Sunday 31 May 2015

Material That You Can Use For Dawah To Atheists

0 Comments
we all know how Important it is to do the Dawah of Islam. we should give Dawah to Non Muslims towards Islam in a good manner. our Dawah should not just be limited to people of others religion like Christianity or Hinduism but it should be given to everyone Including Atheists (The people who don't believe in God).

I am sharing some material that will be helpful to you while forwarding the message of Islam to Atheists.



















Islamic Jizya: Fact and Fiction

0 Comments
"Jizya is yet another ugly fact of Islam�add to offensive jihad, imperialism, misogyny, slavery, etc.�one that cannot be whitewashed away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century."

by Raymond Ibrahim � May 28, 2015

The Return of Jizya


Muslim demands for non-Muslim �infidels� to pay jizya on pain of death are growing, even as the West fluctuates between having no clue what jizya is and thinking that jizya is an example of �tolerance� in Islam.

In the video where the Islamic State slaughters some 30 Christian Ethiopians in Libya last April, the spokesman repeatedly pointed out that payment of jizya (which the impoverished Ethiopian migrant workers could not render, nor the 21 Copts before them) is the only way for Christians around the world to safeguard their lives:

But whoever refuses [to pay jizya] will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.

When the Islamic State invaded ancient Christian regions around the Ninevah Plain last June,  it again declared: �We offer them [Assyrian Christians] three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract�involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.�

The Islamic State�which most Western politicians ludicrously insist �has nothing to do with Islam��is not alone in calling for jizya from Christian �infidels.�  In 2002, Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, discussing the Muslim prophet�s prediction that Islam will eventually conquer Rome, said, �We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians . . . will yet pay us the jizya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam.�

And in a video recently posted, Sheik �Issam Amira appears giving a sermon in Al Aqsa Mosque where he laments that too many Muslims think jihad is only for defense against aggressors, when in fact Muslims are also obligated to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslims:

When you face your pagan enemy, call them�either to Islam, jizya, or seek Allah�s help and fight them.  Even if they do not fight [or initiate hostilities], fight them!� Fight them!  When?  When they fight you?  No, when they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to pay jizya�.  Whether they like it or not, we will subjugate them to Allah�s authority.

In short, if the Islamic State is enforcing jizya on �infidels,� demands for its return are on the increase all around the Muslim world.  Put differently, if Abu Shadi, an Egyptian Salfi leader, once declared that Egypt�s Christians �must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or prepare for war,� Dr. Amani Tawfiq, a female professor at Egypt�s Mansoura University, once said that �If Egypt wants to slowly but surely get out of its economic situation and address poverty in the country, the jizya has to be imposed on the Copts.�



The Doctrine and History of Jizya

A dhimmi paying the jizya. Note the weapons arrayed
against him, should he not fulfill his payment.
So what exactly is jizya?

The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29, in an injunction that should be familiar by now: �Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).�

In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya of non-Muslims:  �If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah�s help and fight them.�

The second �righteous caliph,� Omar al-Khattab, reportedly said that any conquered �infidel� who refuses to convert to Islam �must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.�

This theme of non-Muslim degradation appears regularly in the commentaries of Islam�s authorities.  According to the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia, Muslim �jurists came to view certain repressive and humiliating aspects of dhimma as de rigueur. Dhimmis [subjugated non-Muslim Christians and Jews] were required to pay the jizya publicly, in broad daylight, with hands turned palm upward, and to receive a smart smack on the forehead or the nape of the neck from the collection officer.�

Some of Islam�s jurists mandated a number of other humiliating rituals at the time of jizya payment, including that the presiding Muslim official slap, choke, and in some cases pull the beard of the paying dhimmi, who might even be required to approach the official on all fours, in bestial fashion.

The root meaning of the Arabic word �jizya� is simply to �repay� or �recompense,� basically to �compensate� for something.  According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that �takes the place� of something else, or �serves instead.�

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. Instead of taking their lives, they took their money.  As one medieval jurist succinctly put it, �their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya.�

Past and increasingly present, Muslims profited immensely by exacting jizya from conquered peoples.

For instance, Amr bin al-As, the companion of Muhammad who conquered Christian Egypt in the early 640s, tortured and killed any Christian Copt who tried to conceal his wealth. When a Copt inquired of him, �How much jizya are we to pay?� the Islamic hero replied, �If you give me all that you own�from the ground to the ceiling�I will not tell you how much you owe. Instead, you [the Christian Copts] are our treasure chest, so that, if we are in need, you will be in need, and if things are easy for us, they will be easy for you.�

Yet even that was not enough. Caliph Uthman later chided Amr bin al-As because another governor of Egypt had managed to increase the caliphate�s treasury double what Amr had. In the words of Uthman, the �milk camels [Egypt�s Christians, that is] . . . yielded more milk.�  Years later, yet another caliph, Suliman Abdul Malik, wrote to the governor of Egypt advising him �to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.�

Little wonder Egypt went from being almost entirely Christian in the seventh century to today having a mere 10%�and steadily dwindling, thanks to ongoing persecution�Christian minority.

Related to the idea of institutionalized jizya is the notion that non-Muslims are fair game to plunder whenever possible.  The jizya entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam states that �with or without doctrinal justification, arbitrary demands [for money] appeared at times.� Even that medieval traveler, Marco Polo, whose chronicles appear impartial, made an interesting observation concerning the Muslims in Tauris (modern day Iraq) in the thirteenth century:

According to their doctrine [Islam], whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians [during the course of a plunder-driven raid], are considered as martyrs�.  These principles are common to all Saracens [Muslims].

All this is echoed in recent times by the words of  Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, spoken a few years ago, concerning what the Muslim world should do to overcome its economic problems:

If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa [invitation to conversion] or stands in our way, then we must kill or take them as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid [holy warrior] who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads.

So it was for well over a millennium: Muslim rulers and mobs extorted money from �infidels� under their sway as a legitimate way to profit.

Much of this financial fleecing came to an end thanks to direct European intervention. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, one Muslim region after another abolished the jizya and gave non-Muslims unprecedented rights�originally to appease Western powers, later in emulation of Western governance. The Ottoman Empire�s Hatt-i Humayun decree of 1856 abolished the jizya in many Ottoman-ruled territories. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the jizya was gradually abolished wherever Western powers were present.

Today, however, as Muslims reclaim their Islamic heritage�often to the approval and encouragement of a West, now under the spell of �multiculturalism��jizya, whether institutionalized as under the Islamic State, or as a rationale to plunder infidels, is back.

Even in the West, in 2013, a UK Muslim preacher who was receiving more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits referred to British taxpayers as �slaves,� and explained:  �We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for �right�], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn�t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money�you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [�Allah is Great�]. We take the money.�


Academic Lies about Jizya

Yet if Muslims�from Islamic State jihadis to Egyptian university professors�know the truth about jizya, the West is today oblivious, thanks to its leading authorities on Islam: Western academics and other �experts� and talking heads.

Consider the following excerpt from John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a widely acknowledged go-to source for anything Islamic:

In many ways, local populations [Christians, Jews, and others] found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the �protected ones� (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy (emphasis added) �

Despite the almost gushing tone related to Muslim rule, the idea that jizya was extracted in order to buy �Muslim protection from outside aggression� is an outright lie.  Equally false is Esposito�s assertion that jizya was paid to �exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service��as if conquering Muslims would even want or allow their conquered �infidel� subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad (holy war against infidels) without first converting to Islam.

Yet these two myths�that jizya was for �Muslim protection from outside aggression� and exemption from military service�are now widely accepted.  In �Nothing �Islamic� About ISIS, Part Two: What the �Jizya� Really Means,� one Hesham A. Hassaballa recycles these fabrications on BeliefNet by quoting Sohaib Sultan, Princeton University�s Muslim chaplain, who concludes: �Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the �covenant of protection� (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state.�

In reality and as demonstrated above via the words of a variety of authoritative Muslims, past and present,  jizya was, and is indeed, protection money�though protection, not from outsiders, as Esposito and others claim, but from surrounding Muslims themselves.  Whether it is the first caliphate from over a millennium ago or whether it is the newest caliphate, the Islamic State, Muslim overlords continue to deem the lives of their �infidel� subjects forfeit unless they purchase it, ransom it with money.  Put differently, the subjugated infidel is a beast to be milked �until it gives no more milk and until it milks blood,� to quote the memorable words of an early caliph.

There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else convert to Islam, or else die.

And it is commanded in both the Koran and Hadith, the twin pillars of Islam.  In short, jizya is yet another ugly fact of Islam�add to offensive jihad, imperialism, misogyny, slavery, etc.�one that, distort as they may, the academics cannot whitewash away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century.


Note: Most quotations not hyperlinked are sourced from Crucified Again: Exposing Islam�s New War on Christians.  Full references can be found there.


Saturday 30 May 2015

Shia Sunni Takfiriyat not acceptable.

0 Comments
SHIA SUNNI TAKFIRIYAT NOT ACCEPTABLE  | World Muslim CongressNo one has a right to declare that Shiism or Sunnism is false and heretical. 
One of the major differences between Shia and Sunni traditions is about the role of leadership. When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was returning from his last pilgrimage, he gathered the caravan at an oasis called Ghadir Khumm and delivered a revelation, that as of this day he has delivered the complete guidance from God, the message of Islam is complete now.

That message was and is crystal clear; there is no misunderstanding about it. There is no more advisement from God, and nothing more needed to be added to the religion, it's done. However, the tag part of that message was understood in two different ways.

One set of people believed that the Prophet had assigned the role of spiritual leadership to Hazrat Ali and their understanding of the last sermon of the prophet  was that, he was leaving behind the Quran and his family for future guidance. 

Whereas, others believed that, all they have to do now is to stick with the Quran as Prophet had called for in his last sermon, and they do not have a record of Prophet's call for the Ummah to follow his family for guidance or assigning the responsibility of leadership to Hazrat Ali. 

The first group eventually became Shia and the other Sunni, and both have built up their arguments in "faith" and have concreted the differences. 

If the Shia community feels they need guidance from a learned Imam, that is their choice, and the same goes for the Ahmadiyya Muslims. The Sunnis feel they don't need one, and that is their collective choice  

What is your (all of us) problem? Are you answerable to anyone�s deeds other than your own on the Day of Judgment? If not, then mind your own faith, instead of calling each other name and denigrating the other,  focus on being a good human being. 

IS THERE A NEED TO RECONCILE? 

Is there a need to reconcile the differences? Not at all, there is no need to resolve nor will it be resolved, this was all natural and predicted. It is human nature to divide themselves on ideas, religion, politics, cultures and nations. Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyya division is natural, and there is no need to compel any one to believe otherwise. Islam forbids compulsion (2:256) against one's will without ifs and buts, and I hope all of us got that message right.  

What we need to do is learn to agree to disagree, and respect the otherness of others as God has instructed in Surat Kafirun. In this Surat,  Qur�an addresses the believers (of other faiths) in the most dignified way, putting every one on par without denigrating any. It is an exceptional example of civil conduct for one to follow. No where in this chapter a claim is made that the faith of Muslims is superior to others, or others' faith to be inferior.

Kafirun is an exemplary Surat teaching civil dialogue, throughout the Surat, the other is treated respectfully and as an equal, �I do not worship what you worship, and you do not worship what I worship� � it does not say your worship is inferior to mine. The element of arrogance was not given a room in this chapter. Because you hold a different belief, you do not belittle the other's belief.   

This chapter is about consciously nurturing civility in societies. It is not about overlooking the differences and focusing on commonalities, but simply guides us in  accepting the otherness of other. You are who you are and I am who I am and let's figure out how we can co-exist with the least tensions. This is the basis of pluralism - i.e., respecting the otherness of others. I will be delighted to quote many examples of the prophet where he practices this principle. 

The other verses that call to respect the otherness of others are in Surat Rahman (55:7-11). He has created a well integrated and diverse interconnected world to function in harmony, and expects us to sustain and manage it. We have the responsibility to work towards it, as we are called the manager (Khalifa) of our surroundings. Did we lose the leadership role assigned to us? Do we want to force others or figure out working together to create peace, the Hudaibiya treaty stands as a testament and example for us to follow. 

We are all one family, and each one of us is a progeny of Adam and eve, and God has made us into different tribes, communities, nations, (and faiths, as God acknowledges other faiths throughout the Quran and does not condemn any one, but assure them that if they are good to fellow beings, their reward is with him) races and other uniqueness (49:13), which prophet reaffirmed in his last sermon; i.e,  not to discriminate any one based on any one of those criteria.

Each one of us is unique with his or her own thumbprint, taste buds, eye print and DNA. Had he willed he would have created all of us exactly alike in a factory like precision, but he chose to make, each one of us to be unique. That is his deliberate choice, isn't it? Did he make a mistake? Shall we respect his will?

When we are so different, conflicts are bound to arise, and he offers further guidance � the best ones among you are those who learn about each other, and if we do, myths fall by the wayside, and understandings develop.  Knowledge leads to understanding and understanding to acceptance and appreciation of each other's uniqueness.

Islam is about human nature, and it is also known as a religion of fitra. Prophet (pbuh) had envisioned that we will divide ourselves into many (72/73 is a metaphoric number) tribes. We all must compete in doing good to fellow humans, and one among us will score high in good deeds (taking care of fellow humans - all humans regardless of their race, religion or region) while others will pass, one or two may fail. (College examples).

Prophet assigned you and me to read and understand the Quran, and he knew that we all will have a different understanding of it based on our own experiences.

Takfiriyat amounts to Shirk
No one has a right to declare other�s tradition as false or heretical. That is the Job of Allah, not yours. If you do that, you are assuming to be his deputy, an associate of God, or a partner of God and that is not acceptable to any Muslim other than men like you. Unless you have an appointment letter from Allah, your declaration is not acceptable.

If you are declaring fellow Muslim to be a non Muslim, then you are committing Shirk, and your word has no value to us in the society, however, that is between you and God for committing the fraud of representing him.

Please note, we have no intentions of giving you 100 lashes for committing shirk, no one has that right.

I hope you don't believe Islam spread by sword or baton, threats or fatwa bombs? Islam is not the religion of insecure men who have to harass others to seek obedience. Islam is too secure a religion and does not need fatwas. If you are man enough and secure enough in your belief, then believe in La Ikraha fid din or reject it and issue fatwas all day long from your fatwa factory.  Remember this very clearly, it is for this reason Prophet did not want clergy business in Islam - he assigned you to read the book and follow it, and you alone are responsible for your behavior and not any one else.

Please do not commit the Shirk by making declarations about others faith. You have no right to declare that, and no one but Allah has that right. 
 

We can punish for violations of civil rights, robbing, raping,  thieving, molesting, abusing family members, employees,  breaking contracts with fellow beings, massacring, killing and other civic violations... but we cannot punish you, and no one has the right to punish you for what you believe, that is between you and God.


At World Muslim Congress, our Mission is to build cohesive Societies, where no human has to experience tension or discomfort, or live in fear of, a fellow human. Mike Ghouse

Muslim Woman Faces Racism on United Airlines Plane

0 Comments
Incident of Racism and hatred against Muslims are growing in United States and European countries. almost every week we hear about such Incidents in which Muslims are attacked, abused and threatened. One such Incident recently taken place with a Muslim woman named Tahera Ahmad on flight of United Airlines. She is a associate chaplain at  Northwestern University  in Illinois.

she posted about the Incident on her Facebook account after which her post went Viral. here is screenshot of her post.


End of Days: A Lamentation for Constantinople

0 Comments
The great clouds of Christian martyrs of the 20th and early 21st centuries join the heroic witnesses of the Imperial City of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

May 29 is the anniversary of the capture and desolation of the great Christian city of Constantinople by the forces of Islam in 1453.

The Fall of Constantinople

We live in an age of global upheaval, of titanic forces and epochal change. After the bloody twentieth century, which saw 50 million or more Orthodox and Eastern Christians martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ, now we see a new wave of genocide committed by Muslims against Christians at the start of the twenty-first. A new harvest of holy martyrs joins the ranks of the saints in the heavens...

Many young people today may see Islam become the world�s largest religious group and dominant military-political force during their lifetime, and Europe may itself soon fall or capitulate to the pressures of millions of Muslim immigrants within their borders, and tens of millions more without.

The United States seems to have lost its way, conniving and plotting � and when the cost is not too high waging open warfare � against Orthodox Christian nations like Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Serbia and Romania. Christians here at home are now the targets of a perfect storm of neo-pagans, liberals, and the LGBT mob. We are mindful of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.
But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, �They hated Me without a cause'."

� John 15:18-24-25

We live in dire times, not dissimilar to the gathering darkness which preceded the defeat of Constantinople in the fifteenth century. For the Christian citizens of the Great City, it must have felt like the �End of Days�.  It feels like that now, at times.

The Fall of Constantinople is a sign for us, that it can happen here, now. That our earthly cities can and will be swept away by the enemies of Christ. Yet we are called to stand firm in the Faith, knowing that Jesus Christ has already conquered, and that He will not forsake us.

"This calls for the patient endurance of the saints..." �Rev. 13:10

In somber commemoration of this dark event, below are two accounts of the Muslim Turks� crime against God and His people. May we be moved to deep repentance, faith and steadfast courage by the noble examples of our brothers and sisters, martyrs and confessors of so long ago.

_______




The Final Assault

Several thousand of the survivors had taken refuge in the cathedral: nobles, servants, ordinary citizens, their wives and children, priests and nuns. They locked the huge doors, prayed, and waited. {Caliph} Mahomet {II} had given the troops free quarter. They raped, of course, the nuns being the first victims, and slaughtered. 

At least four thousand were killed before Mahomet stopped the massacre at noon. He ordered a muezzin {one who issues the call to prayer} to climb into the pulpit of St. Sophia and dedicate the building to Allah. It has remained a mosque ever since. 

Fifty thousand of the inhabitants, more than half the population, were rounded up and taken away as slaves. For months afterward, slaves were the cheapest commodity in the markets of Turkey. 

Mahomet asked that the body of the dead emperor be brought to him. Some Turkish soldiers found it in a pile of corpses and recognized Constantine {XI} by the golden eagles embroidered on his boots. The sultan ordered his head to be cut off and placed between the horse's legs under the equestrian bronze statue of the emperor Justinian. The head was later embalmed and sent around the chief cities of the Ottoman empire for the delectation of the citizens. 

Next, Mahomet ordered the Grand Duke Notaras, who had survived, be brought before him, asked him for the names and addresses of all the leading nobles, officials, and citizens, which Notaras gave him. He had them all arrested and decapitated. He sadistically bought from their owners {i.e., Muslim commanders} high-ranking prisoners who had been enslaved, for the pleasure of having them beheaded in front of him. 

by Paul Fregosi, Jihad, pp. 256-7.

_______




The Fateful Day

In the city everyone realized that the fateful moment had come. In the city, while the bells of the churches rang mournfully, citizens and soldiers joined a long procession behind the holy relics brought out of the churches. Singing hymns, men, women, children, soldiers, civilians, clergy, monks and nuns, knowing that they were going to die shortly, made peace with themselves, with God and with eternity.

When the procession ended the Emperor met with his commanders and the notables of the city. In a philosophical speech he told his subjects that the end of their time had come. In essence he told them that Man had to be ready to face death when he had to fight for his faith, for his country, for his family or for his sovereign. All four reasons were now present. Furthermore, his subjects, who were the descendants of Greeks and Romans, had to emulate their great ancestors. They had to fight and sacrifice themselves without fear. They had lived in a great city and they were now going to die defending it. As for himself, he was going to die fighting for his faith, for his city and for his people... He thanked all present for their contribution to the defense of the city and asked them to forgive him, if he had ever treated them without kindness. 

Meanwhile the great church of Saint Sophia was crowded. Thousands of people were moving towards the church. Inside, Orthodox and Catholic priests were holding mass. People were singing hymns, others were openly crying, others were asking each other for forgiveness. Those who were not serving on the ramparts also went to the church, among them was seen, for a brief moment, the Emperor. People confessed and took communion. Then those who were going to fight rode or walked back to the ramparts.

From the great church the Emperor rode to the Palace at Blachernae. There he asked his household to forgive him. He bade the emotionally shattered men and women farewell, left his Palace and rode away, into the night, for a last inspection of the defense positions. Then he took his battle position.

The excesses which followed, during the early hours of the Ottoman victory, are described in detail by eyewitnesses... Bands of soldiers began now looting. Doors were broken, private homes were looted, their tenants were massacred. Shops in the city markets were looted. Monasteries and Convents were broken in. Their tenants were killed, nuns were raped, many, to avoid dishonor, killed themselves. Killing, raping, looting, burning, enslaving, went on and on... The troops had to satisfy themselves. 

The great doors of Saint Sophia were forced open, and crowds of angry soldiers came in and fell upon the unfortunate worshippers. Pillaging and killing in the holy place went on for hours. Similar was the fate of worshippers in most churches in the city. Everything that could be taken from the splendid buildings was taken by the new masters of the Imperial capital. Icons were destroyed, precious manuscripts were lost forever. Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women. Death and enslavement did not distinguish among social classes. Nobles and peasants were treated with equal ruthlessness.

The Sultan entered the city in the afternoon of the first day of occupation. Constantinople was finally his and he intended to make it the capital of his mighty Empire. He toured the ruined city. He visited Saint Sophia which he ordered to be turned into a mosque. What he saw was desolation, destruction, death in the streets, ruins, desecrated churches�

by Dionysios Hatzopoulos 
Professor of Classical and Byzantine Studies, and Chairman of Hellenic Studies Center at Dawson College, Montreal, and Lecturer at the Department of History at Universite de Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Posted on Romiosini: Hellenism In The Middle Ages http://www.greece.org/romiosini/fall.html


Islamic State has 30,000 foreign jihadis from over 100 countries

0 Comments
"None of them existed in a vacuum before they joined the Islamic State. They learned their Islam somewhere."

RelatedEU Underestimates Number of Westerners Fighting for Jihad

via Jihad Watch � May 29, 2015

The ISIS victory parade after the capture of Ramadi

30,000: that�s an awful lot of Muslims who fell for this Nothing-To-Do-With-Islam form of Islam. How to explain so many misunderstanders? After all, none of them existed in a vacuum before they joined the Islamic State. They learned their Islam somewhere. Are we to believe that the slickness of the Islamic State�s video presentations alone was enough to induce this throng to throw over the true, peaceful Islam it learned down at the corner mosque and join up with the hijackers of their religion? We live in an age of infantile analysis.

�ISIS has 30,000 foreign fighters from more than 100 countries,� 
by Abdelhak Mamoun, Iraqi News, May 29, 2015:

(IraqiNews.com) According to a report to the UN Security Council, nearly 30 thousand foreign fighters were recruited currently in the ISIS ranks. They came from 100 countries around the world including countries that had been untouched by the activity of terrorist groups such as Chile and Finland.

The members of the Security Council will meet on Friday to discuss a report on �foreign terrorist fighters� and consider possible measures to combat this threat.

This is the first report of its kind in the United Nations, which addresses the issue of �foreign fighters�, and includes countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, in addition to North African countries such as Libya.

The report indicated that the number of recruits in ISIS ranks has increased by about 70% during the past nine months.

This sudden rise poses concern about the spread of extremism phenomenon globally, and breadth of its geographical scope to include several countries experiencing the stability, including European countries.

The report indicates that the flow rate of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria is currently higher than ever before, with the emergence of signs of an accelerating growth of ISIS organization in Libya.

US officials said earlier this year that 3,400 people from Western countries, including 150 from the United States have traveled to Iraq and Syria to join militant groups.

British officials have estimated that more than 700 British have traveled to Syria during the past three years, nearly half of them returned to their country.


The report describes Iraq, Syria and Libya as �real finishing school� for terrorists, pointing out that Tunisia, Morocco, France and Russia, in particular, may contribute in terrorist attacks in the future due to the number of fighters from these countries.


NYT�s Artistic Display of Religious Hypocrisy: Runs Offensive Virgin Mary Painting Once Again

0 Comments
So called "art" which presents offensive depictions of Christ and His Most Pure Mother, the Holy Theotokos (Greek: "Birthgiver of God"), is part of the Western cultural persecution of Christianity, one waged "more by sneer than by spear," as I heard Fr. Thomas Hopko (of beloved memory) put it in a talk.

via Jihad Watch � May 30, 2015

The hypocrisy is stark and absolute: �Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities� � unless it offends a group that is not committing mass murder and threatening more over such images. This is, as I wrote yesterday, still more mainstream media canonization of the assassin� veto. The mainstream media is signaling that terrorism works: threaten to kill us, and we will do what you want. That will only bring more terrorism.


�NYT�s Artistic Display of Religious Hypocrisy: Runs Offensive Virgin Mary Painting Once Again,� 
by Clay Waters, Newsbusters, May 29, 2015:

The New York Times� hypocrisy regarding displays of �offensive� religious imagery runs unabated, as shown in a Scott Reyburn article in Friday�s Arts section on the sale of Chris Ofili�s controversial painting �The Holy Virgin Mary,� which shows the Virgin Mary clotted with elephant dung against a porn-collage background � and accompanied by a photograph of the offensive work.

Yet when the paper refused to reprint a cartoon of Muhammad that appeared in the Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that resulted in the January 2015 massacre of 12 magazine staffers, it offered this smug, cowardly justification:

Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration, Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today�s story.

Not fear of violent reprisal, but fear of �causing offense.� So why does Ofili�s dung-clotted Virgin Mary get a pass?�
_____


Because no one will kill you over it.


Friday 29 May 2015

Weak before the Immense Pressure for the Release of Naveed Butt, the �Kidnapper� Regime Resorts to Cheap Lies

0 Comments
Free Naveed Butt
Eight long months after the last hearing, a hearing at the Secretariat of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances took place yesterday, 26 May 2015, regarding the abduction of the Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan, Naveed Butt, who was kidnapped by agency thugs on 11 May 2012. The judge condemned the agencies for their false story that Naveed was killed in a drone attack in the tribal regions that was carried in an agency-inspired newspaper piece in July 2013. Hizb ut-Tahrir condemns this lowly tactic of the Raheel-Nawaz regime to persist in hiding behind falsehood, in order to deflect the immense pressure upon it for the release of Naveed Butt.
It is known that Naveed was kidnapped in front of witnesses by the thugs of the regime, outside of his home, having returned there with his children from their school. This was after months of the agencies hunting him here and there, inquiring after him and issuing threats through any channel that was available to them. After his kidnapping, as further confirmation, several of the sincere from amongst the people of power confirmed Naveed�s presence in the dungeons of the agencies. Furthermore, it is also known that several Shabaab of Hizb ut-Tahrir have been kidnapped for several months at a time, claimed by officials of the agencies that they did not take them, only to be later released by the same agencies. These agency officials shamelessly violated their oaths to Allah ?????? ?????? before the courts by openly lying.
Facing huge pressure for the release of Naveed from all corners and levels of Pakistan, as well as from Muslims throughout the world, the �kidnapper� regime has adopted cheap tactics to deflect that pressure. It is more than apparent that the regime has chosen the path of lying kidnappers because it does not have a single Word of Truth to defend itself from the strong call of Hizb ut-Tahrir to abolish the American Raj and establish the Khilafah in its place.
The �kidnapper� regime will soon know its mistake in choosing the path of forceful suppression of Islam. It is only bringing closer its own collapse. The courts of the soon to arrive Khilafah, inshaaAllah, will bring forth all those responsible for kidnapping, which falls under the serious crime of spreading mischief on the earth. The courts will try the ones who issued the orders from the traitors in the political and military leadership, as well as those thugs that executed their evil commands and punish them for their fighting Allah ?????? ?????? and His Messenger. Allah ?????? ?????? said,
???????? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ??????? ??????????? ???????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ???? ??????????? ???? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????? � ?????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????
�Those who fight against Allah and His Messenger and run about trying to spread mischief on the earth, their punishment is no other than that they shall be killed, or be crucified, or their hands and legs be cut off from different sides, or they be exiled from the land (they live in). That is a humiliation for them in this world, and for them there is a great punishment in the Hereafter; except those who repent before you overpower them. Then, be sure that Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.�
(Surah Al-Maida 33-34)
Above all, those who persecute the sincere believers, invite their own ruin at the hands of Allah ?????? ??????, Allah ?????? ?????? said in the Hadeeth Qudsi,
�???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???????????�
Whoever harms my Wali I declare war against him.� [Bukhari]
Without doubt, regret and despair on a day where neither will save one is reserved for the tyrants themselves who persecute the callers to Islam rather than heed their call. Allah ?????? ?????? says
????? ????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ????? ???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ??????????
Those who persecute the Believers, men and women, and do not turn in repentance, will have the Penalty of Hell: They will have the Penalty of the Burning Fire.�
(Surah Al-Buruj 85:10)
And regret and despair are both for those who issue the commands of oppression, as well as those thugs who are their limbs, eyes and ears in the execution of those commands, blindly obeying those who disobey Allah ?????? ?????? and His Messenger ?. Allah ?????? ?????? said,
????????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ??????????
And they will say: Our Lord! Verily we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the (Right) Way�
(Surah Al-Ahzab 33:67)
Finally, Hizb ut-Tahrir further assures the Muslims that its �Free Naveed Butt� global campaign will continue, encouraged by the weak position of the government that forced it to deflect pressure through cheap tactics, until our dear brother is returned to us safe and well inshaaAllah.

Media Office of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Wilayah Pakistan
Wednesday, 09th Rajab 1436 AH
27/05/2015 CE
No: PR15041

Q&A: The Land Title Deed and Its Benefit

0 Comments
Question:
Assalaam Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu,
I would like to raise a question in relation to land, which is: What is the difference between the land in which the title and benefit is for the individual, and the land in which benefits are for the individual and its title for the state? May Allah reward you.
From: Umm Musab Al Jaabari


Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalaam Wa Ramatullah Wa Barakaatuhu
There is no difference between the �Ushri and Kharaji land, they are similar except in two aspects:
  1. The owner of the �Ushri land owns the land itself and benefit, and the owner of the Kharaji land owns only its benefit and does not own its title. As a result of this, the owner of the �Ushri land if s/he wants to endow the land s/he owns, he can do it any times he wants, because he owns its property that is its neck. As if the owner of the Kharaji wants to endow the land that he owns he cannot, because the Endowment (?????) requires for the one who wants to endow it, that he owns it to endow it. However the owner of the Kharaji land does not own the property i.e. the title, but owns its benefits because its title belongs to Bait ul-Mal.
  2. On the �Ushri land, zakat (half of a tenth or a tenth) has to be paid; whereas on the Kharaji land, Kharaj has to be paid.
Besides this, they are similar. The owner can do with it whatever he wants as long as it is in accordance to Shariah: sell and buy, inheritance� and so forth.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
20 Rajab 1436 AH
09/05/2015 CE

The link to the answer from the Amir�s facebook page is:

Q&A: Discretionary Punishment (At-Ta�zir): Its Details and Rulings

0 Comments
Question:
Assalamu alaikum, bless you our Sheikh and Ameer and may we blessed with you, the Answer had the following sentence: �As it has legalized discretionary penalty and showed the details of its rulings and its types�, so what are these details of its rulings and types?
From Naser Rida Mohammad Othman


Answer:
Your question is about a text that came from an answered question dated 02/01/2015, being:
�As for the discretionary penalties, which are punishments on sins that the Shari� didn�t specify for them any set punishment, but it was left to be decided by the Imam or the judge� they are rules of the method, and since the Shari� didn�t specify the punishment, this doesn�t mean at all that it has not placed the method of executing the Shariah rulings when punishing those who do not commit to them discretionally, as it has legalized discretionary penalties and showed the details of its rulings and its types� and it left to the Imam only to choose among the types of punishments which the Shari� specified, and in the magnitude which he sees appropriate to the status of the sin and situation of the sinner. This means that the Shari� showed how to apply these rulings in order to carry on with the punishment upon those who don�t commit to it, but the magnitude of this punishment and its type� this is what the Shari� has left to the Imam or his vice president.� End
We have not provided much detail in the mentioned answered question to avoid a lengthy answer� even in the answer to your question, it is not preferred to be lengthy in details since the research about discretionary penalty is vast and extensive, and the topic is mentioned in full in our book, The System of Punishment (Nizam Al Uqubaat),� but I will mention part of it:
  1. Discretionary penalty differs from the Hudud and felonies, as Hudud and felonies are punishments specified and identified by The Legislator ?????? ??????, and it is necessary and it is not allowed to replace it, add to it, nor subtract from it. As for discretionary penalty, it is a punishment unidentified in specific, and it is not specifically necessary. In addition, Hudud and felonies do not accept pardons, nor being dropped by the ruler except by The Owner of Haqq ?????? ?????? in felonies and this is different in discretionary penalties, as it accepts pardon and being dropped.
  2. The Shari� has specified the types of discretionary penalties that the judge is allowed to punish with, and that is based on clear Shariah texts, and it is not allowed to punish with anything else, as the punishment is an action that definitely needs evidence for its allowance. It cannot be said that there should be evidence to stop him from punishing with specific punishments, it cannot be said because originally there is no punishment, so punishing with a specific punishment needs evidence. As for the origins of no punishment it is a general evidence made for the dignity of the person, and not harm him, since deciding a specific punishment on him needs evidence to allow its decision, and if there is no evidence for its allowance, then it is not allowed to decide upon it.
It cannot be said that discretionary penalty has made the ruler absolute without any restrictions, being able to choose the penalty as per his discretion; this cannot be said, since whatever was made for the ruler is to estimate the magnitude of the punishment, and nothing else was made for him. This is because the Shaari� ?????? ?????? has interfered to specify its types, that is specifying the types of punishments that can be punished with, so the judge became restricted with these punishments. This means that having the Shaari� ?????? ?????? specifying the types of punishments has restricted the judge with them, so he is not allowed to punish with anything otherwise, and he can choose from among them what he sees appropriate. Upon them, the ruler has to comply with the Shariah rules when he�s deciding a discretionary penalty, so he cannot punish except with punishments which the Shaari� ?????? ?????? has brought upon.
  1. The Shari� has forbidden certain punishments and allowed certain punishments which need to be followed in discretionary penalties. It is forbidden to burn in fire, as punishing with burning in fire is not allowed, and it has been narrated by Bukhari from a Hadith from Abu Hurairah: �??????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ?????? ???????� �It is the fire that no one can punish with except Allah�, and Bukhari narrated from Akrama that the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? said: �??? ??????????? ????????? ???????�Do not punish with Allah�s punishment� which means burning with fire. Also, Abu Daoud narrated in his Sunan on the account of Abu Masoud from the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? that he said: �??????? ??? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???????? �It should not be to punish with fire except the Lord of fire�. All this explicitly shows the forbiddance of punishing with burning in fire, and tagged along with it whatever is similar to it, inclusive whatever has the ability to burn such as electricity.
  2. The Shari� has allowed punishments in discretionary penalty that are not allowed to rule with anything other, and this is shown clearly and I will mention some of them:
  3. The punishment of killing: The Khalifah is allowed to reach in the discretionary penalty to the rule of killing in the huge crimes which are not inclusive in the crimes of Hudud, such as the crime of calling for an area to separate from the body of the Islamic state, as it appears in the honorable Hadith: �???? ????????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????????? ?????????????? ????????????� �Whoever comes to you and tells you to gather over one man, wants you to separate, or disperse your groups, kill him� narrated by Muslim from �Ajrafah. This means that the Khalifah is allowed to reach in the discretionary penalty to the rule of killing.
  4. Whipping: It is the hitting with a whip or anything similar� however, the discretionary penalty of hitting and whipping are not allowed to exceed ten hits or ten whips. This has appeared clearly in the texts of the Hadith, where Bukhari narrates from Abdul Rahman bin Jaber from what he heard from the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? who said: �??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? �No punishment over ten hits except in a Hadd from the Hudud of Allah.� So, if the ruling was whipping, then it is not allowed to exceed ten whips�
  5. Fines are accepted as discretionary penalties for some sins, as texts have mentioned this such as what Abu Daoud extracted in his Sunan upon the account of Abu Hurairah who said: The Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? said: �???????? ????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???????� �The punishment for the hidden lost camel is to return it and to add another one�, which means that the person who has the lost camel and hides it from its owner must return it to its owner and is fined by giving the owner another camel. Also, there is a discretionary penalty to the person who withholds from paying Zakat which is taking a portion of his money. This all shows that the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? commanded the punishment of paying a fine as part of a discretionary penalty.
  6. Imprisonment is allowed as a discretionary penalty, and the Shraiah compliant imprisonment is delaying a person and stopping him from acting as he wishes, and that is in a country, or in a house, or in a masjid, or in a prison prepped for punishment or anything else. The evidence for that imprisonment is a punishment is one of the Shariah compliant punishment is derived from what At-Tirmidhi narrated from Bahz bin Hakim from his father from his grandfather: �????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????� �That the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? imprisoned a man in an allegation then he let him go.�
Imprisonment in the days of the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? was in the house, or in the masjid, and it was the same in the days of Abu Bakr (rA), as there was no prison prepped for the enemies. In the days of Umar (rA), he bought a house from Safwan bin Umayyah for four thousand Dirhams and made it a prison. Umar (rA) imprisoned Al-Hateea for satire, and imprisoned Sabeegh for asking about Adh-Dhariyat, Al-Mursalat, An-Nazeeaat and their likes� the length of imprisonment should be specified as imprisonment for life isn�t allowed in Shariah, and so the period of imprisonment should be specified upon a certain person.
Imprisonment is detention, not labor, as labor is something other than imprisonment, and so if a person was ruled to be imprisoned, then he should not work, since the word imprison doesn�t hold the connotation of labor. However, is it allowed to rule with imprisonment and labor, or keep it only to rule with imprisonment? The answer to this is that there is no Shariah text to have the punishment to be labor, neither harsh labor nor non-harsh, and that is why it not a punishment, and imprisonment is limited to the meaning of detention.
9. Advise: That is by having the judge advising the offfender via frightening him with the punishment of Allah ?????? ??????, and the evidence for that is what Allah ?????? ?????? says:
??????? ?????? ?????? ??????
As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them�
(An-Nisa: 34)
These are some of the types of the discretionary penalties which the Shariah has provided evidence for allowing the ruler to punish with, and the ruler is not allowed to punish with a type unless there is a text from the Shariah that allows this type.
I hope that this is satisfactory.

Your brother
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
27 Rajab 1436 AH
16/05/2015 CE
The link of the answer from the Ameer�s Facebook page:
 
back to top