To this date, there is extreme confusion among Muslims and non-Muslims alike regarding who was Mustafa Kemal, the dictator of Turkey. Recently, new evidence has surfaced that Mustafa Kemal, the ruthless dictator of Turkey, was not only a non-muslim, but a secret Jewish descendant of the Jewish Sabbati Zevi! The evidence comes not from tracing his genaology, but from the statements he himself made. Check out the following:
When Ataturk Recited the Jewish "Shema Yisrael":
Ataturk confessed: "It's My Secret Prayer."
By Hillel Halkin
01-28-1994
ZICHRON YAAKOV -- There were two questions I wanted to ask, I said over the phone to Batya Keinan, spokeswoman for Israeli president Ezer Weizman, who was about to leave the next day, Monday, Jan. 24, on the first visit ever made to Turkey by a Jewish chief of state. One was whether Mr. Weizman would be taking part in an official ceremony commemorating Kemal Ataturk.
Ms. Kenan checked the president's itinerary, according to which he and his wife would lay a wreath on Ataturk's ...
Excited and DistressedI thanked her and hung up. A few minutes later it occurred to me to call back and ask whether President Weizman intended to make any reference while in Turkey to Ataturk's Jewish antecedents. "I'm so glad you called again," said Ms. Kenan, who now sounded excited and a bit distressed. "Exactly where did you get your information from?"
Why was she asking, I countered, if the president's office had it too?
* Because it did not, she confessed. She had only assumed that it must because I had sounded so matter-of-fact myself. "After you hung up," she said, "I mentioned what you told me and nobody here knows anything about it. Could you please fax us what you know?"
I faxed her a short version of it. Here is a longer one.
Stories about the Jewishness of Ataturk, whose statue stands in the main square of every town and city in Turkey, already circulated in his lifetime but were denied by him and his family and never taken seriously by biographers. Of six biographies of him that I consulted this week, none even mentions such a speculation. The only scholarly reference to it in print that I could find was in the entry on Ataturk in the Israeli Entsiklopedya ha-Ivrit, which begins:
"Mustafa Kemal Ataturk - (1881-1938), Turkish general and statesman and founder of the modern Turkish state.
"Mustafa Kemal was born to the family of a minor customs clerk in Salonika and lost his father when he was young. There is no proof of the belief, widespread among both Jews and Muslims in Turkey, that his family came from the Doenme. As a boy he rebelled against his mother's desire to give him a traditional religious education, and at the age of 12 he was sent at his demand to study in a military academy."
Secular FatherThe Doenme were an underground sect of Sabbetaians, Turkish Jews who took Muslim names and outwardly behaved like Muslims but secretly believed in Sabbetai Zevi, the 17th-century false messiah, and conducted carefully guarded prayers and rituals in his name. The encyclopedia's version of Ataturk's education, however, is somewhat at variance with his own. Here is his account of it as quoted by his biographers:
"My father was a man of liberal views, rather hostile to religion, and a partisan of Western ideas. He would have preferred to see me go to a lay school, which did not found its teaching on the Koran but on modern science.
"In this battle of consciences, my father managed to gain the victory after a small maneuver; he pretended to give in to my mother's wishes, and arranged that I should enter the (Islamic) school of Fatma Molla Kadin with the traditional ceremony. ...
"Six months later, more or less, my father quietly withdrew me from the school and took me to that of old Shemsi Effendi who directed a free preparatory school according to European methods. My mother made no objection, since her desires had been complied with and her conventions respected. It was the ceremony above all which had satisfied her."
Who was Mustafa Kemal's father, who behaved here in typical Doenme fashion, outwardly observing Muslim ceremonies while inwardly scoffing at them? Ataturk's mother Zubeyde came from the mountains west of Salonika, close to the current Albanian frontier; of the origins of his father, Ali Riza, little is known. Different writers have given them as Albanian, Anatolian and Salonikan, and Lord Kinross' compendious 1964 "Ataturk" calls Ali Riza a "shadowy personality" and adds cryptically regarding Ataturk's reluctance to disclose more about his family background: "To the child of so mixed an environment it would seldom occur, wherever his racial loyalties lay, to inquire too exactly into his personal origins beyond that of his parentage."
Learning HebrewDid Kinross suspect more than he was admitting? I would never have asked had I not recently come across a remarkable chapter while browsing in the out-of-print Hebrew autobiography of Itamar Ben-Avi, son of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the leading promoter of the revival of spoken Hebrew in late 19th-century Palestine. Ben-Avi, the first child to be raised in Hebrew since ancient times and later a Hebrew journalist and newspaper publisher, writes in this book of walking into the Kamenitz Hotel in Jerusalem one autumn night in 1911 and being asked by its proprietor:
" 'Do you see that Turkish officer sitting there in the corner, the one with the bottle of arrack?' "
" 'Yes.' "
" 'He's one of the most important officers in the Turkish army.' "
" 'What's his name?' "
" 'Mustafa Kemal.' "
" 'I'd like to meet him,' I said, because the minute I looked at him I was startled by his piercing green eyes."
Ben-Avi describes two meetings with Mustafa Kemal, who had not yet taken the name of Ataturk, 'Father of the Turks.' Both were conducted in French, were largely devoted to Ottoman politics, and were doused with large amounts of arrack. In the first of these, Kemal confided:
"I'm a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi - not indeed a Jew any more, but an ardent admirer of this prophet of yours. My opinion is that every Jew in this country would do well to join his camp."
During their second meeting, held 10 days later in the same hotel, Mustafa Kemal said at one point:
" 'I have at home a Hebrew Bible printed in Venice. It's rather old, and I remember my father bringing me to a Karaite teacher who taught me to read it. I can still remember a few words of it, such as --' "
And Ben-Avi continues:
"He paused for a moment, his eyes searching for something in space. Then he recalled:
" 'Shema Yisra'el, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad!'
" 'That's our most important prayer, Captain.'
" 'And my secret prayer too, cher monsieur,' he replied, refilling our glasses."
Although Itamar Ben-Avi could not have known it, Ataturk no doubt meant "secret prayer" quite literally. Among the esoteric prayers of the Doenme, first made known to the scholarly world when a book of them reached the National Library in Jerusalem in 1935, is one containing the confession of faith:
"Sabbetai Zevi and none other is the true Messiah. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."
It was undoubtedly from this credo, rather than from the Bible, that Ataturk remembered the words of the Shema, which to the best of my knowledge he confessed knowing but once in his adult life: to a young Hebrew journalist whom he engaged in two tipsily animated conversations in Jerusalem nearly a decade before he took control of the Turkish army after its disastrous defeat in World War I, beat back the invading Greeks and founded a secular Turkish republic in which Islam was banished - once and for all, so he thought - to the mosques.
Ataturk would have had good reasons for concealing his Doenme origins. Not only were the Doenmes (who married only among themselves and numbered close to 15,000, largely concentrated in Salonika, on the eve of World War I) looked down on as heretics by both Muslims and Jews, they had a reputation for sexual profligacy that could hardly have been flattering to their offspring. This license, which was theologically justified by the claim that it reflected the faithful's freedom from the biblical commandments under the new dispensation of Sabbetai Zevi, is described by Ezer Weizman's predecessor, Israel's second president, Yitzchak Ben-Zvi, in his book on lost Jewish communities, "The Exiled and the Redeemed":
'Saintly Offspring'"Once a year (during the Doenmes' annual 'Sheep holiday') the candles are put out in the course of a dinner which is attended by orgies and the ceremony of the exchange of wives. ... The rite is practiced on the night of Sabbetai Zevi's traditional birthday. ... It is believed that children born of such unions are regarded as saintly."
Although Ben-Zvi, writing in the 1950s, thought that "There is reason to believe that this ceremony has not been entirely abandoned and continues to this day," little is known about whether any of the Doenmes' traditional practices or social structures still survive in modern Turkey. The community abandoned Salonika along with the city's other Turkish residents during the Greco-Turkish war of 1920-21, and its descendants, many of whom are said to be wealthy businessmen and merchants in Istanbul, are generally thought to have assimilated totally into Turkish life.
After sending my fax to Batya Keinan, I phoned to check that she had received it. She had indeed, she said, and would see to it that the president was given it to read on his flight to Ankara. It is doubtful, however, whether Mr. Weizman will allude to it during his visit: The Turkish government, which for years has been fending off Muslim fundamentalist assaults on its legitimacy and on the secular reforms of Ataturk, has little reason to welcome the news that the father of the 'Father of the Turks' was a crypto-Jew who passed on his anti-Muslim sentiments to his son. Mustafa Kemal's secret is no doubt one that it would prefer to continue to be kept.
The above article was sent to me via email from: ww.islamservices.org
Saturday, May 12, 2007
One in 10 Muslims are in 7/7 denial
At least one in 10 British Muslims is in denial about the 7 July bombings in London, David Cameron is warning.
The Tory leader raised his concerns after staying with an Islamic family in Birmingham. Arguing that parts of the Muslim community are in denial about terrorism, he writes on his website: "In the mosque and elsewhere I got the familiar depressing questions about who was really responsible for 9/11 and even 7/7.
"Dig a bit deeper and it all comes out, 'CIA plot ... Jews told to leave the twin towers'. Even when it comes to 7/7, 'how do we know the suicide bomber videos are real and not fakes?' "Even if this is a view held by five or 10 per cent of British Muslims - and I suspect it is at least that - this is a real problem which we have all got to get to grips with."
However, after staying with a Muslim couple and their three children in the Balsall Heath area of Birmingham, he also accused the media and MPs of causing anger among some Muslims with inappropriate language.
Calling for people to stop using the words "Islamist terrorists" he adds: "It's hard to over-emphasise the importance of language. "Every time the BBC or a politician talks about Islamist terrorists they are doing immense harm."
He also voiced concerns among some Muslims that not enough is being done to stop extremist preachers coming to Britain and radicalising young people.
Source: ThisIsLonon.co.uk
The Tory leader raised his concerns after staying with an Islamic family in Birmingham. Arguing that parts of the Muslim community are in denial about terrorism, he writes on his website: "In the mosque and elsewhere I got the familiar depressing questions about who was really responsible for 9/11 and even 7/7.
"Dig a bit deeper and it all comes out, 'CIA plot ... Jews told to leave the twin towers'. Even when it comes to 7/7, 'how do we know the suicide bomber videos are real and not fakes?' "Even if this is a view held by five or 10 per cent of British Muslims - and I suspect it is at least that - this is a real problem which we have all got to get to grips with."
However, after staying with a Muslim couple and their three children in the Balsall Heath area of Birmingham, he also accused the media and MPs of causing anger among some Muslims with inappropriate language.
Calling for people to stop using the words "Islamist terrorists" he adds: "It's hard to over-emphasise the importance of language. "Every time the BBC or a politician talks about Islamist terrorists they are doing immense harm."
He also voiced concerns among some Muslims that not enough is being done to stop extremist preachers coming to Britain and radicalising young people.
Source: ThisIsLonon.co.uk
Hijab ban lifted in Quebec
Competitors at a world Tae Kwon Do tournament to be held in Quebec City May 31 will be allowed to wear a hijab, an international federation governing the sport has ruled.
According to a temporary decision handed down by the International Tae Kwon Do Federation, wearing the Muslim veil while practicing the sport is "neither dangerous nor unfair."
The association has created an ad hoc committee to study the question further.
The Quebec Tae Kwon Do Federation had submitted the question to the sport's international body after the April 15 instance in which two young Muslim girls were barred from competing with hijabs underneath their helmets.
The Quebec federation had refused to authorize the wearing of hijabs themselves even in a version modified for sports.
Source: The Gazette
According to a temporary decision handed down by the International Tae Kwon Do Federation, wearing the Muslim veil while practicing the sport is "neither dangerous nor unfair."
The association has created an ad hoc committee to study the question further.
The Quebec Tae Kwon Do Federation had submitted the question to the sport's international body after the April 15 instance in which two young Muslim girls were barred from competing with hijabs underneath their helmets.
The Quebec federation had refused to authorize the wearing of hijabs themselves even in a version modified for sports.
Source: The Gazette
Blair Meets Sarkozy (their photo with a touch of art)
Prime Minister Tony Blair had talks with Nicolas Sarkozy Friday, in the French president-elect's first meeting with a foreign leader.
Blair arrived at Sarkozy's temporary offices on Paris's Left Bank shortly after 6:00 pm (1600 GMT) for talks expected to focus on Europe and climate change.
Sarkozy, 52, takes over from Jacques Chirac next Wednesday.
On Thursday Blair announced that he will step down as Britain's premier at the end of June.
Francois Fillon, who is expected to be named next week as Sarkozy's prime minister, also attended the talks along with the British ambassador to France, Peter Westmacott.
Earlier Blair paid what was described as a farewell visit to Chirac at the Elysee palace.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070511/tuk-france-britain-sarkozy-a7ad41d.html
Israeli who served in the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) may join Sarkozy cabinet
Klarsfeld, when he served as a border policeman.
Photo: AP
Arno Klarsfeld, the son of renowned Nazi-hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, is rumored to be the top candidate to become minister of immigration and national identity when French President-elect Nicholas Sarkozy chooses his cabinet in the coming weeks.
Arno Klarsfeld, a 41-year-old lawyer, undertook several missions for Sarkozy when he was interior minister, dealing with France's illegal immigration problem.
Born in France, Klarsfeld aligned himself with Sarkozy and the Right after he fell out of favor with French leftists when he acquired Israeli citizenship in 2002 and joined the Border Police. He served at checkpoints around Bethlehem.
When he worked for Sarkozy, Klarsfeld prepared reports on the deportation of illegal immigrants and helped negotiate a deal to end protests by homeless campaigners.
Sarkozy gets nearly 90% of Israeli votes
Klarsfeld has also undertaken several human rights cases, campaigning to create international criminal courts on the genocides in Kosovo and Rwanda. He has championed Jewish causes, representing the Association for the Sons and Daughters of the Deported Jews of France, who sought damages in their case against French Nazi collaborator Maurice Papon, who died in February.
Because Klarsfeld has served as a mediator for Sarkozy and is familiar with the region, some believe he could serve as a special envoy for Sarkozy.
But officials from Sarkozy's party, the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), told The Jerusalem Post Tuesday no final decisions had been made on ministerial appointments. They said they had not heard speculation about Klarsfeld's appointment, as was first suggested by Le Figaro, also on Tuesday.
According to one UMP official, although it is just conjecture at this point, anything is possible. "He is charismatic and well-liked, but you have to see if he is the best suited for the job," the official told the Post.
As for Klarsfeld serving as a special envoy to the Middle East, the official said Klarsfeld's IDF service could present a problem for hard-liners and moderates in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.
"Around 70 percent of Lebanese Frenchmen voted for Sarkozy, so they also have a lot of expectations of him," the official said. "When you're talking about Hizbullah, for example, they would have to recognize that someone like Klarsfeld is first a French citizen, not Israeli. They must recognize him officially, not personally."
Klarsfeld has been outspoken in the past on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has said Palestinians were responsible for some of the casualties of the Holocaust.
In an article he wrote in Le Monde in 2001, he said: "If the persecuted Jews of Germany, Poland, Hungary and Romania had been permitted to immigrate to Palestine... it is certain that the number of Jews exterminated would have been far less."
Klarsfeld has also been outspoken on Palestinian statehood, something he believes should become a reality, but that Israelis and Palestinians should not be forbidden to live in each other's territory.
"It is said that Jewish policies in the occupied territories are an obstacle for peace. Maybe," he said. "But we can also turn the question around and ask, Why can't Jews live in the West Bank and Gaza while one million Arabs live in Israel?"
According to reports coming out of Paris, others being considered to sit on Sarkozy's cabinet are outgoing Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie and Alain Juppe, a former prime minister and foreign minister. Both are seen as front-runners for the position of foreign minister, though some suggest Juppe would rather be president of the National Assembly.
"The Israeli's won't be happy, especially with Juppe," the UMP official said. "Juppe is seen as very pro-Palestinian and has made statements regarding Jerusalem that Israelis don't like. He has said that Jerusalem is disputed territory and does not belong to Israel, and he believes what he says."
Alliot-Marie has also evoked criticism over statements on the region, with her condemnation of Israeli flyovers in Lebanon, which the IDF said were efforts to deter Hizbullah from rearming in violation of the UN brokered cease-fire.
"I think she learned her lessons about being too outspoken, especially over matters in the Middle East," the official said. "All statements regarding Israel must be carefully articulated and she spoke without thinking and without proper information."
Friday, May 11, 2007
Islam and Other Religions
Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another. (Aal `Imran 3:84)
As is borne out by this command of God in the Qur’an, Muslims must believe in all the prophets of God previously sent to humanity. This means that they are not permitted to show any disrespect to any prophet or to the religion he taught to his followers. To a Muslim, religious belief must come out of a person’s free choice, as God has also commanded not to use any kind of coercion in the matter of religion:
Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error. (Al-Baqarah 2:256)It is the conviction of a religion’s adherents, not the compulsion they can impose on others, that establishes its moral force on earth. This was a principle evident in the life and practice of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) as well as the Constitution of Madinah which he drew up with the multi-religious community of Madinah.
This document guaranteed the freedom of worship to all religious communities. This was the spirit of the Qur’an that shines into the hearts of all its perceptive readers: the spirit of tolerance and understanding. Allah says in the Qur’an that He has made people into nations and tribes so that they can know and deal with each other in an equal temper of kindness and generosity:
O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware. (Al-Hujurat 49:13)
The above verse emphasizes the point that in Islam there is no place for intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry based on color, race, nationality or any such considerations. This all-encompassing tolerance of Islam applies to all elements of life and all affairs of Muslims.
The Muslim's acceptance of the Jews and Christians (referred to in the Qur'an as People of the Book) as authentic religious communities is made clear:
And dispute not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury. (Al-`Ankabut 29:46).
This verse tells Muslims that they should take all measures to avoid dispute, anger or other negative feelings between themselves and others.
A Historical Context
In his book, More in Common Than You Think: Bridge Between Islam and Christianity, Dr. William Baker explains how Muslims view the Torah and the New Testament as inspired revelations of God and how Islam neither targeted the Jews nor Judaism.
In his article "The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct, Acceptance, Respect and Cooperation", Fysal Burhan quotes Dr. Baker: "It is a fact of history that when the Jews were being persecuted in Europe during the middle ages they found peace, harmony, and acceptance among the Muslim people of Spain. In fact, this was the era of Jewish history that they themselves refer to as "the golden age."
Marmaduke Pickthall, whose translation of the meanings of the Qur'an remains one of the most popular today, also commented on the subject:
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out…
If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension…
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.” (Madras Lectures on Islam)
The Prophet's Pluralistic Constitution
The Qur’an never claimed to teach a new religion. It consistently contextualized the Prophet Muhammad as being the final messenger in a long line of messengers from Allah confirming the truth of all earlier scriptures. This continuity is clear in the respect the Prophet showed to people of other religions.
Muhammad's mission was to restore the pure religion of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. The Islamic view of earlier religions is clear from the following verses of the Qur’an:
The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah--which We have sent by inspiration to thee (O Muhammad)--and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus… Call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, follow not thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. (Ash-Shura 42:13 & 15)
It was in the year 622 CE that the Prophet came to Madinah after a period of thirteen years of preaching Islam to the Quraish tribe in Makkah. In Madinah he found many who were ready to receive him and help him in his mission. At that time, the city of Madinah and its surrounding area was home to many Jewish and Arab tribes. There were also people of various racial and national origins including Romans, Persians and Ethiopians living in Madinah.
Taking into consideration the hopes and aspirations of this community of multi-religious background, the Prophet Muhammad drew up the basic principles of a pluralistic constitution. In addition, it established the rights and equality of every citizen before the law, as well as freedom of religion, trade and speech. The constitution spelled out the political rights and duties of both the Jews and Muslims to protect each other from every threat to their security and to uphold moral conduct and fair dealing.
Part of the constitution reads as follows:
The Jews of Banu `Awf are one nation with the Muslims; the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs, their freedmen and their persons shall be protected except those who behave unjustly or sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families. The same applies to the Jews of Banu an-Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha'labah, and the Jafnah, clan of the Tha'labah and Banu al-Shua'ibah. Doing good deeds is a protection against sinfulness. …….There is no responsibility except for one's own deeds….This document shall not constitute any protection for the unjust or the wrongdoers.
Whoever goes out to fight or stays at home is safe in the city, unless he has committed an injustice or a crime. God is the protector of whoever honors his commitment to this document, and is God-fearing and so is Muhammad, the Messenger of God. (Ibn Hisham)
The Constitution of Madinah was a historical document authored and dictated by Prophet Muhammad as the law of a land inhabited by different ethnic groups and nationalities. The document secured and promoted cooperation and fraternity among all people of any creed, color, ethnicity, and lineage, and set down the criterion of righteousness as the base of distinction.
A Human Soul
In addition to the legislation that the Prophet laid down in Madinah, he also practiced the spirit of acceptance and respect for those who were different in his daily life. The Prophet used to visit the sick people among the Jews as well as the Muslims; and when on one occasion the funeral procession of a Jew passed before him, he stood up as a sign of respect for the deceased. “Why did you stand up for a Jewish funeral?” he was asked. The Prophet replied: "Is it not a human soul?" (Al-Bukhari)
In this age of racial profiling and targeted killings directed at Muslims this attitude of the Prophet may sound other-worldly.
www.islamonline.net
As is borne out by this command of God in the Qur’an, Muslims must believe in all the prophets of God previously sent to humanity. This means that they are not permitted to show any disrespect to any prophet or to the religion he taught to his followers. To a Muslim, religious belief must come out of a person’s free choice, as God has also commanded not to use any kind of coercion in the matter of religion:
Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error. (Al-Baqarah 2:256)It is the conviction of a religion’s adherents, not the compulsion they can impose on others, that establishes its moral force on earth. This was a principle evident in the life and practice of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) as well as the Constitution of Madinah which he drew up with the multi-religious community of Madinah.
This document guaranteed the freedom of worship to all religious communities. This was the spirit of the Qur’an that shines into the hearts of all its perceptive readers: the spirit of tolerance and understanding. Allah says in the Qur’an that He has made people into nations and tribes so that they can know and deal with each other in an equal temper of kindness and generosity:
O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware. (Al-Hujurat 49:13)
The above verse emphasizes the point that in Islam there is no place for intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry based on color, race, nationality or any such considerations. This all-encompassing tolerance of Islam applies to all elements of life and all affairs of Muslims.
The Muslim's acceptance of the Jews and Christians (referred to in the Qur'an as People of the Book) as authentic religious communities is made clear:
And dispute not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury. (Al-`Ankabut 29:46).
This verse tells Muslims that they should take all measures to avoid dispute, anger or other negative feelings between themselves and others.
A Historical Context
In his book, More in Common Than You Think: Bridge Between Islam and Christianity, Dr. William Baker explains how Muslims view the Torah and the New Testament as inspired revelations of God and how Islam neither targeted the Jews nor Judaism.
In his article "The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct, Acceptance, Respect and Cooperation", Fysal Burhan quotes Dr. Baker: "It is a fact of history that when the Jews were being persecuted in Europe during the middle ages they found peace, harmony, and acceptance among the Muslim people of Spain. In fact, this was the era of Jewish history that they themselves refer to as "the golden age."
Marmaduke Pickthall, whose translation of the meanings of the Qur'an remains one of the most popular today, also commented on the subject:
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out…
If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension…
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.” (Madras Lectures on Islam)
The Prophet's Pluralistic Constitution
The Qur’an never claimed to teach a new religion. It consistently contextualized the Prophet Muhammad as being the final messenger in a long line of messengers from Allah confirming the truth of all earlier scriptures. This continuity is clear in the respect the Prophet showed to people of other religions.
Muhammad's mission was to restore the pure religion of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. The Islamic view of earlier religions is clear from the following verses of the Qur’an:
The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah--which We have sent by inspiration to thee (O Muhammad)--and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus… Call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, follow not thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. (Ash-Shura 42:13 & 15)
It was in the year 622 CE that the Prophet came to Madinah after a period of thirteen years of preaching Islam to the Quraish tribe in Makkah. In Madinah he found many who were ready to receive him and help him in his mission. At that time, the city of Madinah and its surrounding area was home to many Jewish and Arab tribes. There were also people of various racial and national origins including Romans, Persians and Ethiopians living in Madinah.
Taking into consideration the hopes and aspirations of this community of multi-religious background, the Prophet Muhammad drew up the basic principles of a pluralistic constitution. In addition, it established the rights and equality of every citizen before the law, as well as freedom of religion, trade and speech. The constitution spelled out the political rights and duties of both the Jews and Muslims to protect each other from every threat to their security and to uphold moral conduct and fair dealing.
Part of the constitution reads as follows:
The Jews of Banu `Awf are one nation with the Muslims; the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs, their freedmen and their persons shall be protected except those who behave unjustly or sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families. The same applies to the Jews of Banu an-Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha'labah, and the Jafnah, clan of the Tha'labah and Banu al-Shua'ibah. Doing good deeds is a protection against sinfulness. …….There is no responsibility except for one's own deeds….This document shall not constitute any protection for the unjust or the wrongdoers.
Whoever goes out to fight or stays at home is safe in the city, unless he has committed an injustice or a crime. God is the protector of whoever honors his commitment to this document, and is God-fearing and so is Muhammad, the Messenger of God. (Ibn Hisham)
The Constitution of Madinah was a historical document authored and dictated by Prophet Muhammad as the law of a land inhabited by different ethnic groups and nationalities. The document secured and promoted cooperation and fraternity among all people of any creed, color, ethnicity, and lineage, and set down the criterion of righteousness as the base of distinction.
A Human Soul
In addition to the legislation that the Prophet laid down in Madinah, he also practiced the spirit of acceptance and respect for those who were different in his daily life. The Prophet used to visit the sick people among the Jews as well as the Muslims; and when on one occasion the funeral procession of a Jew passed before him, he stood up as a sign of respect for the deceased. “Why did you stand up for a Jewish funeral?” he was asked. The Prophet replied: "Is it not a human soul?" (Al-Bukhari)
In this age of racial profiling and targeted killings directed at Muslims this attitude of the Prophet may sound other-worldly.
www.islamonline.net
Iraqi infant mortality soars by 150 percent—a damning revelation of US war crimes
The infant mortality rate in Iraq has increased by a shocking 150 percent since 1990—the highest such increase recorded for any country in the world—according to an annual report issued by the child advocacy group, Save the Children.
According to the report, in 2005, the last year for which reliable data is available, one in eight Iraqi children—122,000 in all—died before reaching their fifth birthday. More than half of these deaths were recorded among new-born infants, with pneumonia and diarrhea claiming the greatest toll among Iraqi babies.
The infant mortality rate has long been considered one of the key measures of societal progress and wellbeing. The astounding figures recorded in Iraq are an accurate reflection of the social devastation wrought both by the US invasion of 2003 and more than a decade of US-backed economic sanctions that preceded it.
“Conservative estimates place increases in infant mortality following the 2003 invasion of Iraq at 37 percent,” according to the Save the Children report. The implications of such a change—in the space of just two years—are staggering. Given the steady escalation of the armed conflict in Iraq and the continued deterioration of social conditions for masses of people in the country, the rate of increase in infant and child deaths was no doubt even greater over the course of 2006.
The report blamed the horrific decline in infant and child health since the invasion on the steadily worsening living conditions for the Iraqi population as a whole, including “electricity shortages, insufficient clean water, deteriorating health services and soaring inflation.”
This overall destruction of basic social infrastructure unleashed by the US invasion and occupation has been translated into a horrendous decline in child health. “Only 35 percent of Iraqi children are fully immunized, and more than one-fifth (21 percent) are severely or moderately stunted” as a result of malnutrition, the study found.
The statistics compiled by Save the Children indicate that in 1990 the mortality rate for children under five in Iraq stood at 50 for every 1,000 live births—among the best outcomes reported for the entire Arab world at the time. In 2005, the figure was 125 per 1,000 live births—roughly equivalent to the figures recorded in countries like Malawi, Mauritania, Uganda and Haiti.
While some countries—all with one exception in Africa—have higher death rates than Iraq, none came even near the rate of increase in infant mortality recorded by the US-occupied country (Botswana came closest, with a 107 percent rise, while still recording a slightly lower rate of 120 deaths per 1,000 live births).
The destruction of the conditions and very lives of Iraqi children began well before US troops invaded the country in 2003. The 1990-1991 Gulf War saw more than 90,000 tons of US bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq, smashing much of its essential infrastructure, including power plants and water and sanitation systems and creating the conditions for a public health disaster.
The war was followed by a decade of punishing sanctions that deprived Iraqi children and the population as a whole of essential medical supplies and adequate nutrition. Even chlorine, needed to purify water, was embargoed, depriving infants and small children of a clean water supply and condemning many to death.
US-backed sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children
It was during this period that the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that an additional half a million Iraqi children had died between 1991 and 1998 as a result of the sanctions.
In 1998, the coordinator of United Nation humanitarian operations in Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest calling the sanctions a form of “genocide” and “a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq.” Halliday said at the time, “We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.”
President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, confronted in a television interview with the UN estimate of 500,000 children having died as a result of the US-backed sanctions, famously answered, “We think the price is worth it.”
The rise in infant mortality rates represents the starkest manifestation of the murderous impact that US aggression upon Iraq and its children over a protracted period. But there are many other indications that for those who survive, conditions of life have become increasingly unbearable.
According to figures reported by the Iraqi government, some 900,000 children have been left orphans by the carnage that has swept Iraq since the US invasion of 2003. It is estimated that at the present levels of violence, some 400 children are left orphaned every day in the country.
The Iraqi Ministry of Education, meanwhile, estimates that barely 30 percent the country’s 3.5 million elementary school children are attending classes, a sharp decline from 75 percent last year. A study sponsored by the World Health Organization in the Iraqi city of Mosul, found fully 30 percent of school children surveyed suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder.
Significantly, the other country that is presently occupied by the US military and remains the scene of a bitter counterinsurgency war—Afghanistan—ranks as the second worst in the world in terms of its infant mortality rate, with 257 deaths for every 1,000 live births. In other words, more than one out of four Afghan children dies before the age of five. On average, every Afghan mother sees two of her children die as infants, while one in six women die in childbirth.
According to the Save the Children study, 40 percent of Afghan children are malnourished and less than half have access to safe water. The report also notes that, while “1 child in 100,000 in the United States dies of pneumonia each year, roughly 1 in 15” dies of the disease in Afghanistan.
On a world scale, Save the Children reports, “Every year, more than 10 million children die before they reach the age of 5, most from preventable causes and almost all in poor countries.” It adds that while infant global infant mortality rates had improved in previous decades, “rates of progress are slowing and in many countries, child death rates are getting worse.”
The organization insists that available and low-cost solutions could easily prevent 6 million of these deaths annually. These include, “skilled care at childbirth, breastfeeding, measles immunization, oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea and medical care for pneumonia.” But for many of the most impoverished countries, and for many others in the most oppressed layers of society elsewhere, these elementary forms of health care and education are not provided.
The statistics included in the report also indicate that the problems of infant mortality reflect the worldwide growth of social inequality, which is literally killing millions of children every year.
“A child in the poorest fifth of a population is more than twice as likely to die compared to a child from the richest fifth,” the study finds. “Eliminating health-care inequities—and bringing mortality rates among the poorest 80 percent of the population down to those prevailing among the richest 20 percent—would prevent about 4 million of the 10 million deaths each year.”
In addition to the growing impact of social inequality within each country, the gap between the wealthiest and most impoverished countries has also continued to widen. While in 1990, the child mortality rate for sub-Saharan Africa was 20 times higher than for the industrialized countries, by 2005, the rate was 28 times as high, the study said.
The above article was sent to me from www.islamservices.org
According to the report, in 2005, the last year for which reliable data is available, one in eight Iraqi children—122,000 in all—died before reaching their fifth birthday. More than half of these deaths were recorded among new-born infants, with pneumonia and diarrhea claiming the greatest toll among Iraqi babies.
The infant mortality rate has long been considered one of the key measures of societal progress and wellbeing. The astounding figures recorded in Iraq are an accurate reflection of the social devastation wrought both by the US invasion of 2003 and more than a decade of US-backed economic sanctions that preceded it.
“Conservative estimates place increases in infant mortality following the 2003 invasion of Iraq at 37 percent,” according to the Save the Children report. The implications of such a change—in the space of just two years—are staggering. Given the steady escalation of the armed conflict in Iraq and the continued deterioration of social conditions for masses of people in the country, the rate of increase in infant and child deaths was no doubt even greater over the course of 2006.
The report blamed the horrific decline in infant and child health since the invasion on the steadily worsening living conditions for the Iraqi population as a whole, including “electricity shortages, insufficient clean water, deteriorating health services and soaring inflation.”
This overall destruction of basic social infrastructure unleashed by the US invasion and occupation has been translated into a horrendous decline in child health. “Only 35 percent of Iraqi children are fully immunized, and more than one-fifth (21 percent) are severely or moderately stunted” as a result of malnutrition, the study found.
The statistics compiled by Save the Children indicate that in 1990 the mortality rate for children under five in Iraq stood at 50 for every 1,000 live births—among the best outcomes reported for the entire Arab world at the time. In 2005, the figure was 125 per 1,000 live births—roughly equivalent to the figures recorded in countries like Malawi, Mauritania, Uganda and Haiti.
While some countries—all with one exception in Africa—have higher death rates than Iraq, none came even near the rate of increase in infant mortality recorded by the US-occupied country (Botswana came closest, with a 107 percent rise, while still recording a slightly lower rate of 120 deaths per 1,000 live births).
The destruction of the conditions and very lives of Iraqi children began well before US troops invaded the country in 2003. The 1990-1991 Gulf War saw more than 90,000 tons of US bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq, smashing much of its essential infrastructure, including power plants and water and sanitation systems and creating the conditions for a public health disaster.
The war was followed by a decade of punishing sanctions that deprived Iraqi children and the population as a whole of essential medical supplies and adequate nutrition. Even chlorine, needed to purify water, was embargoed, depriving infants and small children of a clean water supply and condemning many to death.
US-backed sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children
It was during this period that the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that an additional half a million Iraqi children had died between 1991 and 1998 as a result of the sanctions.
In 1998, the coordinator of United Nation humanitarian operations in Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest calling the sanctions a form of “genocide” and “a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq.” Halliday said at the time, “We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.”
President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, confronted in a television interview with the UN estimate of 500,000 children having died as a result of the US-backed sanctions, famously answered, “We think the price is worth it.”
The rise in infant mortality rates represents the starkest manifestation of the murderous impact that US aggression upon Iraq and its children over a protracted period. But there are many other indications that for those who survive, conditions of life have become increasingly unbearable.
According to figures reported by the Iraqi government, some 900,000 children have been left orphans by the carnage that has swept Iraq since the US invasion of 2003. It is estimated that at the present levels of violence, some 400 children are left orphaned every day in the country.
The Iraqi Ministry of Education, meanwhile, estimates that barely 30 percent the country’s 3.5 million elementary school children are attending classes, a sharp decline from 75 percent last year. A study sponsored by the World Health Organization in the Iraqi city of Mosul, found fully 30 percent of school children surveyed suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder.
Significantly, the other country that is presently occupied by the US military and remains the scene of a bitter counterinsurgency war—Afghanistan—ranks as the second worst in the world in terms of its infant mortality rate, with 257 deaths for every 1,000 live births. In other words, more than one out of four Afghan children dies before the age of five. On average, every Afghan mother sees two of her children die as infants, while one in six women die in childbirth.
According to the Save the Children study, 40 percent of Afghan children are malnourished and less than half have access to safe water. The report also notes that, while “1 child in 100,000 in the United States dies of pneumonia each year, roughly 1 in 15” dies of the disease in Afghanistan.
On a world scale, Save the Children reports, “Every year, more than 10 million children die before they reach the age of 5, most from preventable causes and almost all in poor countries.” It adds that while infant global infant mortality rates had improved in previous decades, “rates of progress are slowing and in many countries, child death rates are getting worse.”
The organization insists that available and low-cost solutions could easily prevent 6 million of these deaths annually. These include, “skilled care at childbirth, breastfeeding, measles immunization, oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea and medical care for pneumonia.” But for many of the most impoverished countries, and for many others in the most oppressed layers of society elsewhere, these elementary forms of health care and education are not provided.
The statistics included in the report also indicate that the problems of infant mortality reflect the worldwide growth of social inequality, which is literally killing millions of children every year.
“A child in the poorest fifth of a population is more than twice as likely to die compared to a child from the richest fifth,” the study finds. “Eliminating health-care inequities—and bringing mortality rates among the poorest 80 percent of the population down to those prevailing among the richest 20 percent—would prevent about 4 million of the 10 million deaths each year.”
In addition to the growing impact of social inequality within each country, the gap between the wealthiest and most impoverished countries has also continued to widen. While in 1990, the child mortality rate for sub-Saharan Africa was 20 times higher than for the industrialized countries, by 2005, the rate was 28 times as high, the study said.
The above article was sent to me from www.islamservices.org
Jewish Religion, Jewish History-The Weight of 3,000 Years
By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal. Published by Pluto Press (London, 1994).
Bookreview
When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the peoples of the world in their intense hatred and contempt for all peoples but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.
Notable among these was the reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in "Von den Juden und Ihren Lugen":
"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle...
"Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I see in their writings how they curse us goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and their prayers."
The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.
When British newsman William Cash, Los Angeles correspondent for London's Daily Telegraph, reported late last year in a magazine article the simple fact that the executives in Hollywood's motion picture industry are nearly all Jews, they shrieked at him, "Hater!" and denied his fact. When famous actor Marlon Brando later repeated the same fact, he was as well attacked for being an "anti-Semite".
Thus, Israel Shahak's book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years" is all the more important for being a document by a aknowledgeable Jew -- a Jewish "insider" -- about the beliefs and behavior of his fellow Jews. Born in Warsaw in 1933, Shahak spent a portion of his childhood in the concentration camp in Belsen, from which he immigrated to Palestine in 1945. He grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli military, and became a chemistry professor. Like all Israelis, he became fluent in Hebrew. He also became acclimated to the peculiar moral atmosphere of Israeli society: a combination of overweening arrogance and deceit, a mixture of pugnacious self-righteousness and duplicity.
Unlike his fellow Israelis, however, Professor Shahak is deeply troubled by this peculiar atmosphere. Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and ended their cult in Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that's why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp. He's worried that if his fellow Jews continue behaving as they always have, they will get themselves into some really serious trouble -- again.
In particular, Professor Shahak is concerned about the behavior of those of his people who adhere to "Judaism". He is not one of these himself, and so he is able to look with some degree of objectivity at the mixture of superstition, Jewish chauvinism, and hatred of non-Jews which makes up the Jewish religion and its sacred writings. He deplores traditional Jewish teachings, not only because of the danger that some new Martin Luther will come along and spill the beans to the Gentiles, but because of the spiritually debilitating effect these teachings have had on the Jews themselves. Of the world of medieval Jewry in Europe, the world of the ghetto and the shtetl which modern Jewish writers refer to in euphoric tones as a world of quaint tradition and piety, Shahak says: "It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance ..."
He cites a number of specific instances of the ways in which Jewish religious authorities have kept their flocks under control. In general, the rabbis have taught their fellow Jews that their Gentile neighbors are spiritually and morally unclean; that they are subhuman, on a level with the beasts of the field; and that they hate Jews and must be hated in return. Jews are taught that the Christian religion is a religion fit only for animals, and that its founder, Jesus, was the son of a prostitute and is presently immersed in a pit of boiling excrement in hell.
Among the Hassidim (Hebrew for "pious ones") all of these teachings are kept current. Shahak points out that a central thesis of the Hassidic doctrine is that only Jews are human beings, and that the universe was created for them alone. Non-Jews were created only to be used by Jews. Although this teaching about the subhumanity of Gentiles is most open and explicit among the bearded, sidelocked, black-hatted Orthodox Jews that one sees in Jewish strongholds such as New York City, it comes from the core of Jewish tradition and is accepted to a greater or lesser degree by all pious Jews. It is, for example, a specific tenet of the Jewish Defense League and is cited in the membership handbook for that group.
Especially frustrating to Professor Shahak is the clever deception which his fellow Jews use to conceal the true nature of Judaism from their Gentile neighbors. Regarding the veil of false piety which conceals from Gentile eyes the malevolent doctrine of the Hassidim, he writes: "A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews." Buber (1878-1965) promoted Hassidism in Germany during the rise of the National Socialists -- in fact, until 1938, when he left for Palestine -- and Shahak considers Buber's efforts, despite their deceptiveness, at least partly responsible for the National Socialist reaction to the Jews.
Another example of Jewish deception given by Professor Shahak concerns the etymology of the Yiddish word for a Gentile girl, shiksa. He cites the popular English-language book "The Joys of Yiddish" (New York, 1968), by Leo Rosten, which tells its readers that shiksa comes from the Hebrew word sheqetz, meaning "blemish". Writes Shahak, "This is a barefaced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines sheqetz as follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination...' "
Professor Shahak writes with passion. He evidently feels that liberating Jews everywhere from the shackles of their misanthropic superstitions and freeing Israeli state policy in particular from the stifling influence of Judaism is a matter of some urgency. He focuses our attention especially on the inherent hatefulness of Judaism with citations from a number of Jewish religious writings.
In a chapter titled "The Laws against Non-Jews," he writes:
"...[T]he Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism -- as practiced by practically all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism -- is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic law became necessary ... The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan 'Arukh..."
He then cites the teaching of this code regarding homicide:
"According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew ... When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
"Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan 'Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, "one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice ... there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly." ...
"A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished."
Then Shahak gives us a rabbi's answer to an Israeli soldier who has asked whether or not it is proper to kill Arab women and children. In his answer the rabbi quotes from the Talmud: "The best of the Gentiles -- kill him; the best of snakes -- dash out its brains."
Perhaps even more offensive are the Jewish beliefs on sexual matters. Shahak writes:
"Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses" is applied to them... Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality...
"According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: "He who has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: 'thy fellow's wife' rather than the alien's wife ... and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted."
"This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted -- quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: "If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day -- because he had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.""
The Talmud's overriding concern with matters of money and property mirror that of the Jews, and Professor Shahak offers a number of hair-splitting examples of Jewish beliefs on the subject and the way in which distinctions are made between the property of Jews and Gentiles, and between Jewish dealings with another Jew and with a Gentile. Two of these examples will suffice here:
"If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it...
"It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, "Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: 'Do not defraud each man his brother'...""
Shahak points out that "the Halakhah interprets all such idioms [as 'each man his brother' or 'neighbor'] as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew."
How have the Jews managed to keep teachings of this sort concealed from the Gentiles among whom they live? The truth of the matter is that they have not always been able to do so. Luther was not the only Christian scholar who learned Hebrew, peered into the Talmud, and was horrified by what he saw. Sometimes the Jews were able to bribe the Christian authorities to overlook such things, but throughout the later Middle Ages there were prohibitions and burnings of talmudic literature by outraged popes and bishops. The Jews developed a clever system of double bookkeeping to circumvent such "persecution". They modified or deleted the offending passages from new editions of the Talmud, and they made up a separate compendium -- Talmudic Omissions, or in Hebrew Hesronot Shas -- which circulated surreptitiously among the rabbis. In Israel today, feeling cocky enough to dispense with most such deceptions, the Jews are putting the passages which formerly had been omitted or modified back into the latest editions of the Talmud or the Shulhan 'Arukh in their original form. They are still careful with translations into Gentile tongues, however. Professor Shahak gives an example:
"In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code ... the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: "It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands." In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: "It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them." But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of "infidels"who must be exterminated: "Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoqand Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot." Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception."
Israel Shahak is a rare Jew indeed, and his book is essential reading for anyone interested in the problem of the Jews.
awakenedgoyim
Thank you, www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com
Bookreview
When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the peoples of the world in their intense hatred and contempt for all peoples but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.
Notable among these was the reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in "Von den Juden und Ihren Lugen":
"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle...
"Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I see in their writings how they curse us goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and their prayers."
The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.
When British newsman William Cash, Los Angeles correspondent for London's Daily Telegraph, reported late last year in a magazine article the simple fact that the executives in Hollywood's motion picture industry are nearly all Jews, they shrieked at him, "Hater!" and denied his fact. When famous actor Marlon Brando later repeated the same fact, he was as well attacked for being an "anti-Semite".
Thus, Israel Shahak's book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years" is all the more important for being a document by a aknowledgeable Jew -- a Jewish "insider" -- about the beliefs and behavior of his fellow Jews. Born in Warsaw in 1933, Shahak spent a portion of his childhood in the concentration camp in Belsen, from which he immigrated to Palestine in 1945. He grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli military, and became a chemistry professor. Like all Israelis, he became fluent in Hebrew. He also became acclimated to the peculiar moral atmosphere of Israeli society: a combination of overweening arrogance and deceit, a mixture of pugnacious self-righteousness and duplicity.
Unlike his fellow Israelis, however, Professor Shahak is deeply troubled by this peculiar atmosphere. Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and ended their cult in Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that's why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp. He's worried that if his fellow Jews continue behaving as they always have, they will get themselves into some really serious trouble -- again.
In particular, Professor Shahak is concerned about the behavior of those of his people who adhere to "Judaism". He is not one of these himself, and so he is able to look with some degree of objectivity at the mixture of superstition, Jewish chauvinism, and hatred of non-Jews which makes up the Jewish religion and its sacred writings. He deplores traditional Jewish teachings, not only because of the danger that some new Martin Luther will come along and spill the beans to the Gentiles, but because of the spiritually debilitating effect these teachings have had on the Jews themselves. Of the world of medieval Jewry in Europe, the world of the ghetto and the shtetl which modern Jewish writers refer to in euphoric tones as a world of quaint tradition and piety, Shahak says: "It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance ..."
He cites a number of specific instances of the ways in which Jewish religious authorities have kept their flocks under control. In general, the rabbis have taught their fellow Jews that their Gentile neighbors are spiritually and morally unclean; that they are subhuman, on a level with the beasts of the field; and that they hate Jews and must be hated in return. Jews are taught that the Christian religion is a religion fit only for animals, and that its founder, Jesus, was the son of a prostitute and is presently immersed in a pit of boiling excrement in hell.
Among the Hassidim (Hebrew for "pious ones") all of these teachings are kept current. Shahak points out that a central thesis of the Hassidic doctrine is that only Jews are human beings, and that the universe was created for them alone. Non-Jews were created only to be used by Jews. Although this teaching about the subhumanity of Gentiles is most open and explicit among the bearded, sidelocked, black-hatted Orthodox Jews that one sees in Jewish strongholds such as New York City, it comes from the core of Jewish tradition and is accepted to a greater or lesser degree by all pious Jews. It is, for example, a specific tenet of the Jewish Defense League and is cited in the membership handbook for that group.
Especially frustrating to Professor Shahak is the clever deception which his fellow Jews use to conceal the true nature of Judaism from their Gentile neighbors. Regarding the veil of false piety which conceals from Gentile eyes the malevolent doctrine of the Hassidim, he writes: "A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews." Buber (1878-1965) promoted Hassidism in Germany during the rise of the National Socialists -- in fact, until 1938, when he left for Palestine -- and Shahak considers Buber's efforts, despite their deceptiveness, at least partly responsible for the National Socialist reaction to the Jews.
Another example of Jewish deception given by Professor Shahak concerns the etymology of the Yiddish word for a Gentile girl, shiksa. He cites the popular English-language book "The Joys of Yiddish" (New York, 1968), by Leo Rosten, which tells its readers that shiksa comes from the Hebrew word sheqetz, meaning "blemish". Writes Shahak, "This is a barefaced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines sheqetz as follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination...' "
Professor Shahak writes with passion. He evidently feels that liberating Jews everywhere from the shackles of their misanthropic superstitions and freeing Israeli state policy in particular from the stifling influence of Judaism is a matter of some urgency. He focuses our attention especially on the inherent hatefulness of Judaism with citations from a number of Jewish religious writings.
In a chapter titled "The Laws against Non-Jews," he writes:
"...[T]he Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism -- as practiced by practically all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism -- is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic law became necessary ... The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan 'Arukh..."
He then cites the teaching of this code regarding homicide:
"According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew ... When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.
"Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan 'Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, "one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice ... there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly." ...
"A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished."
Then Shahak gives us a rabbi's answer to an Israeli soldier who has asked whether or not it is proper to kill Arab women and children. In his answer the rabbi quotes from the Talmud: "The best of the Gentiles -- kill him; the best of snakes -- dash out its brains."
Perhaps even more offensive are the Jewish beliefs on sexual matters. Shahak writes:
"Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses" is applied to them... Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality...
"According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: "He who has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: 'thy fellow's wife' rather than the alien's wife ... and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted."
"This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted -- quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: "If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day -- because he had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.""
The Talmud's overriding concern with matters of money and property mirror that of the Jews, and Professor Shahak offers a number of hair-splitting examples of Jewish beliefs on the subject and the way in which distinctions are made between the property of Jews and Gentiles, and between Jewish dealings with another Jew and with a Gentile. Two of these examples will suffice here:
"If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it...
"It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, "Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: 'Do not defraud each man his brother'...""
Shahak points out that "the Halakhah interprets all such idioms [as 'each man his brother' or 'neighbor'] as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew."
How have the Jews managed to keep teachings of this sort concealed from the Gentiles among whom they live? The truth of the matter is that they have not always been able to do so. Luther was not the only Christian scholar who learned Hebrew, peered into the Talmud, and was horrified by what he saw. Sometimes the Jews were able to bribe the Christian authorities to overlook such things, but throughout the later Middle Ages there were prohibitions and burnings of talmudic literature by outraged popes and bishops. The Jews developed a clever system of double bookkeeping to circumvent such "persecution". They modified or deleted the offending passages from new editions of the Talmud, and they made up a separate compendium -- Talmudic Omissions, or in Hebrew Hesronot Shas -- which circulated surreptitiously among the rabbis. In Israel today, feeling cocky enough to dispense with most such deceptions, the Jews are putting the passages which formerly had been omitted or modified back into the latest editions of the Talmud or the Shulhan 'Arukh in their original form. They are still careful with translations into Gentile tongues, however. Professor Shahak gives an example:
"In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code ... the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: "It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands." In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: "It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them." But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of "infidels"who must be exterminated: "Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoqand Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot." Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception."
Israel Shahak is a rare Jew indeed, and his book is essential reading for anyone interested in the problem of the Jews.
awakenedgoyim
Thank you, www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com
Video of Pedophile Rabbi "Wiped Off YouTube"
I published in April 23, 2007, a post about David Kaye, the rabbi who sought to have anal sex with a boy. The post included a video of that filthy rabbi but guess what? After checking that video out by mere chance, I found out that they deleted the video from YouTube. Of course Zionists are behind this. They are embarrassed. They don`t want anyone to see their dirty laundry. But you know what? They won`t conceal it for actually most of their rabbis are into that kind of sexual aberration.
Have a look at my previously published post about that person,
http://ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/rabbi-caught-red-handed-in-pedophile-sting/
Have a look at my previously published post about that person,
http://ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/rabbi-caught-red-handed-in-pedophile-sting/
Former Powell aide says Bush, Cheney guilty of 'high crimes'
A former top State Department aide to Colin Powell said today that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are more deserving of impeachment than was Bill Clinton.Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said on the public radio program On Point Thursday that "Bill Clinton's peccadilloes ... pale in significance" when compared to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of Bush and Cheney.
Wilkerson did not directly call on Congress to begin impeachment hearings, and he brought up impeachment in response to a caller's question. Early in the show, however, he observed, "This administration doesn't know how to effect accountability, in my opinion."
Wilkerson's comments were first reported by pro-impeachment Web site AfterDowningStreet.org.
"The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and precise -– it's high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. "You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."
Taking a historical view of impeachment, Wilkerson said he believed the Founding Fathers would be surprised that more presidents had not been impeached.
"I do believe that they would have thought had they been asked by you or whomever at the time of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia 'Do you think this will be exercised?' they would have said 'Of course it will, every generation they'll have to throw some bastard out.'"Wilkerson said. "That's a form of accountability too. It's ultimate accountability."
Asked about the high crimes of the current administration, Wilkerson said the American public was duped into supporting a war in Iraq.
"I think we went into this war for specious reasons," he said. "I think we went into this war not too much unlike the way we went into the Spanish American War with the Hearst press essentially goading the American people and the leadership into war. That was a different time in a different culture, in a different America. We're in a very different place today and I think we essentially got goaded into the war through some of the same means."
Source: TheRawStory.com
Wilkerson did not directly call on Congress to begin impeachment hearings, and he brought up impeachment in response to a caller's question. Early in the show, however, he observed, "This administration doesn't know how to effect accountability, in my opinion."
Wilkerson's comments were first reported by pro-impeachment Web site AfterDowningStreet.org.
"The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and precise -– it's high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. "You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."
Taking a historical view of impeachment, Wilkerson said he believed the Founding Fathers would be surprised that more presidents had not been impeached.
"I do believe that they would have thought had they been asked by you or whomever at the time of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia 'Do you think this will be exercised?' they would have said 'Of course it will, every generation they'll have to throw some bastard out.'"Wilkerson said. "That's a form of accountability too. It's ultimate accountability."
Asked about the high crimes of the current administration, Wilkerson said the American public was duped into supporting a war in Iraq.
"I think we went into this war for specious reasons," he said. "I think we went into this war not too much unlike the way we went into the Spanish American War with the Hearst press essentially goading the American people and the leadership into war. That was a different time in a different culture, in a different America. We're in a very different place today and I think we essentially got goaded into the war through some of the same means."
Source: TheRawStory.com
Thursday, May 10, 2007
A Comprehensive Guide to a Woman's Nakedness (awra) in Islam
The covering of one's nakedness (awra) is of utmost importance for a male and female in Islam, thus the Qur'an and Sunnah have laid great emphasis with regards to this. We also see the various books of Islamic Jurisprudence (fiqh) discussing the issues relating to the Awra of both the male and female in great detail. In this brief article, I will attempt to shed some light and look comprehensively as to what is a woman's Awra.Awra is an Arabic term the plural of which is Awrat. Linguistically, it means a hidden and secret place, and a person's Awra is that which must be kept hidden. It also refers to everything that causes shame when exposed, thus, the Awra of an individual is the area of the body which (normally) causes embarrassment if exposed. (Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-Arab, 9/370).In the terminology of Islamic Jurisprudence, Awra refers to the area or part of the body that must be covered with appropriate clothing. In the English language, it is normally translated as 'nakedness' or 'area of the body that must be concealed'. Many people (normally form the Indo/pak) refer to it as 'Satar'. For the purpose of simplicity, I will use the term 'Awra' in this article, Insha Allah.
THE AWRA OF A WOMAN
A woman's Awra can be initially divided into two categories:1) Inside prayer 2) Outside prayer The latter is then divided into further sub-categories:a) In seclusion b) In front of the husband c) In front of Muslim women d) In front of Mahram males (unmarriageable kin) e) In front of non-Mahram males f) In front of non-Muslim women g) In front of non-Muslim Mahram males 1) Awra inside prayer (Salat)A woman's Awra whilst performing Salat consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. Allah Most High says: "O children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel (zeenah) at every time and place of prayer." (Surah al-A'raf, 31)The majority of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all), their followers (tabi'un), Jurists and exegetes of the Qur'an have deduced from this verse (along with the other evidences) the obligation of covering one's Awra in prayer. (See: Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'an, 4/205, Ma'arif al-Qur'an (English), 3/565)Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who experiences menstruation (i.e. who has reached puberty, m) except with a head cover (khimar)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 641, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah and others)The great Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his renowned Durr al-Mukhtar:"The Awra for a free woman (i.e. not a slave, m) is her full body including her descending hair according to the correct opinion, except for the face, hands.... and feet"
. (See Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405).Therefore, a woman must cover herself properly when performing Salat. Everything besides the face, hands and feet must be covered. The face must be covered properly so that no hair is exposed. Also, care should be taken that no part from above the wrists and ankles is exposed.It must be remembered that the Awra whilst performing Salat must be covered regardless of another person being present or otherwise, and regardless of whether one is performing Salat in dark or light. (Maraqi al-Falah, 210)
The feet, according to the more correct opinion, is not regarded as part of Awra. However, due to the difference of opinion with regards to it, it would be more precautious and advisable to cover them, as it will be explained in detail later.
With regards to the area below the chin, it should be remembered that the limit of the face in length starts from the point where the hairline usually begins to the bottom of the chin, and in breadth the portion between the two earlobes. (Maraqi al-Falah, P. 58)
Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that the area below the chin is not included in the face, thus it would fall within the legal definition of Awra, and one should try to cover it. However, because of the difficulty in covering it, if a little part of it became exposed, there should not be a problem.
Finally, (in this section), the Awra must be concealed from before entering into Salat and must remain concealed until the end. If quarter of a part/organ that requires concealment is exposed before initiating Salat, then Salat will not be valid from the outset. If however, quarter of the organ which is included in the Awra becomes exposed during Salat, then, if this remains to the duration of reciting Subhan Allah thrice, Salat will become invalid, otherwise, it will be valid. (See: Maraqi al-Falah, P. 242)
Note) One should consult a scholar with regards to how the parts of the body are categorized and divided, for at times, one may regard a organ of the body to be one part, whereas, legally, it may be considered to be two parts.
2) Awra Outside Prayer
a) Awra in privacy and seclusion
It is necessary (wajib) (and recommended according to another opinion) in the Hanafi school, to cover one's minimum nakedness (between the navel and knee for both men and women) even when alone. The exception to this is when there is a need, such as taking a shower, relieving oneself, or changing one's clothes. Even in such situations, it is recommended to minimize the exposure.
The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Modesty is part of faith (iman)." (Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim)Ya'la ibn Umayya reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Verily Allah is modest and discreet and He likes modesty and discretion. When one of you takes a bath, one should cover one's self." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Nasa'I & Musnad Ahmad). This is a command of recommendation when alone.Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) said in his Durr al-Mukhtar:"(And to cover one's Awra), this is a general obligation, even when alone, according to the correct opinion, unless it is for a valid reason."Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) writes whilst commentating on the above in his Radd al-Muhtar:"(al-Haskafi's statement "Even when alone"
) That is: Outside of prayer, it is obligatory to cover one's Awra in front of others by scholarly consensus, and even when alone according to the correct opinion"¦..Now, the apparent meaning of covering one's Awra when alone outside of prayer (in this context) is that only which is between the navel and knees, such that even women do not have to cover other than that (when alone) even if it is of their Awra in front of others"¦.(al-Haskafi's statement "According to the correct opinion) For Allah Most High, even though He sees the covered just as He sees the naked, sees the one with their nakedness uncovered leaving proper manners and sees the covered exhibiting proper manners. These proper manners (here) are obligatory whenever there is ability to exercise them.
(al-Haskafi's statement "Unless it is for a valid reason") Such as, using the toilet or cleaning one self (istinja)". (See: Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405, matlab fi satr al-awra).Therefore, (according to the more correct opinion), a woman must cover even in privacy between her navel and (including) knees except when there is a need, such as relieving herself, showering, changing her cloths, etc"¦b) Awra in front of the husband
In principle, it is permissible for the spouses to look at any part of each others body. As such, there is no Awra in front of the spouse (for this will be exempted from the ruling of concealing in privacy due to need).
Scholars mention however, that although it is permissible for the spouses to look at any part of the partner's body, it is disliked that they become completely naked during cohabitation. A cover or sheet over the naked bodies would be sufficient.
Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) said: "I never saw the Messenger of Allah's (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts". (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith no. 662)c) Awra in front of Muslim womenThe Awra of a woman in front of fellow Muslim women is the same to that which is a man's Awra in front of other men, i.e. from the navel up to and including the knees.
It is stated in al-Hidaya:
"A woman may see of another (Muslim, m) woman that which is permitted for a man to see of another man, due to them being from the same sex, and the non-existence of desire (shahwa) between them normally"¦..Similarly, due to the need and requirement of them exposing amongst themselves". (See: al-Marghinani, al-Hidaya, 4/461).Therefore, a woman must cover from the navel up to and including her knees in front of other Muslim women.d) Awra in front of (Muslim) Mahrams (unmarriageable kin)
The Awra of a woman in front of her Mahram men (those with whom marriage is permanently unlawful), such as the father, brother, son, paternal uncle (father's brother), maternal uncle (mother's brother), father in-law, grandson, husband's son (from another marriage), son in-law, etc consists of the area between the navel and knees, and also the stomach and back.
Thus, it will be permissible for a woman to expose the following parts of her body in front of Mahram males: head, hair, face, neck, chest, shoulders, hands, forearms, and legs from below the knees. It will not be permissible to expose the stomach, back or any area which is between the navel and knees. (See: al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/328 & al-Hidaya, 4/461).
This ruling is based on the verse of the Qur'an in Surah al- Nur:
They (believing women) must not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers, their brother's sons, their sister's sons or their women"¦" (24-31).It will also be permissible for a Mahram to touch those parts that are permissible to expose in front of them, provided there is no fear of temptation or desire.Imam al-Quduri (Allah have mercy on him) states:"There is nothing wrong in touching those parts that are permissible to see" (Mukhtasar al-Quduri).However, it should be remembered that if there is a fear of temptation (fitna), then it will be impermissible to expose these parts even in front of Mahrams, neither will it be permissible to see or touch those areas of a Mahrams body. (See: al-Lubab fi Sharh al-Kitab, 3/218).e) Awra in front of non-Mahram males>
The Awra in front of non-Mahram males (those with whom marriage is lawful), which includes cousin brother, brother in-law, paternal uncle (one's father's sister's husband), maternal uncle (one's mother's sister's husband), husband's uncle, husband's nephew, etc) consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. It is similar to that which is considered Awra in prayer (salat).
Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"It is impermissible for a man to look at the whole body of a non-Mahram woman (due to it being part of Awra, m) except for her face and hands, for Allah Most High says: "Women must not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof" (al-Nur, 31). Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) interpreted this verse with the face and hands... This is textual evidence on the impermissibility of looking at her feet (for it is awra, m), but Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) said that it is permitted to look at her feet due to need". (al-Hidaya, 4/458).Imam al-Tumurtashi (Allah have mercy on him) states in Tanwir al-Absar:"A woman's Awra consists of her whole body except her face, hands and feet. However, she will be prevented from exposing her face in amongst men due to the fear of temptation (fitna)".Therefore, a woman's Awra in front of non-Mahram men is her whole body except her face, hands and feet.It must be remarked here that there is a difference between Awra and Niqab or Hijab. Due to the failure of distinguishing between the two, many people become victims of misinterpreting Islamic law in one way or another.The face according to the scholars is not part of the Awra, yet, as we have seen in the text of Imam al-Tumurtashi, it will be necessary to cover it due to the fear of temptation and incitement. Ibn Abidin states: "(A young woman will be prevented from exposing her face), not because it is part of Awra, rather (for the fear of temptation)". (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/406)Thus, our discussion is solely regarding Awra, and not Hijab or Niqab. As far as the decisive ruling with regards to the covering of the face or otherwise is concerned, we leave that for another time.It is also worth mentioning here that although the Fatwa position in the Hanafi Madhab is that the feet are not included within the Awra, but there is another strong opinion (within the madhhab and according to other Madhabs, such as the Shafi'is), that they are part of Awra, and must be covered. As such, legally, one will not be sinful for exposing them, but it would be advisable as a precautionary measure to cover them.
Moreover, (according to the Fatwa opinion), it is only allowed to uncover the feet up to the ankles. Anything above the ankles is from the Awra without a doubt. Many women wear veils, Burqas and Jilbabs that normally cover the ankles, but reveal the leg area above this while walking (especially in the wind, sitting and coming out of a car, etc), thus they commit the sin of exposing What is considered Awra according to all.
Therefore, we need to emphasise the importance of covering the feet. Covering the feet is just as important as covering the face if not more, for the face is not considered part of Awra, whilst, there is a strong opinion in the Hanafi Madhhab (and the Fatwa opinion in the other madhhabs) that the feet are.
Those who strongly call for and emphasise the necessity of covering the face (not that I object to them) must also realise that the feet are just of the same importance. At times, all the emphasis is laid upon the face, whilst the woman is seen to expose the area above the ankle while walking and there is no realisation that a sin is being committed.
f) Awra in front of non-Muslim women
The Awra of a woman in front of non-Muslim women is, strictly speaking, the same that is in front of non-Mahram men, i.e. the whole body besides the hands, face and the feet.
The verse of Surah al-Nur that we quoted earlier details the list of people besides whom a woman is not allowed to expose her beauty. Such people (as explained earlier) are known to be her Mahrams (unmarriageable kin). Also, in that verse, Allah Almighty states: "their women" (al-Nur, 31) indicating that a woman must only expose herself to her woman and not others.The exegetes of the Qur'an differ with regards to the interpretation of this statement of Allah. Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) states:"With regards to the statement of Allah "or their women", there are two opinions. The first is that it refers to those women who are on the same religion (din) as them (i.e. Muslims, m). This is the opinion of the majority of the predecessors (salaf). Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) states: "It is impermissible for a believing/Muslim woman to uncover herself in front of non-Muslim women, and she is only allowed to expose that what is allowed in front of non-Mahram men"¦ Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) wrote to Abu Ubaida ibn al-Jarrah (Allah be pleased with him) to stop non-Muslim women from entering bath areas (hammam) with Muslim women.The second opinion is that, it refers to all the women (i.e. she may uncover in front of all the women, m). This is the adopted opinion, and the opinion of the predecessors is based on superiority (istihbab)". (See: Tafsir al-Kabir, 8/365).As we have seen, that Imam al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) adopted the second view in that a woman may uncover in front of non-Muslim women to the extent of what she is allowed to uncover in front of Mahram men.However, many scholars chose the first view, and it is the view that is adopted by the Hanafi School. Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"An unbelieving woman is similar to a non-Mahram man according to the correct opinion. Thus, she is not allowed to see the body of a Muslim woman". (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/371)Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:"It is impermissible for a Muslim woman to uncover in front of a Jewish, Christian or a atheist woman except if she is her slave"¦It is also disliked that a corrupt woman (fasiqa) sees the body of a pious woman, for she may describe her to the men, thus she should avoid taking off her outer garment (jilbab) or scarf (khimar)"
. (ibid).It is evident from the text of Ibn Abidin that the main reason for the impermissibility of uncovering in front of a non-Muslim woman is that she may describe her to other men. If this is feared from a corrupt Muslim woman, then one should avoid uncovering in front of her also.Therefore, the Awra of a woman in front of non-Muslim women is all her body except her face, hands and feet. Thus, a woman should cover in front of non-Muslim women whenever reasonably possible. However, scholars say that if this is difficult, then it will be permissible to expose some part of the body in front of them.
The ruling of covering in front of non-Muslim women is not as strict as the other situations, for, firstly, there is a difference of opinion between the scholars regarding it, and secondly, it may be at times very difficult to cover in front of women. The great exegete, Imam al-Alusi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"This opinion (of not covering in front of non-Muslim women) is more appropriate these days, for it is almost impossible to cover in front of them". (Ruh al-Ma'ani)In conclusion, a woman should cover whenever reasonably possible in front of non-Muslim women, especially when there is fear that she may describe her to other men. Also nowadays, Fitnahs such as lesbianism have become so wide spread that it has become necessary for women to observe caution with non-Muslim women. However, if it is difficult to fully cover, then one may take the concession on not covering and minimising it to the minimum.g) Awra in front of non-Muslim Mahrams
With regards to a woman's Awra in front of her Mahrams who are non-Muslim, such as a non-Muslim father, brother, son, etc, I could not find an explicit ruling on the issue in the Hanafi School.
However, it seems that non-Muslim Mahrams are similar to other Mahrams in that a woman may expose herself besides from the navel to the knee and the stomach and back, provided there is no fear of temptation (fitna).
There are two reasons for this:
Firstly, the verse of the Qur'an and the statements of the jurists (fuqaha) are general when discussing Mahrams. They don't distinguish between a non-Muslim and Muslim Mahram. The Qur'an permits a woman to expose herself (to a degree, as explained above) in front of her father, brother, son, etc without specifying that he be a Muslim.
Secondly, the Fuqaha explicitly mention that a Mahram with whom a woman may go on a journey of Hajj includes also a non-Muslim. Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"A woman may travel for Hajj with her husband or a Mahram, even though if he (Mahram) is a slave or a non-Muslim or (he is considered a Mahram, m) due to breastfeeding. He must have reached puberty and is sane, and a boy who is close to puberty is like the one who has reached puberty, except a fire worshipper and an immoral and corrupt person".Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:"The reason why travelling with a Mahram who is a fire worshipper is impermissible, is that they (fire worshippers, m) consider marriage with a close relative to be permissible". (Radd al-Muhtar, 2/464)Imam al-Kasani (Allah have mercy on him) states:"A Mahram is one with whom marriage is permanently unlawful"¦ whether this Mahram is a free person or a slave, for slavery is not contrary to the close relationship (mahramiyya), and whether he is a Muslim, a non-Muslim or an atheist (mushrik), for a non-Muslim Mahram normally safeguards her, except that he is a fire worshipper, for he considers marriage with her to be permissible"
. (Badai'i al-Sana'i, 2/124).It is stated in Fath al-Qadir:"It is permissible for her to travel with all types of Mahrams except a fire worshipper, for he believes marriage with her to be permissible". (Ibn al-Humam, Fath al-Qadir, 2/422).In the Shafi'i Madhhab, we have a clear text permitting the uncovering in front of a non-Muslim Mahram. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (Allah have mercy on him) states:"It is not permissible to look at what lies between the navel and knee of one's close relative (mahram); everything else is permissible, provided there is no desire (shahwah), and even if he is a non-Muslim, because the close relationship (mahramiyyah) makes marriage unlawful, so it is as if they were two males or two females"
. (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj ala al-Minhaj)Therefore, it would be permissible for a woman to uncover besides the area between the navel and knees, and the stomach and back in front of her non-Muslim Mahrams, provided two conditions are met:1) That there be no desire (shahwah) or fear of temptation (fitna), especially when we live in a age where evils such as incest among the non-Muslims is becoming common,
2) That the non-Muslim close relative not be from among those who believe that it is permissible to marry close relatives,
Finally before parting, I would like to mention in relation to our discussion three points.
Firstly, it should be remembered that all the parts of the body that need to be covered (in the various situations discussed above) must be covered with clothing that is loose and opaque. The clothing must not be close-fitting whereby the figure of the body is visible or transparent by which the colour of the body is able to be seen. If this is not taken care of, then it will not be regarded to be sufficient covering of the Awra.
Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"Clothing that is considered to be sufficient covering is such that, it is not possible to see thorough them".Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:"(It is not possible to see thorough them), meaning in a way that the colour of the skin can not be visible. This exempts thin and other see-through clothing"¦ However, if the clothing is thick in a way that the colour of the skin is not visible, but it is tight to the body, then this should not prevent the validity of Salat"¦ However, it is still impermissible to see that part of the body". (See: Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 1/410)This excerpt of Ibn Abidin explains that if the skin of the body becomes visible in prayer, Salat will become invalid. However, tight clothing would not prevent the validity of prayer, yet it is still necessary not to wear tight-fitting clothing.Secondly, in all the foregoing occasions where it is permissible to uncover and expose the body, if there is a fear of desire (shahwa) on either side or there is fear of temptation (fitna), then it will be necessary to cover. A woman may make this decision herself in accordance with the surroundings she is in.
Thirdly, it will be permissible to uncover and expose parts of the Awra in cases of extreme need and necessity, such as medication. However, care should be taken that this is limited to only the part that needs treatment. If treatment is needed on the actual private parts, then it would be better to receive treatment from someone of the same sex. However, if this is not possible, then it would be allowed to receive treatment from a specialist of the opposite sex, with taking due care of the injunctions and guidance of Shariah.
Allama Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"It is permissible for a male physician to view the affected area of a woman for the purpose of medication, provided it is minimised to only the area that actually needs treatment, for necessity is restricted to only the actual need. If the private parts need treatment, then a female should carry out the treatment, as seeing someone of the same sex is less of an evil." (Radd al-Muhtar, 5/261)The above was a comprehensive look at the Awra of a woman. The extent of the Awra differs from one occasion to another and from one person to another. The whole concept and idea behind this is that Islam desires its followers to live a life that is chaste and free from any type of corruption or immorality. This is a basis for every sound and pure society. May Allah guide us all to the straight path, and that we are able to act upon the injunctions of Shariah in a manner that is most pleasing to Allah Almighty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE ISLAMIC DRESS-CODE
The Qur'an and Sunnah have laid down certain principles with regards to the dress code of both males and females. A Muslim and a Muslima are both required to adhere to the Islamic teachings both internally and externally.Allah Most High says:"And abstain from all sins, internal or external." (Surah al-An'am, 120)Regarding dressing, Allah Almighty says:"O children of Adam! Surely we have bestowed upon you a garment to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you, and the garment of piety is the best." (al-A'raf, 26)In view of the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur'an, other verses and sayings of our beloved Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace), the Jurists (fuqaha) have deduced certain rules and principles with regards to the dress of males and females.The following are the principles of dressing for females:
1) The whole body of the woman must be concealed. Only the hands and feet (and according to some scholars, the face, when there is no fear of Fitna) can be exposed. Allah Most High says in Surah al-Ahzab:
"And stay in your houses and do not display yourselves as in the days of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance)." (V: 33)Allah Almighty further says in the same Surah:"O Prophet! Say to your wives and daughters and the women of the believers, that they should cast upon themselves the outer garment (Jilbab). That will be more convenient for them not to be known (as such) and not be molested. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."(Surah al-Ahzab, 59)In a Hadith recorded by Imam Tirmidhi (Allah have Mercy on him) with a authentic chain of narrators, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:"A woman is supposed to be concealed. When she emerges outside (without covering herself properly), Shaytan makes her adorned in front of men."
(Sunan Tirmidhi)It is clear from the above that a female must cover herself fully before coming in front of non-Mahram men. Even the hands and feet should be concealed, if possible.2) The garment of the female must not be so thin that her body can be visible.
3) Her cloths must not be close-fitting and tight; rather they must be loose, as to avoid the figure and shape of the body being exposed and visible.
Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:
"There are two types of the people of Hell whom I have not seen: People with whips like the tails of cattle, with which they beat the people, and women who are clothed YET NAKED, inciting men and their heads looking like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will not enter paradise and even smell it's fragrance, even though it's fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance." (Sahih Muslim, no. 2218)The above Hadith is clear in that the clothing of a female must not be transparent and/or tight-fitting. The meaning of "clothed yet naked" is nothing other than that.4) There should be no imitation of the Kuffar (non-believers). In a Hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud (Allah have Mercy on him) and others, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:"Whosoever imitates a nation is amongst them." (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 4031)It should be remembered here that not everything what the non-Muslims wear and do, is Haram and unlawful. Imitation, which is prohibited, is effected in two ways:a) One wears a particular type of clothing with the intention of imitating the Kuffar, meaning, one wears something because one wants to be like a particular non-believer or non-believers.
b) Wearing any clothing which is unique and exclusive to the non-believers and/or part of their religion, will be considered imitation, thus unlawful. (See the Fatwa of Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani in Taqrir Tirmidhi)
It becomes evident from the above that if a woman wears certain Western cloths for the sole reason of pleasing her husband, and no other men (Mahram or non-Mahram) see her, and she observes the full rules of Hijab when emerging outside, and the intention is not to imitate the Kuffar, then this would be permissible.
5) Any clothing which creates pride and arrogance in the heart must be avoided. In a Hadith recorded by Imam Ibn Majah (Allah have Mercy on him), the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:
"Whosoever dresses himself out of pride in this world, Allah will dress him/her with the same clothing on the day of Qiyamah and he/she will be entered in to Hell." (Sunan Ibn Majah)6) Imitation of the opposite sex is also impermissible.Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) relates, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) "Cursed those men who imitate women and those women who imitate men." (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7/205)7) One should avoid being extravagant and spending lavishly on cloths. The meaning of being extravagant is to spend out on cloths to the amount which is beyond one's normal capacity.Allah Most High says:
"And do not be extravagant, for Allah loves not the extravagant." (Surah al-An'am, V: 141)8) The cloths should be clean, pure and free from anything filthy and dirty, as purity is part of ones Faith (Iman).The above are the Islamic principles with regards to the dressing of females. Some of these rules may also apply to males. It is evident that this subject is lengthy and needs much more elaboration than this small article. However, one may able to get the gist of what the Islamic guidelines are. This humble servant is, at present, working on this important subject and has an intention (Insha Allah) to publish a book which deals with all aspects relating to women's Awra, dress and adornment. It needs 5 to 6 months and allot of Duas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FEMALE VOICE AND SINGING
Allah Almighty has created this natural attraction and charm in the voice of a female that it plays a vital role in provoking and inducing the sexual appetite, desire and passion of a man.
This is a reality which can not be denied. Even the psychologists are in agreement with this fact. Many Psychologists have stressed that the voice of an individual plays a great role in arousing sexual desires.
This is the reason why Allah Most High commanded the wives of the blessed Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) especially, and all Muslim women in general, to abstain from conversing with non-Mahram men in a soft and sweat tone.
Allah Most High says:
"O wives of the Prophet! You are not like other women, if you are God-fearing. So do not be soft in speech. Lest in whose heart is disease should be moved with desire." (Surah al-Ahzab, 32)This verse indicates that men and women should not talk unnecessarily and when they do so, both the content and manner of conversation must be appropriate, and free of anything inciting.Imam Abu Abd Allah al-Qurtubi (Allah have mercy on him) writes in his famous exegesis of the Qur'an, al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur''an:
"It was a custom of Arab women in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyya) to speak to men in a soft and inciting way. This was prohibited by this verse of the Qur'an."It has been narrated from some of the wives of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) that, after the revelation of the above mentioned verse, when the need arose for them to converse with a non-Mahram male, they would do so by placing their hands over their mouths. This was to prevent any softness or incitement in their voices. (Hadith recorded by al-Darqutni in his Sunan with an authentic chain of narrators)The great Hanafi scholar Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas says in his Ahkam al-Qur'an (his excellent work on the verses of the Qur'an relating to law):
"This verse (above-mentioned) indicates the impermissibility of women raising their voices in the presence of non-Mahram males, as this may lead to Fitna. This is why our (Hanafi) scholars have declared the reciting of Adhan for women as Makruh, as she will need to raise her voice, which is not permissible." (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 5/229)He further says:"Allah has prohibited women from striking their feet when He says: "And they (women) shall not strike their feet so that there be known what they hide from their adornment."(24:31). So if they are prohibited from letting non-Mahram hear the sound of their footwear, then the prohibition of raising the voice in an inciting way will be prohibited from a greater extent." (ibid)Allama Murtadha al-Zabidi, the great Hanafi faqih, Sufi and linguistic says in his commentary of the 'Ihya' of Imam al-Ghazali, 'Ithaf al-Sadat al-Muttaqin':"A group of Scholars have distinguished between the singing of males and females. Listening to the singing of non-Mahram women has been declared by them as Haram, and the listening to the singing of Mahram women is deferred upon. Qadi Abu Tayyib al-Tabari said: If the singer is a non-Mahram female, then it will not be permissible for men to listen to her. This ruling will apply, regardless of whether the woman is with or without Hijab." (Vol: 6, P: 501)The above-mentioned is clear in determining that, one should avoid listening to the voice of a female unnecessarily. If there is a need to converse with them then, it should be done in the manner stated previously.Q. Is the voice of a female part of her Awra?
As far as the female voice is concerned, according to the preferred opinion in the Hanafi School, it is not considered to be part of her nakedness (awra). However, if there is a fear of Fitna then, the female should not raise it and the male should avoid listening to it.
One of the great Hanafi scholars Ibn Humam (Allah have mercy on him) says in his 'Fath al-Qadir', quoting from 'al-Nawazil':
"The melodious voice of a female and her singing will be considered as Awra. This is the reason why it is better for her to learn the Qur'an from a female teacher rather than a male who is blind, as her recitation in tune is Awra. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "The reciting of Tasbih is for men and clapping is for women." (m, Meaning if the Imam makes a mistake in Salat , the males will invite his attention by reciting Subhan Allah and women, by clapping their hands). (Fath al-Qadir, 1/260)Imam Ibn Abidin, after quoting the same from al-Nawazil writes in Radd al-Muhtar:"It is permissible for women to converse with non-Mahram men at the time of need (and visa versa, m). However, what is not permissible is that they stretch, soften and raise their voice in a melodious way." (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/406)From the contemporary scholars, Dr. Wahaba al-Zuhayli from Damascus writes in his famous al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu:"It is unlawful (haram) to listen to the voice of a female, which is in a melodious and musical tone, even if it is by reciting Qur'an." (1/755)The above quotations indicate that a woman's voice is not part of her Awra. However, it will not be permissible for her to raise her voice in a melodious way, and men will not be allowed to listen to the singing female voice. When a woman sings or raises her voice in a melodious way, it then becomes part of her Awra.Thus, in conclusion, it is evident that a male should avoid listening to the Nasheed and Na'at of non-Mahram females. Similarly it is necessary that females do not sing in front of non-Mahram men, whether in their presence or by recording their voices and releasing albums.
And Allah Knows Best
Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam Al Kawthari
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK
Source: www.darulIslam.com
THE AWRA OF A WOMAN
A woman's Awra can be initially divided into two categories:1) Inside prayer 2) Outside prayer The latter is then divided into further sub-categories:a) In seclusion b) In front of the husband c) In front of Muslim women d) In front of Mahram males (unmarriageable kin) e) In front of non-Mahram males f) In front of non-Muslim women g) In front of non-Muslim Mahram males 1) Awra inside prayer (Salat)A woman's Awra whilst performing Salat consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. Allah Most High says: "O children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel (zeenah) at every time and place of prayer." (Surah al-A'raf, 31)The majority of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all), their followers (tabi'un), Jurists and exegetes of the Qur'an have deduced from this verse (along with the other evidences) the obligation of covering one's Awra in prayer. (See: Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur'an, 4/205, Ma'arif al-Qur'an (English), 3/565)Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who experiences menstruation (i.e. who has reached puberty, m) except with a head cover (khimar)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 641, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah and others)The great Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his renowned Durr al-Mukhtar:"The Awra for a free woman (i.e. not a slave, m) is her full body including her descending hair according to the correct opinion, except for the face, hands.... and feet"
. (See Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405).Therefore, a woman must cover herself properly when performing Salat. Everything besides the face, hands and feet must be covered. The face must be covered properly so that no hair is exposed. Also, care should be taken that no part from above the wrists and ankles is exposed.It must be remembered that the Awra whilst performing Salat must be covered regardless of another person being present or otherwise, and regardless of whether one is performing Salat in dark or light. (Maraqi al-Falah, 210)
The feet, according to the more correct opinion, is not regarded as part of Awra. However, due to the difference of opinion with regards to it, it would be more precautious and advisable to cover them, as it will be explained in detail later.
With regards to the area below the chin, it should be remembered that the limit of the face in length starts from the point where the hairline usually begins to the bottom of the chin, and in breadth the portion between the two earlobes. (Maraqi al-Falah, P. 58)
Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that the area below the chin is not included in the face, thus it would fall within the legal definition of Awra, and one should try to cover it. However, because of the difficulty in covering it, if a little part of it became exposed, there should not be a problem.
Finally, (in this section), the Awra must be concealed from before entering into Salat and must remain concealed until the end. If quarter of a part/organ that requires concealment is exposed before initiating Salat, then Salat will not be valid from the outset. If however, quarter of the organ which is included in the Awra becomes exposed during Salat, then, if this remains to the duration of reciting Subhan Allah thrice, Salat will become invalid, otherwise, it will be valid. (See: Maraqi al-Falah, P. 242)
Note) One should consult a scholar with regards to how the parts of the body are categorized and divided, for at times, one may regard a organ of the body to be one part, whereas, legally, it may be considered to be two parts.
2) Awra Outside Prayer
a) Awra in privacy and seclusion
It is necessary (wajib) (and recommended according to another opinion) in the Hanafi school, to cover one's minimum nakedness (between the navel and knee for both men and women) even when alone. The exception to this is when there is a need, such as taking a shower, relieving oneself, or changing one's clothes. Even in such situations, it is recommended to minimize the exposure.
The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Modesty is part of faith (iman)." (Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim)Ya'la ibn Umayya reports that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Verily Allah is modest and discreet and He likes modesty and discretion. When one of you takes a bath, one should cover one's self." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Nasa'I & Musnad Ahmad). This is a command of recommendation when alone.Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) said in his Durr al-Mukhtar:"(And to cover one's Awra), this is a general obligation, even when alone, according to the correct opinion, unless it is for a valid reason."Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) writes whilst commentating on the above in his Radd al-Muhtar:"(al-Haskafi's statement "Even when alone"
) That is: Outside of prayer, it is obligatory to cover one's Awra in front of others by scholarly consensus, and even when alone according to the correct opinion"¦..Now, the apparent meaning of covering one's Awra when alone outside of prayer (in this context) is that only which is between the navel and knees, such that even women do not have to cover other than that (when alone) even if it is of their Awra in front of others"¦.(al-Haskafi's statement "According to the correct opinion) For Allah Most High, even though He sees the covered just as He sees the naked, sees the one with their nakedness uncovered leaving proper manners and sees the covered exhibiting proper manners. These proper manners (here) are obligatory whenever there is ability to exercise them.
(al-Haskafi's statement "Unless it is for a valid reason") Such as, using the toilet or cleaning one self (istinja)". (See: Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405, matlab fi satr al-awra).Therefore, (according to the more correct opinion), a woman must cover even in privacy between her navel and (including) knees except when there is a need, such as relieving herself, showering, changing her cloths, etc"¦b) Awra in front of the husband
In principle, it is permissible for the spouses to look at any part of each others body. As such, there is no Awra in front of the spouse (for this will be exempted from the ruling of concealing in privacy due to need).
Scholars mention however, that although it is permissible for the spouses to look at any part of the partner's body, it is disliked that they become completely naked during cohabitation. A cover or sheet over the naked bodies would be sufficient.
Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) said: "I never saw the Messenger of Allah's (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts". (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith no. 662)c) Awra in front of Muslim womenThe Awra of a woman in front of fellow Muslim women is the same to that which is a man's Awra in front of other men, i.e. from the navel up to and including the knees.
It is stated in al-Hidaya:
"A woman may see of another (Muslim, m) woman that which is permitted for a man to see of another man, due to them being from the same sex, and the non-existence of desire (shahwa) between them normally"¦..Similarly, due to the need and requirement of them exposing amongst themselves". (See: al-Marghinani, al-Hidaya, 4/461).Therefore, a woman must cover from the navel up to and including her knees in front of other Muslim women.d) Awra in front of (Muslim) Mahrams (unmarriageable kin)
The Awra of a woman in front of her Mahram men (those with whom marriage is permanently unlawful), such as the father, brother, son, paternal uncle (father's brother), maternal uncle (mother's brother), father in-law, grandson, husband's son (from another marriage), son in-law, etc consists of the area between the navel and knees, and also the stomach and back.
Thus, it will be permissible for a woman to expose the following parts of her body in front of Mahram males: head, hair, face, neck, chest, shoulders, hands, forearms, and legs from below the knees. It will not be permissible to expose the stomach, back or any area which is between the navel and knees. (See: al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/328 & al-Hidaya, 4/461).
This ruling is based on the verse of the Qur'an in Surah al- Nur:
They (believing women) must not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers, their brother's sons, their sister's sons or their women"¦" (24-31).It will also be permissible for a Mahram to touch those parts that are permissible to expose in front of them, provided there is no fear of temptation or desire.Imam al-Quduri (Allah have mercy on him) states:"There is nothing wrong in touching those parts that are permissible to see" (Mukhtasar al-Quduri).However, it should be remembered that if there is a fear of temptation (fitna), then it will be impermissible to expose these parts even in front of Mahrams, neither will it be permissible to see or touch those areas of a Mahrams body. (See: al-Lubab fi Sharh al-Kitab, 3/218).e) Awra in front of non-Mahram males>
The Awra in front of non-Mahram males (those with whom marriage is lawful), which includes cousin brother, brother in-law, paternal uncle (one's father's sister's husband), maternal uncle (one's mother's sister's husband), husband's uncle, husband's nephew, etc) consists of the whole body except the face, hands and feet. It is similar to that which is considered Awra in prayer (salat).
Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"It is impermissible for a man to look at the whole body of a non-Mahram woman (due to it being part of Awra, m) except for her face and hands, for Allah Most High says: "Women must not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof" (al-Nur, 31). Sayyiduna Ali and Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) interpreted this verse with the face and hands... This is textual evidence on the impermissibility of looking at her feet (for it is awra, m), but Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) said that it is permitted to look at her feet due to need". (al-Hidaya, 4/458).Imam al-Tumurtashi (Allah have mercy on him) states in Tanwir al-Absar:"A woman's Awra consists of her whole body except her face, hands and feet. However, she will be prevented from exposing her face in amongst men due to the fear of temptation (fitna)".Therefore, a woman's Awra in front of non-Mahram men is her whole body except her face, hands and feet.It must be remarked here that there is a difference between Awra and Niqab or Hijab. Due to the failure of distinguishing between the two, many people become victims of misinterpreting Islamic law in one way or another.The face according to the scholars is not part of the Awra, yet, as we have seen in the text of Imam al-Tumurtashi, it will be necessary to cover it due to the fear of temptation and incitement. Ibn Abidin states: "(A young woman will be prevented from exposing her face), not because it is part of Awra, rather (for the fear of temptation)". (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/406)Thus, our discussion is solely regarding Awra, and not Hijab or Niqab. As far as the decisive ruling with regards to the covering of the face or otherwise is concerned, we leave that for another time.It is also worth mentioning here that although the Fatwa position in the Hanafi Madhab is that the feet are not included within the Awra, but there is another strong opinion (within the madhhab and according to other Madhabs, such as the Shafi'is), that they are part of Awra, and must be covered. As such, legally, one will not be sinful for exposing them, but it would be advisable as a precautionary measure to cover them.
Moreover, (according to the Fatwa opinion), it is only allowed to uncover the feet up to the ankles. Anything above the ankles is from the Awra without a doubt. Many women wear veils, Burqas and Jilbabs that normally cover the ankles, but reveal the leg area above this while walking (especially in the wind, sitting and coming out of a car, etc), thus they commit the sin of exposing What is considered Awra according to all.
Therefore, we need to emphasise the importance of covering the feet. Covering the feet is just as important as covering the face if not more, for the face is not considered part of Awra, whilst, there is a strong opinion in the Hanafi Madhhab (and the Fatwa opinion in the other madhhabs) that the feet are.
Those who strongly call for and emphasise the necessity of covering the face (not that I object to them) must also realise that the feet are just of the same importance. At times, all the emphasis is laid upon the face, whilst the woman is seen to expose the area above the ankle while walking and there is no realisation that a sin is being committed.
f) Awra in front of non-Muslim women
The Awra of a woman in front of non-Muslim women is, strictly speaking, the same that is in front of non-Mahram men, i.e. the whole body besides the hands, face and the feet.
The verse of Surah al-Nur that we quoted earlier details the list of people besides whom a woman is not allowed to expose her beauty. Such people (as explained earlier) are known to be her Mahrams (unmarriageable kin). Also, in that verse, Allah Almighty states: "their women" (al-Nur, 31) indicating that a woman must only expose herself to her woman and not others.The exegetes of the Qur'an differ with regards to the interpretation of this statement of Allah. Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) states:"With regards to the statement of Allah "or their women", there are two opinions. The first is that it refers to those women who are on the same religion (din) as them (i.e. Muslims, m). This is the opinion of the majority of the predecessors (salaf). Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) states: "It is impermissible for a believing/Muslim woman to uncover herself in front of non-Muslim women, and she is only allowed to expose that what is allowed in front of non-Mahram men"¦ Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) wrote to Abu Ubaida ibn al-Jarrah (Allah be pleased with him) to stop non-Muslim women from entering bath areas (hammam) with Muslim women.The second opinion is that, it refers to all the women (i.e. she may uncover in front of all the women, m). This is the adopted opinion, and the opinion of the predecessors is based on superiority (istihbab)". (See: Tafsir al-Kabir, 8/365).As we have seen, that Imam al-Razi (Allah have mercy on him) adopted the second view in that a woman may uncover in front of non-Muslim women to the extent of what she is allowed to uncover in front of Mahram men.However, many scholars chose the first view, and it is the view that is adopted by the Hanafi School. Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"An unbelieving woman is similar to a non-Mahram man according to the correct opinion. Thus, she is not allowed to see the body of a Muslim woman". (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/371)Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:"It is impermissible for a Muslim woman to uncover in front of a Jewish, Christian or a atheist woman except if she is her slave"¦It is also disliked that a corrupt woman (fasiqa) sees the body of a pious woman, for she may describe her to the men, thus she should avoid taking off her outer garment (jilbab) or scarf (khimar)"
. (ibid).It is evident from the text of Ibn Abidin that the main reason for the impermissibility of uncovering in front of a non-Muslim woman is that she may describe her to other men. If this is feared from a corrupt Muslim woman, then one should avoid uncovering in front of her also.Therefore, the Awra of a woman in front of non-Muslim women is all her body except her face, hands and feet. Thus, a woman should cover in front of non-Muslim women whenever reasonably possible. However, scholars say that if this is difficult, then it will be permissible to expose some part of the body in front of them.
The ruling of covering in front of non-Muslim women is not as strict as the other situations, for, firstly, there is a difference of opinion between the scholars regarding it, and secondly, it may be at times very difficult to cover in front of women. The great exegete, Imam al-Alusi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"This opinion (of not covering in front of non-Muslim women) is more appropriate these days, for it is almost impossible to cover in front of them". (Ruh al-Ma'ani)In conclusion, a woman should cover whenever reasonably possible in front of non-Muslim women, especially when there is fear that she may describe her to other men. Also nowadays, Fitnahs such as lesbianism have become so wide spread that it has become necessary for women to observe caution with non-Muslim women. However, if it is difficult to fully cover, then one may take the concession on not covering and minimising it to the minimum.g) Awra in front of non-Muslim Mahrams
With regards to a woman's Awra in front of her Mahrams who are non-Muslim, such as a non-Muslim father, brother, son, etc, I could not find an explicit ruling on the issue in the Hanafi School.
However, it seems that non-Muslim Mahrams are similar to other Mahrams in that a woman may expose herself besides from the navel to the knee and the stomach and back, provided there is no fear of temptation (fitna).
There are two reasons for this:
Firstly, the verse of the Qur'an and the statements of the jurists (fuqaha) are general when discussing Mahrams. They don't distinguish between a non-Muslim and Muslim Mahram. The Qur'an permits a woman to expose herself (to a degree, as explained above) in front of her father, brother, son, etc without specifying that he be a Muslim.
Secondly, the Fuqaha explicitly mention that a Mahram with whom a woman may go on a journey of Hajj includes also a non-Muslim. Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"A woman may travel for Hajj with her husband or a Mahram, even though if he (Mahram) is a slave or a non-Muslim or (he is considered a Mahram, m) due to breastfeeding. He must have reached puberty and is sane, and a boy who is close to puberty is like the one who has reached puberty, except a fire worshipper and an immoral and corrupt person".Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:"The reason why travelling with a Mahram who is a fire worshipper is impermissible, is that they (fire worshippers, m) consider marriage with a close relative to be permissible". (Radd al-Muhtar, 2/464)Imam al-Kasani (Allah have mercy on him) states:"A Mahram is one with whom marriage is permanently unlawful"¦ whether this Mahram is a free person or a slave, for slavery is not contrary to the close relationship (mahramiyya), and whether he is a Muslim, a non-Muslim or an atheist (mushrik), for a non-Muslim Mahram normally safeguards her, except that he is a fire worshipper, for he considers marriage with her to be permissible"
. (Badai'i al-Sana'i, 2/124).It is stated in Fath al-Qadir:"It is permissible for her to travel with all types of Mahrams except a fire worshipper, for he believes marriage with her to be permissible". (Ibn al-Humam, Fath al-Qadir, 2/422).In the Shafi'i Madhhab, we have a clear text permitting the uncovering in front of a non-Muslim Mahram. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (Allah have mercy on him) states:"It is not permissible to look at what lies between the navel and knee of one's close relative (mahram); everything else is permissible, provided there is no desire (shahwah), and even if he is a non-Muslim, because the close relationship (mahramiyyah) makes marriage unlawful, so it is as if they were two males or two females"
. (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj ala al-Minhaj)Therefore, it would be permissible for a woman to uncover besides the area between the navel and knees, and the stomach and back in front of her non-Muslim Mahrams, provided two conditions are met:1) That there be no desire (shahwah) or fear of temptation (fitna), especially when we live in a age where evils such as incest among the non-Muslims is becoming common,
2) That the non-Muslim close relative not be from among those who believe that it is permissible to marry close relatives,
Finally before parting, I would like to mention in relation to our discussion three points.
Firstly, it should be remembered that all the parts of the body that need to be covered (in the various situations discussed above) must be covered with clothing that is loose and opaque. The clothing must not be close-fitting whereby the figure of the body is visible or transparent by which the colour of the body is able to be seen. If this is not taken care of, then it will not be regarded to be sufficient covering of the Awra.
Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
"Clothing that is considered to be sufficient covering is such that, it is not possible to see thorough them".Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains:"(It is not possible to see thorough them), meaning in a way that the colour of the skin can not be visible. This exempts thin and other see-through clothing"¦ However, if the clothing is thick in a way that the colour of the skin is not visible, but it is tight to the body, then this should not prevent the validity of Salat"¦ However, it is still impermissible to see that part of the body". (See: Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 1/410)This excerpt of Ibn Abidin explains that if the skin of the body becomes visible in prayer, Salat will become invalid. However, tight clothing would not prevent the validity of prayer, yet it is still necessary not to wear tight-fitting clothing.Secondly, in all the foregoing occasions where it is permissible to uncover and expose the body, if there is a fear of desire (shahwa) on either side or there is fear of temptation (fitna), then it will be necessary to cover. A woman may make this decision herself in accordance with the surroundings she is in.
Thirdly, it will be permissible to uncover and expose parts of the Awra in cases of extreme need and necessity, such as medication. However, care should be taken that this is limited to only the part that needs treatment. If treatment is needed on the actual private parts, then it would be better to receive treatment from someone of the same sex. However, if this is not possible, then it would be allowed to receive treatment from a specialist of the opposite sex, with taking due care of the injunctions and guidance of Shariah.
Allama Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) states:
"It is permissible for a male physician to view the affected area of a woman for the purpose of medication, provided it is minimised to only the area that actually needs treatment, for necessity is restricted to only the actual need. If the private parts need treatment, then a female should carry out the treatment, as seeing someone of the same sex is less of an evil." (Radd al-Muhtar, 5/261)The above was a comprehensive look at the Awra of a woman. The extent of the Awra differs from one occasion to another and from one person to another. The whole concept and idea behind this is that Islam desires its followers to live a life that is chaste and free from any type of corruption or immorality. This is a basis for every sound and pure society. May Allah guide us all to the straight path, and that we are able to act upon the injunctions of Shariah in a manner that is most pleasing to Allah Almighty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMALE ISLAMIC DRESS-CODE
The Qur'an and Sunnah have laid down certain principles with regards to the dress code of both males and females. A Muslim and a Muslima are both required to adhere to the Islamic teachings both internally and externally.Allah Most High says:"And abstain from all sins, internal or external." (Surah al-An'am, 120)Regarding dressing, Allah Almighty says:"O children of Adam! Surely we have bestowed upon you a garment to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you, and the garment of piety is the best." (al-A'raf, 26)In view of the above-mentioned verse of the Holy Qur'an, other verses and sayings of our beloved Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace), the Jurists (fuqaha) have deduced certain rules and principles with regards to the dress of males and females.The following are the principles of dressing for females:
1) The whole body of the woman must be concealed. Only the hands and feet (and according to some scholars, the face, when there is no fear of Fitna) can be exposed. Allah Most High says in Surah al-Ahzab:
"And stay in your houses and do not display yourselves as in the days of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance)." (V: 33)Allah Almighty further says in the same Surah:"O Prophet! Say to your wives and daughters and the women of the believers, that they should cast upon themselves the outer garment (Jilbab). That will be more convenient for them not to be known (as such) and not be molested. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."(Surah al-Ahzab, 59)In a Hadith recorded by Imam Tirmidhi (Allah have Mercy on him) with a authentic chain of narrators, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:"A woman is supposed to be concealed. When she emerges outside (without covering herself properly), Shaytan makes her adorned in front of men."
(Sunan Tirmidhi)It is clear from the above that a female must cover herself fully before coming in front of non-Mahram men. Even the hands and feet should be concealed, if possible.2) The garment of the female must not be so thin that her body can be visible.
3) Her cloths must not be close-fitting and tight; rather they must be loose, as to avoid the figure and shape of the body being exposed and visible.
Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:
"There are two types of the people of Hell whom I have not seen: People with whips like the tails of cattle, with which they beat the people, and women who are clothed YET NAKED, inciting men and their heads looking like the humps of camels, leaning to one side. They will not enter paradise and even smell it's fragrance, even though it's fragrance can be detected from such and such a distance." (Sahih Muslim, no. 2218)The above Hadith is clear in that the clothing of a female must not be transparent and/or tight-fitting. The meaning of "clothed yet naked" is nothing other than that.4) There should be no imitation of the Kuffar (non-believers). In a Hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud (Allah have Mercy on him) and others, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:"Whosoever imitates a nation is amongst them." (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 4031)It should be remembered here that not everything what the non-Muslims wear and do, is Haram and unlawful. Imitation, which is prohibited, is effected in two ways:a) One wears a particular type of clothing with the intention of imitating the Kuffar, meaning, one wears something because one wants to be like a particular non-believer or non-believers.
b) Wearing any clothing which is unique and exclusive to the non-believers and/or part of their religion, will be considered imitation, thus unlawful. (See the Fatwa of Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani in Taqrir Tirmidhi)
It becomes evident from the above that if a woman wears certain Western cloths for the sole reason of pleasing her husband, and no other men (Mahram or non-Mahram) see her, and she observes the full rules of Hijab when emerging outside, and the intention is not to imitate the Kuffar, then this would be permissible.
5) Any clothing which creates pride and arrogance in the heart must be avoided. In a Hadith recorded by Imam Ibn Majah (Allah have Mercy on him), the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:
"Whosoever dresses himself out of pride in this world, Allah will dress him/her with the same clothing on the day of Qiyamah and he/she will be entered in to Hell." (Sunan Ibn Majah)6) Imitation of the opposite sex is also impermissible.Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) relates, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) "Cursed those men who imitate women and those women who imitate men." (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7/205)7) One should avoid being extravagant and spending lavishly on cloths. The meaning of being extravagant is to spend out on cloths to the amount which is beyond one's normal capacity.Allah Most High says:
"And do not be extravagant, for Allah loves not the extravagant." (Surah al-An'am, V: 141)8) The cloths should be clean, pure and free from anything filthy and dirty, as purity is part of ones Faith (Iman).The above are the Islamic principles with regards to the dressing of females. Some of these rules may also apply to males. It is evident that this subject is lengthy and needs much more elaboration than this small article. However, one may able to get the gist of what the Islamic guidelines are. This humble servant is, at present, working on this important subject and has an intention (Insha Allah) to publish a book which deals with all aspects relating to women's Awra, dress and adornment. It needs 5 to 6 months and allot of Duas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FEMALE VOICE AND SINGING
Allah Almighty has created this natural attraction and charm in the voice of a female that it plays a vital role in provoking and inducing the sexual appetite, desire and passion of a man.
This is a reality which can not be denied. Even the psychologists are in agreement with this fact. Many Psychologists have stressed that the voice of an individual plays a great role in arousing sexual desires.
This is the reason why Allah Most High commanded the wives of the blessed Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) especially, and all Muslim women in general, to abstain from conversing with non-Mahram men in a soft and sweat tone.
Allah Most High says:
"O wives of the Prophet! You are not like other women, if you are God-fearing. So do not be soft in speech. Lest in whose heart is disease should be moved with desire." (Surah al-Ahzab, 32)This verse indicates that men and women should not talk unnecessarily and when they do so, both the content and manner of conversation must be appropriate, and free of anything inciting.Imam Abu Abd Allah al-Qurtubi (Allah have mercy on him) writes in his famous exegesis of the Qur'an, al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur''an:
"It was a custom of Arab women in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyya) to speak to men in a soft and inciting way. This was prohibited by this verse of the Qur'an."It has been narrated from some of the wives of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) that, after the revelation of the above mentioned verse, when the need arose for them to converse with a non-Mahram male, they would do so by placing their hands over their mouths. This was to prevent any softness or incitement in their voices. (Hadith recorded by al-Darqutni in his Sunan with an authentic chain of narrators)The great Hanafi scholar Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas says in his Ahkam al-Qur'an (his excellent work on the verses of the Qur'an relating to law):
"This verse (above-mentioned) indicates the impermissibility of women raising their voices in the presence of non-Mahram males, as this may lead to Fitna. This is why our (Hanafi) scholars have declared the reciting of Adhan for women as Makruh, as she will need to raise her voice, which is not permissible." (Ahkam al-Qur'an, 5/229)He further says:"Allah has prohibited women from striking their feet when He says: "And they (women) shall not strike their feet so that there be known what they hide from their adornment."(24:31). So if they are prohibited from letting non-Mahram hear the sound of their footwear, then the prohibition of raising the voice in an inciting way will be prohibited from a greater extent." (ibid)Allama Murtadha al-Zabidi, the great Hanafi faqih, Sufi and linguistic says in his commentary of the 'Ihya' of Imam al-Ghazali, 'Ithaf al-Sadat al-Muttaqin':"A group of Scholars have distinguished between the singing of males and females. Listening to the singing of non-Mahram women has been declared by them as Haram, and the listening to the singing of Mahram women is deferred upon. Qadi Abu Tayyib al-Tabari said: If the singer is a non-Mahram female, then it will not be permissible for men to listen to her. This ruling will apply, regardless of whether the woman is with or without Hijab." (Vol: 6, P: 501)The above-mentioned is clear in determining that, one should avoid listening to the voice of a female unnecessarily. If there is a need to converse with them then, it should be done in the manner stated previously.Q. Is the voice of a female part of her Awra?
As far as the female voice is concerned, according to the preferred opinion in the Hanafi School, it is not considered to be part of her nakedness (awra). However, if there is a fear of Fitna then, the female should not raise it and the male should avoid listening to it.
One of the great Hanafi scholars Ibn Humam (Allah have mercy on him) says in his 'Fath al-Qadir', quoting from 'al-Nawazil':
"The melodious voice of a female and her singing will be considered as Awra. This is the reason why it is better for her to learn the Qur'an from a female teacher rather than a male who is blind, as her recitation in tune is Awra. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "The reciting of Tasbih is for men and clapping is for women." (m, Meaning if the Imam makes a mistake in Salat , the males will invite his attention by reciting Subhan Allah and women, by clapping their hands). (Fath al-Qadir, 1/260)Imam Ibn Abidin, after quoting the same from al-Nawazil writes in Radd al-Muhtar:"It is permissible for women to converse with non-Mahram men at the time of need (and visa versa, m). However, what is not permissible is that they stretch, soften and raise their voice in a melodious way." (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/406)From the contemporary scholars, Dr. Wahaba al-Zuhayli from Damascus writes in his famous al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu:"It is unlawful (haram) to listen to the voice of a female, which is in a melodious and musical tone, even if it is by reciting Qur'an." (1/755)The above quotations indicate that a woman's voice is not part of her Awra. However, it will not be permissible for her to raise her voice in a melodious way, and men will not be allowed to listen to the singing female voice. When a woman sings or raises her voice in a melodious way, it then becomes part of her Awra.Thus, in conclusion, it is evident that a male should avoid listening to the Nasheed and Na'at of non-Mahram females. Similarly it is necessary that females do not sing in front of non-Mahram men, whether in their presence or by recording their voices and releasing albums.
And Allah Knows Best
Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam Al Kawthari
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK
Source: www.darulIslam.com
Hidden toll of Scots religious hate crime
NEARLY half of Scotland's police forces have no idea about the number of religious hate incidents reported in their area.
Despite the west of Scotland's problems with sectarianism and growing concerns over Islamophobia in the wake of the 7 July terror attacks in London, Strathclyde Police does not track crimes linked to faith.
Neither the Fife nor Dumfries and Galloway force compiles such statistics. However, police in other areas have been collating them for up to a decade.
Community leaders expressed concerns yesterday, claiming little action could be taken to address religious hatred until the true picture was known.
Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said: "There is a climate of fear of Islam and general tension about the international situation. Until you know the scale of the problem, you can't tackle it."
He said there was a "communication gap" between the Muslim community and police, and expressed concern that some officers were treating crimes linked to religion as racially motivated.
Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, suggested the data could prove valuable in the battle against sectarianism.
He said: "If this was done, then you could track trends and can have benchmarks for complaints which will give you a feel for whether the problem is increasing or diminishing."
Ian Wilson, the grand master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, said: "Bigotry in society - when it manifests itself as abuse or antisocial behaviour - deserves to be faced down. If you don't have stats, it's an unknown quantity."
Under legislation passed by Holyrood in June 2003, police can investigate offences as "religiously aggravated".
In March, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) unveiled an action plan on tackling religious hate. By 2009, it aims for "consistent monitoring" of such crimes and incidents across Scotland's eight police forces.
Colin Mather, Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police and chairman of ACPOS's religion and faith reference group, said: "We know religiously motivated crimes can have as great an impact on individuals as those directed against their race.
"There is a need to ensure such incidents are being captured and monitored consistently and effectively to influence national, as well as local, strategies and policy and ensure the necessary support is provided to victims."
Strathclyde Police said: "There is no statutory requirement on us to record this information. However, we are working towards a new information management system which will allow us to capture and analyse all aspects of hate crime.
Fife Constabulary said the recording of incidents relating to faith, race and sexual orientation were based on "perception".
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary declined to comment.
TOP PRIORITY
SCOTLAND'S senior police officers have recognised the need to target hate crimes linked to religion.
An action plan targeting the problem was unveiled earlier this year by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
It will try to have statistics on religious hate crimes gathered and collated uniformly across the country.
Recruits will be educated about a range of faiths.
Northern Constabulary has been recording reported incidents of religious related crime for more than a decade.
Inspector Janice Innes, of Grampian Police - which has been compiling statistics since 2004 - said: "You don't know if there is a problem until you look."
A spokesman for Central Scotland Police, which also tracks these offences, said: "There is a move nationally to see a more consistent recording standard."
Lothian and Borders Police and Tayside Police also compile figures.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=716932007
Despite the west of Scotland's problems with sectarianism and growing concerns over Islamophobia in the wake of the 7 July terror attacks in London, Strathclyde Police does not track crimes linked to faith.
Neither the Fife nor Dumfries and Galloway force compiles such statistics. However, police in other areas have been collating them for up to a decade.
Community leaders expressed concerns yesterday, claiming little action could be taken to address religious hatred until the true picture was known.
Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, said: "There is a climate of fear of Islam and general tension about the international situation. Until you know the scale of the problem, you can't tackle it."
He said there was a "communication gap" between the Muslim community and police, and expressed concern that some officers were treating crimes linked to religion as racially motivated.
Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, suggested the data could prove valuable in the battle against sectarianism.
He said: "If this was done, then you could track trends and can have benchmarks for complaints which will give you a feel for whether the problem is increasing or diminishing."
Ian Wilson, the grand master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, said: "Bigotry in society - when it manifests itself as abuse or antisocial behaviour - deserves to be faced down. If you don't have stats, it's an unknown quantity."
Under legislation passed by Holyrood in June 2003, police can investigate offences as "religiously aggravated".
In March, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) unveiled an action plan on tackling religious hate. By 2009, it aims for "consistent monitoring" of such crimes and incidents across Scotland's eight police forces.
Colin Mather, Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police and chairman of ACPOS's religion and faith reference group, said: "We know religiously motivated crimes can have as great an impact on individuals as those directed against their race.
"There is a need to ensure such incidents are being captured and monitored consistently and effectively to influence national, as well as local, strategies and policy and ensure the necessary support is provided to victims."
Strathclyde Police said: "There is no statutory requirement on us to record this information. However, we are working towards a new information management system which will allow us to capture and analyse all aspects of hate crime.
Fife Constabulary said the recording of incidents relating to faith, race and sexual orientation were based on "perception".
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary declined to comment.
TOP PRIORITY
SCOTLAND'S senior police officers have recognised the need to target hate crimes linked to religion.
An action plan targeting the problem was unveiled earlier this year by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
It will try to have statistics on religious hate crimes gathered and collated uniformly across the country.
Recruits will be educated about a range of faiths.
Northern Constabulary has been recording reported incidents of religious related crime for more than a decade.
Inspector Janice Innes, of Grampian Police - which has been compiling statistics since 2004 - said: "You don't know if there is a problem until you look."
A spokesman for Central Scotland Police, which also tracks these offences, said: "There is a move nationally to see a more consistent recording standard."
Lothian and Borders Police and Tayside Police also compile figures.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=716932007
Veils Banned in UK Schools
On Sunday, May 6, 2007, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer told head teachers attending their annual conference in Bournemouth that they are perfectly entitled to forbid pupils to wear Islamic dress and need not fear a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act.
It was, he suggested, all a matter of common sense.
This is a very welcome development. For, while wearing the veil is a matter of personal choice – and accepted in our country which is famed for its tolerance – there are times when it is obvious that this Muslim symbol clashes with the British way.
Sometimes it as simple as being able to see the faces of our fellow citizens as we go about our daily business. The school classroom is one such area, the courtroom is another.
There are times when members of the Muslim community go too far and the Daily Express is not afraid to say so. The setting up of Islamic courts applying Sharia law is one such example.
The Lord Chancellor has now made it possible for schools to say “No” to the veil. Head teachers have been told that common sense does not conflict with human rights.
In other words, they have been given the green light to just say “No” when the occasion demands it.
Well, obviously Muslim female students are now coerced into giving up their veil (hijab) in UK if they want to attend school and learn. So, it`s officially a war on Islam. They want to strip our rights off one by one. They are fighting hijabs now. I wonder what is next.
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/6402
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Evidence ABC Is Censoring Pro Ron Paul Comments
One of my friends went to the ABC forum on Ron Paul and posted the comments in this link:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104022
At the time I wrote the article, I was feeling pretty positive about ABC... THEN ABC deleted her comments. I registered and posted my OWN comment asking them why they deleted hers> I also told them I posted her article and by the end of the month over 10 million people would see what they are donig. They deleted that one too... BUT... I got a complete screen shot of it.... http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104024 I just went over to the forum and it seems lots of people are taking my advice and going over and posting their comments about Ron Paul... I took another screen shot of this
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104026
Can you urge your readers to join this fight? Gunther used to say that ABC was once in the group that was actively trying to stop the NWO... maybe some of those old folks are still around... they'd be pretty old... but maybe there is some hope there.
Thanks,
RAye
Source: Rense.com
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104022
At the time I wrote the article, I was feeling pretty positive about ABC... THEN ABC deleted her comments. I registered and posted my OWN comment asking them why they deleted hers> I also told them I posted her article and by the end of the month over 10 million people would see what they are donig. They deleted that one too... BUT... I got a complete screen shot of it.... http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104024 I just went over to the forum and it seems lots of people are taking my advice and going over and posting their comments about Ron Paul... I took another screen shot of this
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=104026
Can you urge your readers to join this fight? Gunther used to say that ABC was once in the group that was actively trying to stop the NWO... maybe some of those old folks are still around... they'd be pretty old... but maybe there is some hope there.
Thanks,
RAye
Source: Rense.com
What if every israeli converted to Islam?
Or what if they converted to Christianity, or to Buddhism?
What would happen to the state of israel?
Would it cease to exist?
Would it expel all its inhabitants and put an ad in the paper for new Jews?
What if they couldn't find anyone willing to go there? Would they force them to move to israel and chain them to the ground?
These are questions that I've never heard asked, but they underline the fascist and nationalistic nature of "israel" and they underscore the fact that a "purely Jewish state" simply cannot exist without a constant belligerent effort by 'the state' to make sure that its citizens conform to a fixed set of beliefs.
However, since we all know that a majority of israelis are in fact NOT practicing Jews, but instead avowed atheists, we can only conclude that IN FACT, despite their repeated incantations to the contrary israel is not "a Jewish state," but a highly militarized supremacist cult whose members insist that they must have a 'state' all to themselves in the Holy Land.
WakeUpFromYourSlumber.com
What would happen to the state of israel?
Would it cease to exist?
Would it expel all its inhabitants and put an ad in the paper for new Jews?
What if they couldn't find anyone willing to go there? Would they force them to move to israel and chain them to the ground?
These are questions that I've never heard asked, but they underline the fascist and nationalistic nature of "israel" and they underscore the fact that a "purely Jewish state" simply cannot exist without a constant belligerent effort by 'the state' to make sure that its citizens conform to a fixed set of beliefs.
However, since we all know that a majority of israelis are in fact NOT practicing Jews, but instead avowed atheists, we can only conclude that IN FACT, despite their repeated incantations to the contrary israel is not "a Jewish state," but a highly militarized supremacist cult whose members insist that they must have a 'state' all to themselves in the Holy Land.
WakeUpFromYourSlumber.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)