامر رب العالمين التي يجب أن ينشط العبد إلى تنفيذها بعد فهمها وتدبرها . </span></span>

<span><span>5) أن يتفاعل قلبه مع كل آية بما يليق بها فيتأمل في معاني أسماء الله وصفاته حسب فهم السلف ويتأسى بأحوال الأنبياء والصالحين ويعتبر بأحوال المكذين .. وهكذا . </span></span>

<span><span>6) أن يستشعر القارئ بأن كل خطاب في القرآن موجه إليه شخصيا . </span></span>

<span><span>7)التأثر فيتجاوب مع كل آية يتلوها فعند الوعيد يتضاءل خيفة ، وعند الوعد يستبشر فرحا ، وعند ذكر الله وصفاته وأسماءه يتطأطأ خضوعا ، وعند ذكر الكفار وقلة أدبهم ودعاويهم يخفض صوته وينكسر في باطنه حياء من قبح مقالتهم ، ويشتاق للجنة عند وصفها ، ويرتعد من النار عند ذكرها . </span></span>

<span><span>8) أن يتبرأ من حوله وقوته إذ لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم ويتحاشى النظر إلى نفسه بعين الرضا والتزكية . 9) تحاشي موانع الفهم مثل أن يصرف همه كله إلى تجويد الحروف وغير ذلك ، ويجب عليه أيضا حصر معاني آيات القرآن فيما تلقنه من تفسير . وهذه الآداب منها ما هو واجب ومنها ما هو مستحب بالنص ، ومنها ما هو </span></span>

<span><span>مرغب فيه عند بعض العلماء وليس فيه نص .. </span></span>

<span><span><span>[u:57ee37ba0b]ثانيا : آداب ظاهرية[/u:57ee37ba0b]</span></span></span>

<span><span>[list=]1) يستحب أن يتطهر</span></span>

<span><span> ويتوضأ قبل القراءة لما روى ان عمر رضي الله عنهما قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: (( لا يمس القرآن إلا طاهر )) صحيح الجامع 7657 2</span></span>

<span><span>2) أن يستاك فيطيب وينظف فمه بالسواك لأنه طريق القرآن. </span></span>

<span><span>3) الأفضل أن يستقبل القبلة عند قراءته لأنها أشرف الجهات وإن لم يستقبل القبلة فلا حرج في ذلك . 4) أن يتعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم ويقرأ بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم إذا بدأ من أول السورة . </span></span>

<span><span>5) أن يتعاهد القراءة بالمواظبة على قراءته وعدم تعريضه للنسيان ، وينبغي أن لا يمضي عليه يوم إلا ويقرأ فيه شيئا من القرآن حتى لا ينساه ولا يهجر المصحف . </span></span>

<span><span>6) عدم قطع القراءة بكلام لا فائدة فيه واجتناب الضحك واللغط والحديث إلا كلاما يضطر إليه ، وليقتد بما رواه البخاري عن نافع قال : كان ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما إذا قرأ القرآن لم يتكلم حتى يفرغ منه . </span></span>

<span><span>7) أن يحسن صوته بالقرآن ما استطاع ( زينوا القرآن باصواتكم ، فإن الصوت الحسن يزيد القرآن حُسنا ) رواه أحمد وأبو داود وابن ماجة وصححه الألباني في صحيح الجامع 3580 وأن يرتل قراءته وقد اتفق العلماء على استحباب الترتيل {ورتل القرآن ترتيلا } . وعن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال : لأن أقرأ سورة أرتلها أحب إلي من أن أقرأ القرآن كله. وعن مجاهد أنه سئل عن رجلين قرأ أحدهما البقرة وآل عمران والآخر البقرة وحدها وزمنهما وركوعهما وسجودهما وجلوسهما واحد سواء ؟ فقال : الذي قرأ البقرة وحدها أفضل .</span></span>

<span><span> 8) أن يحترم المصحف فلا يضعه في الأرض ولا يضع فوقه شيئاً ولا يرمي به لصاحبه إذا أراد أن يناوله إياه ولا يمسه إلا وهو طاهر .</span></span>

<span><span> 9) اختيار المكان المناسب مثل المسجد أو مكانا في بيته بعيدا عن الموانع والشواغل والتشويش ، أو حديقة أو غير ذلك ... ويجب أن يكون المكان بعيدا عن ما يبعد الملائكة من صور معلقة وأجراس ....الخ </span></span>

<span><span>10) اختيار الوقت المناسب والذي يتجلى الله فيه على عباده وتتنزل فيه فيوضات رحمته ، وأفضل القراءة ما كان في الصلاة ، وأما القراءة في غير الصلاة فأفضلها قراءة الليل ، والنصف الأخير من الليل أفضل من الأول ، وأما قراءة النهار فأفضلها بعد صلاة الفجر .</span></span>

<span><span> 11) ترديد الآية للتدبر والتاثر بها ، وقد ثبت عن أبي ذر رضي الله عنه قال : ( قام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بآية يرددها حتى اصبح ) والآية { إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك}[المائدة 78] . رواه النسائي وابن ماجة . وقد ثبت عن كثير من الصحابة والسلف ايضا ترديد آيات معينة لتدبرها والتاثر بها . </span></span>

<span><span>12) البكاء أثناء التلاوة وبخاصة عند قراءة آيات العذاب أو المرور بمشاهده وذلك عندما يستحضر مشاهد القيامة وأحداث الآخرة ومظاهر الهول فيها ثم يلاحظ تقصيره وتفريطه ، فإذا لم يستطع البكاء فليحاول التباكي ، والتباكي هو استجلاب البكاء فإن عجز عن البكاء والتباكي فليحاول أن يبكي على نفسه هو وعلى قلبه وروحه لكونه محروما من هذه النعم الربانية مريضا بقسوة القلب وجحود العين . اللهم إنا نعوذ بك من عين لا تدمع وقلب لا يخشع . </span></span>

<span><span>13) على المستمع للقرآن أن يتأدب بالآداب السابقة كلها ويزيد عليها حسن السماع وحسن الإنصات والتدببر وحسن التلقي وأن لا يفتح أذنيه فقط بل كل مشاعره وأحاسيسه ، قال تعالى : { وإذا قُرئ القرآن فاستمعوا له وأنصتوا لعلكم ترحمون } الأعراف 204[/size:57ee37ba0b]</span></span>

<span><span><span>[/color:57ee37ba0b]</span></span></span><span><span><span><span>[/size:57ee37ba0b] </span></span></span></span>