Pages

Monday, 1 August 2011

MENJELANG RAMADAN - ISTIHARKAN PERDAMAIAN !



SEBENTAR LAGI KITA AKAN MEMASUKI BULAN SUCI

ALANGKAH BAIKNYA KITA UMAT ISLAM MENYUCIKAN HATI KITA,

AMAL KITA SEBELUM MEMASUKINYA...

MUDAH-MUDAHAN KITA DIBERI KEKUATAN UNTUK

MELEWATI BULAN RAMADAN INI DENGAN SEBAIK-BAIKNYA...

TAK PERLU BERBALAHAN LAGI

LETAKKAN "SENJATA", ISTIHARKAN GENCATAN

ISTIHARKAN PERDAMAIAN DENGAN SEGERA !!!

SEMOGA ALLAH MENGAMPUNKAN DOSA KITA

DAN MELIMPAHKAN RAHMATNYA

AMIN...

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

ISRA' AND MI'RAJ: THE MIRACULOUS NIGHT JOURNEY


The Isra' and Mi'raj refer to two parts of an miraculous journey that Prophet Muhammad took in one night from Makka (Mecca) to Jerusalem and then an ascension to the heavens.

Isra' is an Arabic word referring to Prophet Muhammad's miraculous night journey from Makka to Jerusalem - specifically to the site of al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem - as referred to in Surah Al-Israa in the Quran.

It is believed to have been followed by the Mi'raj, his ascension to heaven. According to some of the Hadith scholars this journey is believed to have taken place just over a year before Prophet Muhammad migrated to from Makka to Madina, on the 27th of Rajab.

Following is the translation of the first verse of chapter 17, Al-Israa, from the Quran that refers to this journey, followed by a detailed explanation of the verse by Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi.
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Makka) to the farther Mosque (in Jerusalem) - whose surroundings We have blessed - that We might show him some of Our signs1. Indeed He alone is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Quran 17:1)
The Quran here only mentions that the Prophet was taken from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem, and specifies that the purpose of the journey was such that God might "show him some of His signs". Beyond this, The Quran does not concern itself with any detail.

However, according to Hadith reports, Gabriel took the Prophet at night from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem on a buraq.2 On reaching Jerusalem the Prophet along with other Prophets offered Prayers.3 Gabriel then took him to the heavens and the Prophet met several great Prophets in different heavenly spheres.4 Finally, he reached the highest point in the heavens and was graced with an experience of the Divine Presence. On that occasion the Prophet received a number of directives including that Prayers were obligatory five times a day.5 Thereafter, the Prophet returned from the heavens to Jerusalem, and from there to the Holy Mosque in Makka. Numerous reports on the subject reveal that the Prophet was also enabled on this occasion to observe Heaven and Hell.6

It may be recalled that according to authentic reports when the Prophet narrated the incidents of this extraordinary journey the following day to the people in Makka, the unbelievers found the whole narration utterly amusing.7 In fact, even the faith of some Muslims was shaken because of the highly extraordinary nature of the account.8

The details of the event provided by the Hadith supplement the Quranic account. There is no reason, however, to reject all this supplementary information on the grounds that it is opposed to the Quran. Nevertheless, if someone is not quite convinced and hence does not accept some of the details concerning the Ascension mentioned in the Hadith as true, he should not be considered an unbeliever. On the contrary, if someone were to clearly deny any part of the account categorically mentioned in the Quran, he would be deemed to have gone beyond the fold of Islam.

What was the nature of this journey? Did it take place when the Prophet was asleep or when he was awake? Did he actually undertake a journey in the physical sense or did he have a spiritual vision while remaining in his own place? These questions, in our view, have been resolved by the text of the Quran itself. The opening statement: "Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the farther Mosque..." (verse 1) itself indicates that it was an extraordinary event which took place by dint of the infinite power of God. For quite obviously, to be able to perceive the kind of things mentioned in connection with the event, either in a dream or by means of intuition, is not so wondrous that it should be prefaced by the statement: "Holy is He Who carried His servant by night..."; a statement which amounts to proclaiming that God was free from every imperfection and flaw. Such a statement would make absolutely no sense if the purpose of it was merely to affirm that God had the power to enable man to have either visions in the course of a dream, or to receive information intuitively. In our view, the words of the experience or a dream vision, was an actual journey, and the observation in question was a visual observation. All was contingent upon God's will that truths be revealed to the Prophet in this fashion.

Now, let us consider the matter carefully. The Quran tells us, in clear terms, that the Prophet, went from Makka to Jerusalem and then returned to Makka during the night (obviously, without the use of anything resembling an aircraft), owing to God's power. Now, if we believe this to be possible, what justification can there be to reject as inherently impossible the additional details of the event mentioned in the traditional sources? Statements declaring certain acts to be possible and others to be beyond the range of possibility are understandable if these acts are deemed to have been performed by creatures in exercise of the natural powers with which they are endowed.

However, when it is clearly stated that it is God Who did something out of His power, any doubts about the possibility of these acts can be entertained only by those who do not believe God to be all-powerful.

Those who reject the Hadith as such raise several objections against the traditions concerning this incident. It seems that only two of these objections are worth of any consideration.

First, it is claimed that the contents of the traditions relating to the Ascension imply that God is confined to a particular place. For had that not been the case, it is argued there would have been no need to transport the Prophet in order for him to experience the presence of God. Second, it is questionable whether the Prophet was enabled to observe Heaven and Hell and to see people being chastised for their sins even though they had not yet been judged by God. How is it that people were subjected to punishment even before the coming of that Day when all will be judged?

Both these objections, however, carry little substance. The first objection is to be rejected on the grounds that although the Creator is infinite and transcends both time and place, yet in dealing with His creatures He has to have recourse to the means which are finite and are circumscribed by time-space limitations. This is because of the inherent limitations of man. Hence when God speaks to His creatures, He employs, of necessity, the same means of communication which can be comprehensible to the latter even though His Own speech transcends the means employed in the speech. In like fashion, when God wants to show someone the signs of His vast kingdom, He takes him to certain places and enables him to observe whatever he is required to observe. For it is beyond the power of man to view the universe in the manner God can. While God does not stand in need of visiting a certain place in order to observe something that exists there, man does need to do so. The same holds true of having a direct encounter with the Creator. Although God is not confined to a particular place, man needs to experience His presence at a defined place where the effulgence of His Being might be focused. For it is beyond man's power to encounter God in His limitlessness.

Let us now consider the second objection. That too is fallacious for the simple reason that the objects shown to the Prophet represented, in symbolic form, certain truths. For instance, a mischievous statement has allegorically been represented by a fat ox that could not return via the small hole through which it had come.9 Or the other allegory relating to those who indulge in fornication - that they prefer to eat rotten meat when fresh, clean meat is available to them.10 The same holds true for the punishments to which sinners will be subjected in the Next Life - they are anticipatory representations of the sufferings to which they will be subjected in the Life to Come. The main point which needs to be appreciated regarding the Ascension is that it belongs to a genre of experience through which each Prophet is enabled to observe - consonant with his standing and mission - aspects of God's dominion of the heavens and the earth. Once the material barriers to the normal vision of human beings are removed, it becomes possible to view physically, the realities which the Prophets are required to summon others to believe in as part of faith in the Unseen. This is done in order to distinguish the Prophets from mere speculative philosophers. For a philosopher's contentions are based on speculative reason and hence are essentially conjectural. Were a philosopher to recognize his true position - the position of a philosopher - he would shrink from testifying to the truth of his contentions. In contrast, what the Prophets say is based on their direct knowledge and observation. They can testify before others with full conviction that whatever they expound are realities which they themselves have directly perceived.

Notes:

1. This is a reference to the event known as Mi'raj (Ascension) and Isra' (Night Journey). According to most traditions - and especially the authentic ones - this event took place one year before Hijrah. Detailed reports about it are found in the works of Hadith and Sirah and have been narrated from as many as twenty-five Companions. The most exhaustive reports are those from Anas ibn Malik, Malik ibn Sa'sa'ah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and Abu Hurayrah. Some other details have been narrated by 'Umar, 'Ali, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, 'Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, and 'A'ishah among other Companions of the Prophet.

2. Buraq was the name of the heavenly steed on which the Prophet rode on his nocturnal journey from Makka to Jerusalem, and then to the heavens.

3. Al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah wa Dhikr Ikhtilaf al-Naqilin...' 

4. See al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah'.

5. Al-Bukhari, K. Manaqib al -Ansar, 'Bab al-Mi'raj; K. al-Tawhid, 'Bab Kallama Musa Taklima'.

6. Al-Bukhari, K. al_Salah, 'Bab Kayfa Furidat al-Salah fi al-Isra' and Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. I, p. 404.

7. Muslim, K, al-Iman, 'Bab Dhikr al-Masih ibn Maryam'.

8. See Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. I, p.398 and al-Qurtubi, comments on verse 1 of the surah.

9. See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on Bani Isra'il 17:1.

10. Loc.cit; see also Ibn Hisham, vol. 1 p. 406.
    
Source: Islamicity 

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD - AGAIN?!


The international media erupts, and the Americans cheered, at the news of the death of Osama bin Laden, as announced by President Obama in a televised announcement heard round the world on 1st May 2011. It is as though they have heard the news for the first time.

The truth is that, this is not the first time that Osama was reported or believed to be dead. According to the following articles, Osama was reportedly pronounced dead at least nine times!
When Obama pronounced Osama Bin Laden dead in a televised announcement heard round the world last night, he was at least the ninth major head of state or high-ranking government official to have done so.

Given Bin Laden’s documented kidney problems and consequent need for dialysis, government officials, heads of state and counterterrorism experts have repeatedly opined that Osama Bin Laden has in fact been dead for some time. These assertions are based on Bin Laden’s failing health in late 2001 and visible signs of his deteriorating condition, as well as actual reports of his death from the same time frame.

In July of 2001, Osama Bin Laden was flown to the American Hospital in Dubai for kidney treatment. According to French intelligence sources, he was there met by the local CIA attache. When the agent bragged about his encounter to friends later, he was promptly recalled to Washington.

On the eve of September 11, Osama Bin Laden was staying in a Pakistani military hospital under the watchful eye of Pakistan’s ISI, the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA with deep ties to the American intelligence community (Note: watch the video here)
Osama Bin Laden in December 2001
In October 2001, Bin Laden appeared in a videotape wearing army fatigues and Islamic headdress, looking visibly pale and gaunt. In December of 2001, another videotape was released, this time showing a seriously ill Bin Laden who was seemingly unable to move his left arm.

Then on December 26, 2001, Fox News reported on a Pakistan Observer story that the Afghan Taliban had officially pronounced Osama Bin Laden dead earlier that month. According to the report, he was buried less than 24 hours later in an unmarked grave in accordance with Wahabbist Sunni practices.

What followed was a string of pronouncements from officials affirming what was already obvious: supposedly living in caves and bunkers in the mountainous pass between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Osama would have been deprived of the dialysis equipment that he required to live.

On January 18, 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced quite bluntly: “I think now, frankly, he is dead.”

On July 17, 2002, the then-head of counter-terrorism at the FBI, Dale Watson, told a conference of law enforcement officials that “I personally think he [Bin Laden] is probably not with us anymore,” before carefully adding that “I have no evidence to support that.”

In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN that “I would come to believe that [Bin Laden] probably is dead.”

In November 2005, Senator Harry Reid revealed that he was told Osama may have died in the Pakistani earthquake of October that year.

In September 2006, French intelligence leaked a report suggesting Osama had died in Pakistan.

On November 2, 2007, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told Al-Jazeera’s David Frost that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.

In March 2009, former US foreign intelligence officer and professor of international relations at Boston University Angelo Codevilla stated: “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden.”

In May 2009, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari confirmed that his “counterparts in the American intelligence agencies” hadn’t heard anything from Bin Laden in seven years and confirmed “I don’t think he’s alive.”

Now in 2011, President Obama has added himself to the mix of people in positions of authority who have pronounced Osama Bin Laden dead. Some might charge that none of the previous reports had any credibility, but as it is now emerging that Osama’s body was buried at sea less than 12 hours after his death with no opportunity for any independent corroboration of his identity, the same question of credibility has to be leveled at this latest charge. To this point, the only evidence we have been provided that Osama Bin Laden was killed yesterday are some images on TV of a burning compound and the word of the man currently occupying the oval office.
But given that an informed consensus has formed around the opinion that Bin Laden died long ago due to kidney failure, will the people of America hold their President to the highest standard in presenting evidence that the person killed was actually Osama Bin Laden, and that he actually died in the way described, or will this pronouncement go unquestioned like so many other deaths in the never ending war of terror?

[Sources: Prison Planet and The Corbett Report. Emphasis mine.]
What do we make of all this? Is Osama really dead? Or was he dead sometime ago? As evident in the above bolded paragraph - which reported he was buried at sea - we definitely have no way of knowing now. By the time others come to their senses and call for an international independent inquiry, he (the body said to be Osama's) may never be recovered. Burying the body at sea would simply dispose all evidence.

True, American officials have confirmed through DNA fingerprinting that it is Osama. But with so many reports of his previous death (as the above article shows), can we really believe it? And since he is the "most wanted man who have killed thousands," surely his dead body would be splashed all over the international media and American authorities would gladly allow an independent corroboration of his identity. Why was there no ground burial which, with exhumation, would make such independent corroboration possible? The sea burial was reportedly undertaken in a hurry. All too convenient it seems!

There is also the question of why, with its enormous resources, advanced technology and military might, were the American authorities unable to capture Osama since 9-11? Compare that to how fast they were able to capture and execute Saddam Hussein! Probably the many reports (for example here, here and here) that Osama is a an American/CIA agent are true after all. Read also Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government.

And Al-Qaeda? Does it really exist?  A quote from one article:
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ."
One last, and amusing, note about Al-Qaeda from the same above-quoted article:
"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".

So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"? 
Yes indeed, why would a notorious terrorist group which reportedly killed thousands of people and which struck fear in everyone, call itself "The Toilet"?!