General Issues / Questions

Western imperialism Movies Music Electronic Games Mcdonald's Rich Arrogant Americans Rich Arrogant Germans Rich Arrogant Japanese Babes in bathing suites Exploited 3rd world etc etc etc Arab Imperialism Quran Quran Quran Babes under the hood Rich Arrogant Arabs Exploited non-muslims Virtually Crime-Free No Riots No Political Clayfaces No annoying showbiz personalities etc etc etc Choose wisely.

Peace All VERILY, those who have attained to faith , as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve. (262) What are the meanings for Jewish, Christian, and Sabian in the Arabic. I'm certain they do not simply refer to the people commonly associated with the above translation. Take care. Joe

http//www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/images/shaykhronaldmcdonald.jpg Fast-Food-Islam How Wahhabism Feeds Our Intellectual By Adam Misbah'ul Haqq In the mid part of the twentieth century fast food franchises popped up all over the country. It was a time of assembly lines, burgers, fries and the ideologies of ?progress? and ?create the demand and fuel the supply,? ideologies which helped shape the contemporary age. This was the first time in history in which the laws of supply and demand were so atrociously manipulated as to produce a complete economy based upon want as opposed to need. We now live in the age of consumerism where the customer is told they are right but are influenced and manipulated to the extent that their standards are reduced to what the market provides for their consumption. In the early eighties major corporations lobbied to market their products to the captive audience of children, where the expectations of quality where thumped over the head by profit margin and quantity. People stood in line to purchase a burger wrapped like a present, thin french-fries fried in grease, and a cup of sugar, water, syrup and carbonate with a straw sticking out for a few dollars. During the seventies, eighties and nineties the fast food industries grew into multi-national conglomerates and could be seen popping up in almost every country, industrialized or not. This is a place where the burgers arrive as frozen patties injected with artificial beef-flavoring which are later rolled through an oven press for mass-consumption, a place where cheap toys are fiercely marketed to excited and bewildered children who drag in their naive and bewildered parents for a quick and simple ?all-American meal.? The gimmicks of attracting children and exploiting their undeveloped discriminative faculties were brought to near mastery by the early nineties. It was the wave of the future, and even though a journal of health recently stated that 80% of the country?s health problems were directly related to the American diet, the burgers were still walking out the doors, and those super-sized fries continued to disappear into the stomachs of hungry consumers. In Islam a similar occurrence has emerged. A sort of fast-food-Islam, mimicking the Western phenomenon, began to emerge in the seventies shortly after the Saudis started raking in billions in petro-dollars. It was a period of serious transformation within the Muslim world. After a decade of Wahhabi influence in the Middle East the Muslim world began seeing the proliferation of highly dogmatic literature which sought to explain to the colonized peoples what ?Islam? really was and who the ?real? authorities in Islam were--namely, the Saudis and those ?scholars? who signed on to their policies. The literature that resulted from this occurrence soon made its way in various shapes and sizes into an uneducated American-Muslim population in the eighties and nineties. This material, which for the most part hails from the Arabian Peninsula or is funneled out of the numerous publishing houses owned by the Wahhabi press in the Middle East, is, for the most part, designed for children. One could easily argue that intellectually, only a child or young adult could really gain anything from this literature because the way in which the material is laid out and the topics are examined disengages the reader from the tradition by telling them that they basically have nothing to offer the interpretive process in Islam, but that they should simply follow what the ?noble? Saudi scholars tell you Islam is. No longer do we have scholars who spent their entire lives studying and contemplating the principles, concepts and teachings of the Prophet, teaching what they have discovered in highly sophisticated halaqahs in mosques and in their homes. Instead we have books like, ?Islam The Simple Religion? and ?What Islam Says About Free-Mixing.? These books, written by either engineers or Wahhabi scholars, are very popular because they can be read in one sitting. They allow us to avoid any debt we may feel we have to investigate what God wants of us, or any debt we might feel toward our rich and diverse intellectual tradition. All of the sophistry of our past can be swept under the rug of the contemporary feel-good fast-food-Islam literature. For the first time in Islamic history we have an institution (The Saudi Council of Esteemed Religious Scholars, or whatever they call themselves) which can tell us (the lay people) what Islam is and how to follow it. Employing the materialistic philosophy of Wahhabism, a gloomy and puritanical religio-political movement which emerged about two hundred years ago in the Najd province of Arabia, a philosophy which concentrates on outward acts of worship and the dogmatic theology of its founder, the Saudis have perfected, for the time being, the art of legitimizing their own draconian rule by redefining the normative standards in our tradition with an authoritarian religious discourse. This institutionalized ideology, which never existed in the pre-modern period, has crippled any intellectual advancement in the contemporary age and has subsequently set the Muslim community even further behind its Western counterparts than it was at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Even so, the production of this childish religious literature, literature that quotes endlessly verses from a crude translation of the Qur?an, the medieval rulings of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taimiyah, and loads of Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, continues to sell in the various Islamic bookstores which populate the web. Most of these bookstores have established a successful Internet market and sell this literature for a very inexpensive price. Any book which might value over twenty dollars and which might purport a high level of accountability to the sources will be passed over. Any title which exhibits the high standards usually employed by contemporary Western scholars will be disregarded as ?too expensive? and one of the colorful and simple fast-food books will be purchased. Looking for an ?easy-read,? the contemporary Muslim will normally buy one of the pamphlet books instead of investing their money in material that challenges the intellect and upholds basic scholastic ethics. A brief examination of these titles and the conventional wisdom that one can find in them rivals the most marginalized Christian fundamentalist literature available in the West today. So why are Muslims buying this material? Is it their superficial and romantic attachment to the tradition which compels them to read these pamphlet books in order that they feel comfortable in their ?Islamic skin?? Is it a lack of access to quality literature, or possibly the inability to discern between research and scholarship, and dogma and rhetoric? What compels Muslims in the contemporary age to spend their hard earned money on Wahhabi propaganda in the disguise of objective religious literature? The answers to this challenging question are as numerous as the reasons why Islam as a religion and alternative to materialism and world-worship has been fundamentally retarded (here meaning the inability to experience growth) in its intellectual progress. Gone are the early centuries where Muslims soaked up every bit of knowledge from within and without their tradition and used whatever beneficial knowledge they came across to not only strengthen their belief and conviction, but to further the cause of Islam as well. Now we have, unfortunately due to our deathly ill intellectual tradition, successfully empowered the very dogmatists who have cheapened Islam into a veritable fast food happy meal to tell us what Islam is and how we ought to follow its precepts. The very philosophy of this non-critical, faith-blind and anti-spiritual parody of Islam is identical to many of the contemporary Christian religious philosophies in the sense that ?religion? is primarily reduced to an extra curricular activity, or something that does not complicate your worldly life. Much of this material reflects the over-simplicities and generalizations common amongst all supremacist ideologies. The emphasis of this material is of course the positive law of the shari?ah, the greatness of Muslims and the wretchedness of the ?other,? the subjugation and humiliation of women, and the idea that the only way to approach God is through a literalist construction of the text, a construction that is the sacred precinct of the Saudi scholars only, but a construction that we can read and adopt as our ?religious identity.? This literalist construction of the text is always the same. It is a rhetorical articulation of doctrine, sprinkled with ayahs from the Qur?an and a selective isolation of hadith reports, almost always from the Sahih of Muslim or the Sahih of Bukhari, and if you?re lucky Abu Dawud or Tirmidhi are thrown in for good measure. In the same way that frozen patties are rolled on a conveyor belt through an oven and slapped onto a bun by a teenager making minimum wage, these books are sewn together by miscellaneous authors with no credentials other than their attendance at the Wahhabi institutions such as Medina University, or they are constructed on the computer by publishers seeking to profit off of the easy access to paper and the audience ready to invest money in anything which claims to speak for Islam. The content of this material reeks of intellectual bankruptcy. If one wanted to produce one of these titles, all you would have to do is purchase a copy of a piece of software called ?Alim.? Alim is marketed as an encyclopedia of the sources which Islam is based upon. Now, let?s say you want to write a book and call it, ?Greed in Islaam.? All you would need to do is type ?greed? in the search engine of the Alim software, and it will bring up all of the ayahs from the Qur?an and any hadith report from the ?sound collections? pertaining to greed. Now you have to write short and simplistic paragraphs, punctuating them with the search results of the ?Alim? software, and you have your very own ?authoritative? book called ?Greed in Islaam.? This book can be marketed with bright colors in any of the Islamic bookstores that live online. This fast-food-Islam has already cost us a generation and a half of Muslims. The same health problems which afflict the American fast-food population afflict the intellectual progress of the Muslim fast-food-Islam population. In an age where Islam is facing humiliation after humiliation at the hands of fundamentalists with the intellects of cave-men, in an age where we think that stoning a poor woman in Nigeria constitutes our Islamic civilization, in an age where the most important features in Islam are hijabs and miswaks, it is in this age that we must strive to overcome this despotic element which has oppressed our minds and usurped our legacy. Our striving must include the raising of our expectations in our religious scholarship. Before we can raise these expectations, and until fast-food-Islam ceases to command such a ready market, there can be no real progress in our tradition. All of the flashy and colorfully gaudy books that are shipped off to America from the Middle East can never revive our near dead scholarly tradition but can only further destroy it. In the end we will have cheapened our tradition and transformed it into a tool for profit, advocating an underdeveloped religion of institutionalized dogma and childish simplicity as the final message of God. Omari

Peace All Muslims, They have denied the truth when it came to them. The news will ultimately come to them of what they were mocking. (65) And as such, We have sent down to you the Scripture. Thus, those whom We have given the scripture will believe in it. Also, some of your people will believe in it. The only ones who mock Our revelations are the rejecters. (2947) I am all for tolerance, and many of you know, I joke and make fun all the time. But when we are constantly being ridiculed, when our system and beliefs are being mocked and insulted. I think it's time we took a stand. I recommend DoctorNO be taken out of the forum, unless he learns to respect our ways and perhaps discuss issues in accordance to Islam. I know there are times when he debates intelligently, but mostly he ridicules the Qur'an. One last thing, here's what God says about such... then make a decision; And it has been sent down to you in the scripture, that if you hear God?s revelations being rejected and ridiculed in, then do not sit with them until they move on to a different subject; if not, then you are like them. God will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers in Hell all together.(4140)

The Secular, Scientific Case for Survival After Death A scientific revolution has taken place since this booklet was first published in 1983. The great scientific breakthrough really started in 1933 when Pauli predicted that there may well be particles in the atom other than the proton, neutron and electron. This was the same year that Sir Oliver Lodge published his article in The Queen's Hospital Annual (Birmingham) - 'The Mode of Future Existence' - linking the subject of survival after death with the scientific discipline of subatomic physics - the study of the invisible part of the universe. In 1956 a ghost-like particle called the neutrino was discovered that passed effortlessly through matter. At last a rational explanation started to evolve in order to account for all the ghost stories down through the centuries. Many physicists started to look seriously at the seemingly outrageous claims put forward by Sir William Crookes in 1874. His experiments proved that there are people living in the invisible part of the universe. They showed that we all posses two bodies while we are on Earth, one we see called the physical body and one containing the mind that we are unable to see or feel with our physical senses. This is because the subatomic particles that make up the second body are so minute they are completely out of range of what we see and sense in our physical universe. The stumbling block has always been the building blocks of this second body, sometimes called the soul or spirit body. These elusive building blocks of this etheric body and the vast universe that it operates in after it breaks from the physical body were discovered by the Derbyshire scientist Ronald D. Pearson in 1988. His papers have been peer-refereed and published by physicists in Russia and the USA An Alternative to Relativity Including Gravitation By Ronald D. Pearson Published by The Russian Academy of Sciences St. Petersburg 1993. Series 'The Universe Investigation Problems' issue 16. Space and Time Problems in Modern Natural Science (Based on papers of the Second International Conference) Part 11 Quantum Gravitation and the Structured Ether By R. D. Pearson Published by The Russian Academy of Sciences St. Petersburg 1994 following The Sir Isaac Newton International Conference. Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomena By Ronald D. Pearson Published in Frontier Perspectives, the magazine of The Center for Frontier Perspectives at Temple University. Volume 6, Number 2. Spring/Summer 1997 On 13th December 1981 in the Sunday Times their science correspondent reported that physicists could have been wrong for forty years about the make-up of the universe. It appears that nine-tenths of the universe could consist of invisible mass. When we look through a telescope at our galaxy, the Milky Way, or at a distant, we are only seeing one-tenth of the stars or mass. The motion of distant galaxies and the stars in them can only be accounted for under the laws of gravity it there is far more mass associated with each galaxy than there is in the visible stars that comprise it. The paradox here is that this discovery proves the ancient prophets were not all that wide of the mark. The terrible mistake they made was to think they were in touch with God or the gods. We now know they were only speaking to people who once lived on earth, some good people, hence the many high ethical teachings contained in 'holy' books, but unfortunately they were also in touch with people who were just as prejudiced or confused as when they were on earth. Joan of Arc is a good example. She was in touch with French patriots in the next world who told her how to get rid of the hated English. The implications of this wonderful discovery are awe-inspiring. By far the most important development, when this knowledge begins to dawn on more people, will be the dramatic effect it will have on everyone's behaviour. People will quickly realize that our short stay on earth is for one purpose only, to learn lessons and therefore develop our character; that we are accountable for every single thought and action; as we sow, so shall we reap. Our environment in the next world depends on how we have behaved in this world. Dying is as natural as being born, we all pass into the same world whether we like it or not. There is no special place reserved for Christians or members of any other sect. There are no social strata or racial barriers. All graduate to the level we have earned by the development of our characters. (This passage was underlined by Professor Salam when he returned my work.) Other far more illustrious pens than mine have written many books on this subject. The purpose of writing my paper 'The Suppression of Knowledge' is not to try and convert anybody, but to bring to people's attention the existence of this knowledge. To accept or reject a theory about anything, whether it is scientific, religious or political, is the ultimate in freedom. But what I do care very deeply about is that everyone should have the opportunity to accept or reject the findings of scientists. From the facts presented in my paper, it is obvious that powerful people with vested interests are still stopping this information from being freely available to the majority of people. Full Listing of pamphlet http//www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/sok/sok-00.html

Bob, many thanks for making contact. I feel the point you make is well covered in my booklet 'The Suppression of Knowledge' on my website www.cfpf.org.uk England is most certainly a Catholic country. The Queen is supreme governor of the Anglo-Catholic Church - defender of the Catholic faith. Martin Luther in 1517 only protested against the power of the Pope. Most certainly not the Catholic (all-embracing) doctrines and dogmas that were invented at the infamous Council of Nicaea in 325 of the Christian era. It's only those Christians who do not recognise the thoughts of these appallingly ignorant priests at Nicaea who can really be referred to as non Catholic. The Unitarians for example. Sir Isaac Newton was a Unitarian. They follow a thinking Bishop called Arius who attended the Council of Nicaea and tried his utmost to stop his colleagues turning Jesus into the 17th saviour-god. It was here that Jesus was officially made into God - the creator of the universe no less. After this date all those who followed Bishop Arius were murdered. Every school and library was destroyed, and every person who could read and write in the Roman Empire was murdered. The known world was plunged into the Christian Dark Ages. We only started to recover from this hell on Earth thanks to the Muslims sweeping into Europe in 1453 after the fall of Constantinople. The Muslims had preserved their records of the great Greek scientists, philosophers and engineers. This thankfully coincided with the invention of the printing press in Europe and the Christian priests could not kill fast enough to keep up with the printing presses. But they had a jolly good try, hence the Holy Inquisition. George W. Bush believes in the teachings of Billy Graham. These are the really powerful non-Catholics today. They are Bible-based, they actually believe that every word in the Bible is that of the creator of the universe. Terrifying but true. The USA has been hijacked by religious maniacs. The only consolation is that the Catholics and Orthodox Christians hate these born-again Christians more than the secularists. Maybe, just maybe, they will come out in the open and support the former Bishop of Durham Dr. David Jenkins. He had the courage to tell the truth and got stick for it - no book has divine authority, a virgin did not give birth to the creator of the universe two thousand years ago, there is no question of dead bodies leaping out of graves on a mythical Judgement Day. In other words all these dangerous and divisive religions are a gigantic hoax on the human race. All invented by men who knew nothing whatsoever about the universe who thought a red hot ball of fire went round a flat Earth every day. Their followers are still running this planet today! We are heading for a Third World War if Bush and Blair are not stopped in their tracks. NB. It was after Henry VIII made himself head of the Catholic Church in England that what is known as the Reformation started to take place. Not much reforming has taken place within the Roman Catholic Church. There has been no Reformation within Islam. Michael Roll http//www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2003/2003-01-07_mr2bs.html

The Global Hierarchy of Race As the only racial group that never suffers systemic racism, whites are in denial about its impact by Martin Jacques* I always found race difficult to understand. It was never intuitive. And the reason was simple. Like every other white person, I had never experienced it myself the meaning of color was something I had to learn. The turning point was falling in love with my wife, an Indian-Malaysian, and her coming to live in England. Then, over time, I came to see my own country in a completely different way, through her eyes, her background. Color is something white people never have to think about because for them it is never a handicap, never a source of prejudice or discrimination, but rather the opposite, a source of privilege. However liberal and enlightened I tried to be, I still had a white outlook on the world. My wife was the beginning of my education. But it was not until we went to live in Hong Kong that my view of the world, and the place that race occupies within it, was to be utterly transformed. Rather than seeing race through the prism of my own society, I learned to see it globally. When we left these shores, it felt as if we were moving closer to my wife's world this was east Asia and she was Malaysian. And she, unlike me, had the benefit of speaking Cantonese. So my expectation was that she would feel more comfortable in this environment than I would. I was wrong. As a white, I found myself treated with respect and deference; my wife,notwithstanding her knowledge of the language and her intimacy with Chinese culture, was the object of an in-your-face racism. In our 14 months in Hong Kong, I learned some brutal lessons about racism. First, it is not the preserve of whites. Every race displays racial prejudice, is capable of racism, carries assumptions about its own virtue and superiority. Each racism, furthermore, is subtly different, reflecting the specificity of its own culture and history. Second, there is a global racial hierarchy that helps to shape the power and the prejudices of each race. At the top of this hierarchy are whites. The reasons are deep-rooted and profound. White societies have been the global top dogs for half a millennium, ever since Chinese civilization went into decline. With global hegemony, first with Europe and then the US, whites have long commanded respect, as well as arousing fear and resentment, among other races. Being white confers a privilege, a special kind of deference, throughout the world, be it Kingston, Hong Kong, Delhi, Lagos - or even, despite the way it is portrayed in Britain, Harare. Whites are the only race that never suffers any kind of systemic racism anywhere in the world. And the impact of white racism has been far more profound and baneful than any other it remains the only racism with global reach. Being top of the pile means that whites are peculiarly and uniquely insensitive to race and racism, and the power relations this involves. We are invariably the beneficiaries, never the victims. Even when well-meaning, we remain strangely ignorant. The clout enjoyed by whites does not reside simply in an abstraction - western societies - but in the skin of each and every one of us. Whether we like it or not, in every corner of the planet we enjoy an extraordinary personal power bestowed by our color It is something we are largely oblivious of, and consequently take for granted, irrespective of whether we are liberal or reactionary, backpackers, tourists or expatriate businessmen. The existence of a de facto global racial hierarchy helps to shape the nature of racial prejudice exhibited by other races. Whites are universally respected, even when that respect is combined with strong resentment. A race generally defers to those above it in the hierarchy and is cotemptuous of those below it. The Chinese - like the Japanese - widely consider themselves to be number two in the pecking order and look down upon all other races as inferior. Their respect for whites is also grudging - many Chinese believe that western hegemony is, in effect, held on no more than prolonged leasehold. Those below the Chinese and the Japanese in the hierarchy are invariably people of color (both Chinese and Japanese often like to see themselves as white, or nearly white). At the bottom of the pile, virtually everywhere it would seem, are those of African descent, the only exception in certain cases being the indigenous peoples. This highlights the centrality of color to the global hierarchy. Other factors serve to define and reinforce a race's position in the hierarchy - levels of development, civilizational values, history, religion, physical characteristics and dress - but the most insistent and widespread is color The reason is that color is instantly recognizable, it defines difference at the glance of an eye. It also happens to have another effect. It makes the global hierarchy seem like the natural order of things you are born with your color, it is something nobody can do anything about, it is neither cultural nor social but physical in origin. In the era of globalization, with mass migration and globalized cultural industries, color has become the universal calling card of difference. In interwar Europe, the dominant forms of racism were anti-semitism and racialized nationalisms, today it is color at a football match, it is blacks not Jews that get jeered, even in eastern Europe. Liberals like to think that racism is a product of ignorance, of a lack of contact, and that as human mobility increases, so racism will decline. This might be described as the Benetton view of the world. And it does contain a modicum of truth. Intermixing can foster greater understanding, but not necessarily, as Burnley, Sri Lanka and Israel, in their very different ways, all testify. Hong Kong, compared with China, is an open society, and has long been so, yet it has had little or no effect in mollifying Chinese prejudice towards people of darker skin. It is not that racism is immovable and intractable, but that its roots are deep, its prejudices as old as humanity itself. The origins of Chinese racism lie in the Middle Kingdom the belief that the Chinese are superior to other races - with the exception of whites - is centuries, if not thousands of years, old. The disparaging attitude among American whites towards blacks has its roots in slavery. Wishing it wasn't true, denying it is true, will never change the reality. We can only understand - and tackle racism - if we are honest about it. And when it comes to race - more than any other issue - honesty is in desperately short supply. Race remains the great taboo. Take the case of Hong Kong. A conspiracy of silence surrounded race. As the British departed in 1997, amid much self-congratulation, they breathed not a word about racism. Yet the latter was integral to colonial rule, its leitmotif colonialism, after all, is institutionalized racism at its crudest and most base. The majority of Chinese, the object of it, meanwhile, harbored an equally racist mentality towards people of darker skin. Masters of their own home, they too are in denial of their own racism. But that, in varying degrees, is true of racism not only in Hong Kong but in every country in the world. You may remember that, after the riots in Burnley in the summer of 2001, Tony Blair declared that they were not a true reflection of the state of race relations in Britain of course, they were, even if the picture is less discouraging in other aspects. Racism everywhere remains largely invisible and hugely under-estimated, the issue that barely speaks its name. How can the Economist produce a 15,000-word survey on migration, as it did last year, and hardly mention the word racism? Why does virtually no one talk about the racism suffered by the Williams sisters on the tennis circuit even though the evidence is very much evident? Why are the deeply racist western attitudes towards Arabs barely mentioned in the context of the occupation of Iraq, carefully hidden behind talk of religion and civilizational values? The dominant race in a society, whether white or otherwise, rarely admits to its own racism. Denial is near universal. The reasons are manifold. It has a huge vested interest in its own privilege. It will often be oblivious to its own prejudices. It will regard its racist attitudes as nothing more than common sense, having the force and justification of nature. Only when challenged by those on the receiving end is racism outed, and attitudes begin to change. The reason why British society is less nakedly racist than it used to be is that whites have been forced by people of color to question age-old racist assumptions. Nations are never honest about themselves they are all in varying degrees of denial. This is clearly fundamental to understanding the way in which racism is underplayed as a national and global issue. But there is another reason, which is a specifically white problem. Because whites remain the overwhelmingly dominant global race, perched in splendid isolation on top of the pile even though they only represent 17% of the world's population, they are overwhelmingly responsible for setting the global agenda, for determining what is discussed and what is not. And the fact that whites have no experience of racism, except as perpetrators, means that racism is constantly underplayed by western institutions - by governments, by the media, by corporations. Moreover, because whites have reigned globally supreme for half a millennium, they, more than any other race, have left their mark on the rest of humanity they have a vested interest in denying the extent and baneful effects of racism. It was only two years ago, you may remember, that the first-ever United Nations conference on racism was held - against the fierce resistance of the US (and that in the Clinton era). Nothing more eloquently testifies to the unwillingness of western governments to engage in a global dialogue about the problem of racism. If racism is now more widely recognized than it used to be, the situation is likely to be transformed over the next few decades. As migration increases, as the regime of denial is challenged, as subordinate races find the will and confidence to challenge the dominant race, as understanding of racism develops, as we become more aware of other racisms like that of the Han Chinese, then the global prominence of racism is surely set to increase dramatically. It is rare to hear a political leader speaking the discourse of color Robert Mugabe is one, but he is tainted and discredited. The Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamed, is articulate on the subject of white privilege and the global hierarchy. The most striking example by a huge margin, though, is Nelson Mandela. When it comes to color, his sacrifice is beyond compare and his authority unimpeachable. And his message is always universal - not confined to the interests of one race. It is he who has suggested that western support for Israel has something to do with race. It is he who has hinted that it is no accident that the authority of the UN is under threat at a time when its secretary general is black. And yet his voice is almost alone in a world where race oozes from every pore of humanity. In a world where racism is becoming increasingly important, we will need more such leaders. And invariably they will be people of color on this subject whites lack moral authorit! y. I could only understand the racism suffered by my wife through her words and experience. I never felt it myself. The difference is utterly fundamental. *Martin Jacques is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics. The death of his wife, Harinder Veriah, in 2000 in a Hong Kong hospital triggered an outcry which culminated in this summer's announcement by the Hong Kong government that it would introduce anti-racist legislation for the first time

Deliberate Mistranslation? I found a rather interesting translation of in the English Translation of Quran by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (Ph.D.) and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Kan Forbidden to you (for food) are Al-Maytata (the dead animals - cattle-beast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and the meat of that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols etc., or on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering, and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by the goring of horns ... the red part was not within brackets/parenthesis but included as the text of Quran. Other well known translations YUSUF ALI Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death... MUHAMMAD ASAD Forbidden you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which over which any name other than God's has been invoked, and the animal that has been stangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or gored to death... Is there any basis for the Doctors' translation? I am shocked by the audacity of these people to insert their own opinions into the text of the English translation of Quran.

Peace So this is how all threads end up nowadays? Maybe you 2 guys need to get a room or something! Jibril and DoctorNO pls post all your fighting posts here. D Have a nice time fighting. D PS Anyone else who wants to fight can also fight here. )

Hi Can you have a Boyfriend or Girlfriend if your a Muslim? I heard that you have to marry before sex or something is that true? thanx

Islam Questions & Answers www.islam-qa.comQuestion Reference Number 20949 Title Friendship and love between a man and a woman Question I know keeping girlfriend will destroy the family and so on but what if we were just friends secretly were no one knew. this way we will we will stay togethr until marraige and we can garentee we wont perform any zinna. are there any cases in the old times of love . Answer Praise be to Allaah. Firstly Taking a girlfriend does not only destroy the family, it destroys society, and those who do this are threatened with the punishment and wrath of Allaah. Love is a sickness that destroys the heart and leads to evil and immorality. The Shaytaan will keep tempting them and pushing them until they commit immoral actions and thus each gets what he or she wants from the other. There are many forbidden matters associated with this, such as transgressing against the honour of others, betraying trust, being alone with a member of the opposite sex, touching, kissing, speaking immoral words, then the greater evil which occurs at the end, which is the sin of zina. The fact that the questioner says ?no one knows about us? is strange. How can he forget about his Lord Who knows what is secret and what is yet more hidden, and who knows the fraud of the eyes and all that the hearts conceal. (cf. Ghaafir 4019). Our advice to you, as you are still young, is to discipline yourself to obey Allaah and always remember that He is watching; fear Allaah concerning people?s honour; strive for the Day when you will meet your Lord with your deeds; remember the scandal that may happen in this world and the Hereafter. Remember that you have sisters and will have a wife and daughters, so would you like for one of them what you are doing with the daughters of the Muslims? The answer is that you would certainly not like it, and other people do not like it either. Remember that you may see the results of your sin in some of your family members as a punishment to you from your Lord. You have to look for righteous friends, and you have to keep yourself busy doing that which Allaah loves and is pleased with. Pay attention to the best and most sublime things and leave alone the worst and most vile things. Make the most of your youth in obeying and worshipping Allaah, seeking knowledge and calling others to Allaah. Remember that there were those of your age and younger who were men who had memorized the Qur?aan, who sought knowledge, whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent to call others to Allaah and to enter the religion of Islam. We advise you to get married to a righteous, religiously-committed woman who will help you adhere to your religion and encourage you to adhere to the laws of Allaah, who will look after your children and bring them up with good morals and religious commitment. Give up this woman who agrees to go out with a man who is a stranger to her (a non-mahram) and meet him and talk to him; if she agrees to do immoral actions now then what is going to prevent her from continuing to do so in the future? Remember that you are angering your Lord with such sins as being alone with her, meeting her and talking to her, and anything more than that is even more serious. You should realize that zina does not only involve the private parts, rather the eyes may commit zina, the ears may commit zina, the hand may commit zina and the foot may commit zina, as was proven from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). All of that leads to the zina of the private parts. So do not let the Shaytaan deceive you, for he is an enemy to you who wishes you evil and tells you to commit immoral actions. Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-?Uthaymeen said Contact between lovers in improper and unlawful ways is a calamity and a real disaster. It is not permissible for the man to contact the woman in this case, or for the woman to contact the man. If he says that he wants to marry her, then he must tell her wali (guardian) that he wants to marry her, or she should tell her wali that she wants to marry him, as ?Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) did when he offered his daughter Hafsah in marriage to Abu Bakr and ?Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them). But if the woman contacts the man directly, this is the source of fitnah (temptation). As?ilat al-Baab il-Maftooh (Question no. 86. Secondly With regard to your question about such forbidden relationships in the ancient love stories, the fact that such stories existed among those who came before us cannot be taken as proof with regard to shar?i rulings, because the rulings of sharee?ah having to do with what is forbidden and what is allowed are to be taken from the shar?i evidence of the Qur?aan and Sunnah, and the commands and prohibitions contained therein. Some of those mentioned in these stories came before Islam, such as ?Antarah and others, and such stories are to be found in other cultures as is well known. But we cannot take shar?i rulings from this because Islam came to bring people forth from being controlled by their desires to complete submission to Allaah the Lord of the Worlds. We ask Allaah to guide us and you and to give us strength. Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com) ?Copyright Islam Q&A 1997-2000 You are granted the right to use and display all the information on this site without any consent from the site maintainer(s). You may copy, distribute, print, link to any document, or translate to any language, as long as the information is quoted in its entirety, the source is mentioned, and without changing the contents. Peace all, I just found this in an old email a sunni guy had sent me. It nearly made my hair go completely white. I was incensed. This is a prime example of cultural influence upon Islam and a prime example of scholars trying to rule the world with their opinions and of many Muslims blindly following scholars' every word. To quote the scholar below "Love is a sickness that destroys the heart and leads to evil and immorality." Excuse me? Love? Ah that explains the hatred..... And then the solution is always "Get married!" Like that is the be all and end all. And oh, the horror of a woman talking to a man! shock Wali? Schmali ! Sunnah? Schmunnah! Allah is my Wali. Period. Needless to say I replied to the sunni guy asking him where in the Quran we could find any rulings on men and women keeping separate from each other. Please bear in mind I would never promote fornication or adultery. But this is going to extremes in my opinion. He never replied to me but instead sent my email reply to another sister, asking her to reply to my email. Go figure. cry

Four billion people say they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincrarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions. A belief in God would demand one hundred percent obsessive devotion, influencing every waking moment of this brief life on earth. But your four billion so called believers do not live their life in that fashion, except for a few. The majority believe in the usefulness of their beliefs- an earthly and practical utility-but they do not believe in the underlying reality. They say they believe because pretending to believe is neccessary to get the benefits of religion. They tell other people that they believe and they do believer-like things, like praying and reading holy books. But they don't do the things that a true believer would do, the things that a true believer would have to do. If you believe a truck is coming toward you, you will jump out of the way. That is belief in the reality of the truck. If you tell people you fear the truck but do nothing to get out of the way, that is not belief in the truck. Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belef in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing. I find that I am at the stage of my belief of frantically looking for the true religion. I am also curious as to how the above statement makes others feel. Answer honestly this question, are you one of the four billion....or one of the few?

peace all, In my experience, its clear that the majority follow, what I would call an unintelligent/illogical approach to islam or any belief system. They dont verify what they're told/taught, if you ask them where a certain belief they hold comes from it is rare to find them able to back it up with anything, in fact, many times they're not even sure if its in Quran, sometimes they assume it is but it isn't... and if you tell them it isn't, the majority wont go and research/verify what you said. I cant verify this, but I would imagine the majority of adult so-called muslims haven't even read Al-Quran (in a language they understand). And to me, thats quite shocking. Its not so bad if they admit their not religious, but even people who seem religious they're just not interested in researching/verifying. Or accepting anything that goes against the norm. Or anything that goes against what their sheik/imam/hafiz/mullah say. I remember when I did my questionaire, most struggled with stuff like the meaning of muslim/allah/islam/quran... I mean c'mon!! None knew when the hadith books were written yet they follow them like they were on par with Al-Quran!! Seriously, like what's going on? Now I understand true submission to God will always be in the minority, as stated in Quran... but I still find it hard to accept people's mentality. I would almost class it as abnormal, like a disease. I've thought about why this is... and the two main reasons for this I think are Simply, the vast majority of so-called muslims (sheep) will not listen to someone without authority. They listen to those with so-called authority, or a title before their name. They are so brainwashed into thinking these people know so much, so that whatever they say must be true. They are like robots, following instructions like they're programmed. People are consumed by this world. They are taken by its attractions, and only call themselves "muslim" because simply thats what they're used to... thats their culture, thats who their family are. Its almost as if they just play along, act a part, whilst they get on with other stuff. Sorry for the rant, but I was mainly wondering what do others think the main reasons are for the way people are?

hello everyone.. well this is not related to any religious thing something ..P I am just curious if anyone here owns any design studio or like media production house related to animation, post production and such..P I am interested cause soon I have to do my industrial training and I wanted to do it somewhere in USA or Europe. So can anyone help me with some info.? I know there are lots of studio sites on the web but its really time consuming and also sometime hopeless if you dont know anyone. So I was thinking if anyone has such studio and like willing to help this poor designer r.P Let me know ppl.........I really need this help..time is running out... I have to do this training starting from "May". If anyone want to see my portfolio than here u can find some of my work.....) http//attar-khoje.deviantart.com/gallery/ sorry layth if posted it in the wrong category ..P peace

Salaam all What do you all make of this???????? http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ. It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot. The Passion Of Christ, which was filmed in the ancient languages of Latin and Aramaic, is directed and co-written by actor Mel Gibson and focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus. Although it is not due for release until early next year, it has already hit headlines after Jewish figures in the United States slated it for being "dangerous" and portraying Jews in a negative way. Originally titled The Passion, the film changed its title last week after Miramax claimed the rights to the title for one of its own projects, a historical epic based on a Jeanette Winterson novel. The film now looks set to be released in the States by independent distributors Newmarket Films, who released Memento and Whale Rider in the US.

Anybody with any experiences? Anyone interrupted a friday khutbah and said 'you know what, non Quranic hadith don't form any part of Islam'!? I have shared my belief with a few people. One of them accepted that Islam = Quran only. With one other person, they simply disagreed with what I said. When I asked what particular point they disagreed with, they said that they didn't know but they disagreed with it anyway! They also used the 'obey the messenger' quote which I backed up with the full context of the role of the messenger (he would have been killed had he offered any other teachings etc, say Muhammad, I only follow that which is revealed unto me). Also I stated the verses about the Quran being complete and fully detailed, followed by God's irony in stating most will not believe it! The other two, I think, have just pretended I never raised this issue, hoping it will go away. When discussing these issues face to face with people, their integrity can be observed much faster than is the case online, IMO, but the discussions I had online were a useful experience for such dialogue. However, perhaps part of the reason is that I find sunnism, if followed to the extremes it should be followed, to be a repulsive ideology, and I don't hold back from telling people this (in the relevent discussion). This is certainly a fault of mine, but I don't want to appear to be false. Also, IMO, people believe what is most convenient to believe. 'Most convenient' is generally what their peer group also believe in. Very few people seem able to break through this. Roshan

Friends, Salaam Read Isreael Shamir's articles on www.israelshamir.net. He has a passion for truth, objectivity and co-existence. Mubashir The Wall Israel Shamir We watched Pink Floyd's The Wall in a small, bare and shabby cinema called Semadar, The Vine Blossom in the quaint German Colony of Jerusalem. Emptied of ethnic Germans by the Jews in 1948, it still preserves its old stone houses roofed with red tiles, gables with immured plaques quoting Psalms inscribed in Gothic script, ivy creeping up its masonry and the mysterious Templars' Cemetery beyond heavy gate. Semadar, named after an expression in the Song of the Songs, was a favourite talkies' spot in our Paradise Lost, nostalgia-bewitched pre-war Palestine, when it was frequented by British officers, and the young cosmopolitan gang of the Holy City's best and brightest Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Germans and native Palestinians. Many marriages crossing borders, religious affiliations and political passions were formed in its romantic small yard a Sephardi Rabbi's daughter found herself a Scots flier, and a Nashashibi, scion of this noble Muslim Arab family, met a perky Left-Zionist girl. Semadar has not changed; it survived our Fall, the Partition, to become a fixture of Amos Oz Jerusalem-based novels like fossil ice survives global warming. Semadar remained a decent if rundown place for family outing in 1980s, the blessed days before video, TV and computers took over our free time, and we often went with the kids to the movies. However, the Wall was a flop. In the middle of the film, there is a horrifying shot of a mouth gaping to devour you, the spectator. This scary boneless but teeth-filled mouth covered the whole screen towering above our heads. It was too much for our seven-year old son, and he rushed out with a piercing yell. But outside, the foyer was plastered by posters with the same gaping mouth! It took a few hours to calm him down, and this symbol of the Wall, the dreadful devouring mouth, remained buried deep in my memory. It returned with a vengeance like a released spring today, when I ran into the Wall after a beautiful walk. For many hours we had driven and walked the soft Biblical hills of the Highlands, waded high green grass, picked purple lupines, crossed a brook still full of water, and of friendly full-faced and fully-dressed girls and boys who splashed each other and us with youthful abandon, and passed by their parents in the nearby village of Anata who were preparing a picnic repast and called their cordial salaams. We greeted a monk going down from his cliff hermitage of St Chariton and received his blessing; chased away a flock of four or five shy gazelles with white-spotted crupper; lit a candle at a Byzantine image of the Madonna in Taybeh village church, where according to carefully preserved local lore Christ spent his last days before the Passion. We drunk their famous Taybeh draft beer in the Stones, an airy two-tiered caf? in urbane Ramallah, with a tweed-clad professor of philosophy from Bir Zeit university, a wryly-smiling architect, a lapsed Jew from England with an uncanny resemblance to the younger Noam Chomsky, and a ravishing dark beauty of a French-speaking Palestinian girl brought up in Tunisian exile and schooled in Paris. As we drew towards the Shepherds' Fields, we run into the Wall. It cut into the tender Bethlehem countryside like a colossal devouring maw, and nature disappeared, marshmallow-like. Dozens of Caterpillars were tearing at the hills, uprooting fig trees and vines, crushing rocks for some monstrous Margarita. They demolished old peasant houses and medieval towers, and denuded the slopes walked by the Virgin. The Wall was built like a wide four-lane highway, flanked by 20-feet-high double steel mesh fences, topped with high tension wire, interspaced with cameras, sharpshooters' positions and a few gates. It was the most formidable prison camp perimeter fencing I have ever seen, and it skirted the village houses tightly, like a tipsy tango dancer holds his partner. The peasants looked through the mesh on their olive trees, still there, still in full modest bloom, but already separated, removed, unavailable. The peasants were locked in, as secure as in any jail, beyond this Wall. Their fields, their pastures, their springs of water were locked out. A gate was guarded by an Israeli soldier; it connected them to their livelihood, to their land, to their freedom ? to be opened or closed by army decision. Always looking for a profitable angle, the army instituted a two-dollar fee per person per time for opening the gate. If these Palestinians wish to dally with their olive trees, let them pay for the pleasure. In some places the Wall was huge concrete construction, stealing away the landscape, the view, locking the villagers in an extended prison court. But the mesh wall was even worse by affording a tantalising sight of the land they once called theirs. The Wall runs for hundreds and hundreds of miles, surrounding villages, separating them from their land, and devouring the beautiful nature of Palestine. This Wall was not a new invention. I have seen it before. Not far from the sacred Mount Carmel there was an Armenian village. It was settled by Armenian refugees fleeing the Kurds' fury in 1915. The always hospitable Palestinians helped them build their houses and leased them the land, for these Armenians were peasants from the shores of the Lake Van. In 1948 their village became part of the Jewish state. The Jews did not kill them, did not expel them, they just surrounded the village with a Wall, and strangulated it. The living village lost its lands and was turned into a prison with one always guarded ? by the Jewish army ? gate. The Armenians lasted ten years. In 1950s the last Armenian sold his house for a song to the Jews and fled. The Wall had a precursor the system of 'for-Jews-only' highways. While even Haifa or Afula has no bypass road, every Arab village has a bypass a broad highway encircling and limiting its development. Hundreds of Palestinian houses were demolished, thousands of acres devastated while building the bypass grid by recipe borrowed from the Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy. It was done for no visible reason, as tiny Jewish settlements did not need this multi-billion investment for 'security purpose'. Moreover, newly-built roads were usually blocked by the army. Now, with the Wall rising higher and higher, the bypass network begins to make sense it was Stage One of devastation and imprisonment. The Wall will leave the olive groves in the hands of settlers, wrote ever-so-rational Uri Avneri. But the settlers do not need olives and do not intend to till the land. They prefer to torch the trees. The settlers are not the cause, but a rationalisation of the cause desire to depopulate Palestine and kill its nature. Could it be different? The presently implemented programme of victorious Zionism was portrayed in a 1930s essay, The Iron Wall by Vladimir Zhabotinsky. But the roots are deeper, for the Wall is the utmost manifestation of the Jewish spirit and it fits the Jewish state. There are dozens of words for 'wall' in Jewish tongues, probably as many as Eskimo have for 'snow'. Jews' sacred symbol is the Wailing Wall; their favourite street is Wall Street. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Christians and Muslims build vertical pyramids, towers, cathedrals to connect Heaven and Earth; but the self-deifying Jews need no Heaven or Earth, and the first thing they build ? from London to Minnesota - is eruv, a symbolic Wall to separate them from non-Jews. The only extant inscription from the Jewish Temple (destroyed forty years after Christ was tried in its Walls) is not the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, or moral teachings, but a piece of a Wall with warning "Goy, if you cross this Wall, you will have to blame yourself for your painful death". The most important part of Jewish teaching is the maxim, 'build a Wall around the Torah'. It enhances every prohibition of the Law by a dozen of additional prohibitions. A Jew is forbidden to gather fruits on Sabbath, but 'the Wall' forbids also climbing a tree, lest one be tempted to gather its fruits. Well, what about fruitless birch or fir? It is banned for the same reason this Saturday you will climb a birch, next Sabbath you will climb an apple tree, and in a month's time, you will pick an apple and commit a real transgression. Sharon's Wall is a Wall around the Torah, for if you let a goy wander freely he will sooner or later be able to kill a Jew. Sharon's Wall is a Temple Wall, for a goy who crosses it will have to blame himself for the bullet of a sharpshooter. Sharon's Wall is a Wailing Wall for Palestinians, and it is the Wall Street for the Jewish building contractors. The commanding voice is that of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau the Wall is built by the sweat of impoverished Palestinian workers, guarded by Russians, paid for by Americans to jail their brothers. The contractors are into a Bonanza, a remake of their previous endeavour, the fifty-feet-high Bar Lev Wall, constructed on the shores of Suez Canal in 1970s and demolished by the Soviet-made water cannons of the Egyptian Third Army of Marshal Sadat on October 6, 1973. The only part of the Wall that survived the 1973 war was the villas of the contractors. This Wall is the real Roadmap of the Zionists, for when the Wall is completed, Palestine will be ruined and its happy dwellers turned into refugees. But the fate of Jews will not be enviable, either, for the Wall is everywhere. Every shop, every restaurant, every pub in once jolly Tel Aviv has its living Wall a Russian or Ukrainian boy imported to guard it. For four dollar per hour they stop the bombers with their bodies and are buried beyond the cemetery Wall. We, Israelis, are frisked ten times a day, as we go to the shop, the office, to work or to have fun. There is no building you can enter without a search. Thus the Holy Land has become a high security prison for all its dwellers, Jews and non-Jews alike. It could be predicted. The Jews weren't locked by evil strangers within the ghetto walls, wrote Vladimir Zhabotinsky, they chose it as foreigners in China chose to live in their separate settlements. Fifty years later, Israel Shahak made another valid observation the walls of ghetto were breached from outside, by the state, while the Jews weren't keen to leave. The visible walls were breached, but the inner walls remained. The Jewish state is enactment of the paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of stranger, while the Cabal policies of Pentagon are another manifestation of the same fear and loathing on global scale. Not only individuals, whole societies and cultures can be insane. This important discovery was made by an American social scientist Ruth Benedict, a close and admired friend of Margaret Mead and Franz Boas. Her Patterns of Culture (1934) remains one of the most widely read books in the social sciences ever written. In this work, Ruth Benedict described different Native American cultures and characterized the Pueblo Indians as "placid and harmonious". The Jewish social scientist Franz Boas provided her with data showing "the self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac character of the Kwakiutl", while Reo Fortune proved the Dobu Islanders were "paranoiac and mean spirited". This last definition fits the Jews as culture to a boot. What was this Cabal-instigated obsessive search for WMD in Iraq if not a fit of paranoia, fear of a cheated goy with an axe? Present Israel, the country of perennial body search, is the ultimate of paranoid societies, according to Ruth Benedict. The US is succumbing to the same disease under her present ruling clique of Leo Strauss? followers it builds walls and disarms far away lands, as well as their own citizens, for the Jewish paranoia is extremely contagious. It is useless to fight the Wall, as it was useless to fight the illegal settlements, as long you ignore the cause. 'The Wall is in the heart', ubeliba homa, sung the Jews as they conquered Jerusalem in 1967. The Wall is at the heart of the problem, and this is the Jewish state in Palestine. Young and not-so-young peace activists at the hilltops along the Wall still wave the slogan "Two States" at the bulldozers, though the bulldozers implement the dream of Two States, my nightmare a Jewish state and a chain of reservations for the Goyim, the "Palestinian State". Whoever says, 'an Independent Palestinian State aside the Jewish state', turns a blind eye to the Wall. The Wall is an operation of separating the Siamese twins, and only the strongest one will survive it. Discussions of the Wall run into sand in Israel vast majority of Israelis, from Labour to Likud, support it, while 'peace-loving' Israelis are the strongest supporters of the Devouring Maw. The Wall mocks the innocent souls inflamed by the Roadmap, another doomed plan to separate the Twins. Sharon is not worried for it provides enough delays to complete the Wall, it puts the onus of peacekeeping on the Palestinian side, it gives him full freedom of action in exchange for some empty promises. The peace activists hope to alter the course of the Wall a bit here and there. But it won't help, for the Wall will always separate people and their land. Wherever you put it, it will separate the refugees in Deheishe refugee camp from their houses ten miles away in Deir a-Sheik. It will separate the Christians of Taybeh from the Holy Sepulchre and the Muslims of Yassouf from al-Aqsa. It will separate the Jews from the holy sites. It will separate the Highlands peasants from their working places in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Sharon's Wall, this unmitigated disaster, provides a rare opportunity to observe the true nature of the Jewish State, and to call for its dismantling. Not the Wall, silly! The Jewish State.

THE CHRISTIAN KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA. Assalamu Aleikum. In the recent turn of events happening on the world stage the ummah has again come under the criticism and the scrutiny of the world in general and the West in particular. After the tragic attacks of the September 11, 2001 the President of the United States Mr George Bush gave a televised speech where he chose to address the Muslim world directly. There was no accusation made against the Muslims of the world but it was clear that Mr Bush did not address any other faith or religion in his address. Then the call to be "either with us or you are against us" was made which sounded more of a threat and again aimed at the ummah. After the event of the September 11th, there has been a very resurgent interest in Islam and the Muslim ummah but unfortunately not in a positive manner. There is a great interest now among the West and the world at large to look at Islam with a view to pinpoint at what is wrong with the Muslims. The recent comment by the American Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G Boykins that the Muslims are worshippers of idols and that Muslims are violent terrorists only highlights the real feelings and attitudes of the christian West towards the ummah. I would like to take this opportunity to address the West and the whole world directly and provide some explanation which may help to allay the fears of the West. The gist of my message is that the ummah of today shares a common heritage with the Western world. And when I say the Western world I mean that part of the world which derives its philosophy from the Christian religion and the teachings of the Bible and the Scriptures. Though it may not be fashionable to associate religion with anything in the West today, nevertheless the idea of christian values, christian virtues and christian civilisation is not fully out of vogue yet in the West. I have chosen to call this message 'A Common Heritage The Christian Kingdom of Saudi Arabia'. I must insist that I mean no disrespect to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or to any one else whether Muslim or Christian but merely to show that many of our beliefs and accepted teachings are from a common heritage. There is more that connects the largely Christian West and the Muslim ummah together than sets us apart. The "Muslim ummah" is also practicing Christian beliefs but derived largely from the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The Christians and the West need not worry about "reactionary" Islam or now the more in vogue "terrorist Islam". The West can and should actually embrace their brethren in the Muslim ummah and welcome us as brothers in faith. The religion practised as Islam today has evolved much from the time of the Prophet Mohamed and it has changed a lot along the way to reach the shape it is now. In the beginning there was a very simple Islam that was revealed to the Prophet which was sufficiently encapsulated in just one book which is the Quran. But due to the close and very congenial relations between the early Muslims and the old Christians many acceptable beliefs from Christianity have been added to Islam. Today what is often considered as part of Islam like the covering of the head for women, which has become a point of much discussion in the West, is actually not found in the Muslim holy book the Quran. It is therefore not part of the original teachings of the Prophet Mohamed. Rather it is taken from the Christian Bible and incorporated into the religion because we considered it as an acceptable belief. Similarly many of the beliefs that are considered Islamic are actually derived from the Jewish scriptures and Christian scriptures. This happened after the time of the Prophet Mohamed. This is simply because after the Prophet Mohamed many muslim scholars were converts from Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Religion was not used to divide but instead the scholars and doctors sought to seek common grounds between them. Hence they were allowed to incorporate their old beliefs from Christianity and Judaism into Islam. To such an extent that the practised 'Islam' of today is often a verbatim manifestation of the Christian Bible and the Jewish scripture. None of these Biblical teachings were known to the Prophet Mohamed and they cannot be found in the Quran at all but I am happy to tell you that the scholars of Islam are unanimous in accepting these beliefs as part of our religion today. Therefore our practises like the covering of the head for women should not be contentious at all. Other than the head covering for women, our other practises like ii. the circumcision of males iii. the punishment of stoning to death for adultery iv. the punishment of stoning to death for apostasy v. the wearing of beards for men vi. the dietary prohibition of many types of food vii. the belief of displaying holy writings on the wall viii. the belief that woman is created from man ix. the collection of religious tithes or zakat x. the injunction against graven images like statutes, sculptures and other representations of human and animal life forms xi. the religious injunction that menstruating women are spiritually unclean xii. the ritualised blessing of "Amen" said in the mosques xiii. the concept of "aqedah" as faith xiv. the animal sacrifice "aqeqah" for the birth of children xv. the celebration of the festival of Eid at the end of Ramadhan are all derived from the Christian and Jewish scriptures. This list is only the beginning. It is not exhaustive. These beliefs are not found anywhere in the Quran which is in fact the earliest and only teaching of the Prophet Muhammad. But these teachings can be found in very exact detail in the Christian Bible and the Jewish scriptures. The Christian West should therefore credit it to the great tolerance and absorption of the early scholars and generations of the Muslim ummah, many of whom were converts from Christianity and Judaism, that they were able to bring with them a vast spectrum of Christian and Jewish beliefs which were accepted and are practised by Muslims as part of Islam today. Therefore there is no need for the Christian West or the Judeo-Christian world to be apprehensive about Islam. As the Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) I would like to take this opportunity to enlighten the Christian West and the Muslim ummah as well about our common heritage that should bind us together instead of dividing us. I would like to begin with the issue of the wearing of the head covering for women. In light of the post September 11th events, this issue has been frequently highlighted in the Western media involving Muslim schoolgirls prohibited from wearing the headcovering in France and elsewhere. HEAD COVER FOR WOMEN ORIGINATES FROM THE BIBLE As I mentioned before the wearing of the head covering for women is not part of the Prophet's teachings and is not found in the Quran. It is a belief and a practise that was taken by the early Muslim scholars from the Christian Bible. Again this clearly shows the great tolerance and acceptance of the Muslim scholars and the Muslim ummah towards the teachings taken from the Christian Bible. The wearing of the head covering for women is from the Bible, 1st Corinthians, chapter 11 Revised Standard Version but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head- it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? So the commandment for a woman to cover her head is in the Bible. This belief has seeped into the Muslim belief and has now become part and parcel of the practice of Islam today. The West has no problem with Catholicism putting its nuns in head cover. Surely Mother Theresa would not be considered a terrorist on account of her nun's habit. In Europe today Catholic schools still encourage young girls to take up the wearing of the Catholic headcover. Unfortunately under the guise of modernity, a vast majority of Christians themselves today are not following the teachings of the Bible - the large majority of christian women do not cover the head. Hence it is the Muslim ummah who are very good Christians because they still uphold these Bible teachings. As I have said the covering of the head for women is not found in the Quran. CIRCUMCISION IS ALSO DERIVED FROM THE BIBLE Sunni and shia 'Muslims' believe that circumcision is a part of their belief and practise circumcision widely. The truth is God and the Prophet never asked the Muslims to circumcise anyone. God says that He made the human in a perfect shape "Allah it is Who appointed for you the earth for a dwelling-place and the sky for a canopy, and fashioned you and perfected your shapes, and hath provided you with good things. Such is Allah, your Lord. Then blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!" Indeed God has made us perfect - including the foreskin on the male. There is no need for the human to improve on God's creation - even as an option or an exercise of freewill. But where does the Muslim belief in circumcision come from ? Once again the answer lies in the Bible. The Covenant of Circumcision in the Bible states. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. This is the Covenant of Circumcision. Later Muslims have found this belief acceptable and have incorporated it into their Muslim practises. Again this shows much similarity between Islam and Christianity and proves the tolerance of Islam in absorbing Christian teachings and values from the Bible. It is the vogue now for the Christian West to raise the alarm about the so called 'Islamic State'. They should not really be afraid. Very often what these Islamic states are doing is implementing nothing more than what is already in the Christian Bible. Very often all the precepts and beliefs for the Islamic state particularly the Shariah Law is based almost entirely on the early Bible tecahings. They are not found in the Quran at all and therefore do not form part of the Prophet's teachings. An Islamic State under Shariah Law is an euphemism for a Biblical Theocracy. This reflects the tolerance of the Muslim faith in accepting and incorporating Biblical teachings into Islam. Head cover for women, circumcision for converts and other beliefs are all ideas borrowed from the Christian Bible. What has happened is that over time the ideas from the Jewish and Christian theological texts has influenced the Muslim beliefs. In fact this event has also been foretold in the Quran O ye who believe! If ye obey a party of the people of the Book, they will make you disbelievers after your belief. How can ye disbelieve, when it is ye unto whom Allah's revelations are recited, and His messenger is in your midst ? He who holdeth fast to Allah, he indeed is guided unto a right path. God and the Prophet brought the Quran to the whole ummah. But it is a credit to the great tolerance and understanding of Islam that the Muslim ummah have picked up the Biblical teachings. The fervour to set up and Islamic State is nothing more than establishing the Biblical Theocracy. Let the Lord's Kingdom come. 3. SHARIAH LAWS TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY The recent cases of stoning women to death for adultery in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria are laws that are not from the Quran. God and the Prophet never taught the Muslims to stone anyone to death as part of the Shariah Law. The words Shariah Law are not even mentioned in the Quran. The truth is the law for stoning to death as punishment for adultery is taken from the Bible. It cannot be found in the Quran and does not form part of the Prophet's early teachings. The Bible states explicitly But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. This is also the Shariah Law of the Muslims today. "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. Hence the law of stoning people to death is Biblical which has been accepted by the Muslims who came after the Prophet as evidence of a great tolerance in Islam for absorbing and upholding Biblical teachings. The Christian West should not hold the Muslim ummah in disgust for upholding Biblical laws. "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. This is Biblical too. The Shariah Laws of Islam come from the Bible. What does the Quran say ? The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. Indeed the Quran prescribes a punishment for adultery. But the punishment meted out is a scourge of 100 lashes. The Quran remains silent on the mode and intensity and leaves it to the good judgement of the future generations of mankind. SHARIAH LAW FROM THE BIBLE - THE PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY The United Nations Charter on Human Rights guarantees the freedom of religion. This right is also guaranteed in the Quran. God and the Prophet guarantee all humans that they have the right to believe or disbelieve as they choose. No man has the right to deny anyone his right to freedom of religion. But the human will be held accountable for whatever he chooses to believe. The Biblical teachings however say that anyone who blasphemes or becomes an apostate from his faith must be punished with death. The following is clear from the Bible Leviticus 2416 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, all the congregation shall certainly stone him as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name , shall be put to death. Included among those who must be put to death are those who bring teachings contrary to the accepted faith or who promote changing the religion. This would include the deviants. The Bible punishes them with death as follows Deuteronomy 135 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. Deuteronomy 136 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Deuteronomy 137 , of the gods of the people which round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the end of the earth even unto the end of the earth; Deuteronomy 138 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him Deuteronomy 139 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 1310 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Again it is the great tolerance and flexible nature of Islam today that these Biblical teachings have been absorbed and are practised as part of the Islamic Shariah Law. In the Shariah Law of Islam, any Muslim who changes his religion, believes in other religions or even practises a faith different from the mainstream can be put to death. Under the Shariah Law anyone who changes his religion must be put to death. Although this is not part of the Prophet's teachings in the Quran, present day Muslims have absorbed such teachings from the Christian Bible to show their proximity to the Christian faith. Hence there should not be a cause for difference between Islam and the Christian West. We have much in common with each other. The Prophet no doubt taught us in the Quran that anyone has the freedom to believe or disbelieve as they choose. The Quran is very clear. Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path. Belief followed by disbelief followed by belief and then again followed by disbelief and further disbelief is a question of choice. God will decide what best to do with the individual and his choice of belief. There is no earthly punishmnet prescribed in the Quran for those who belief or disbelief. . The list is very long. I will not belabour you and take up too much of your valuable time. Just to give you a concise picture I will list some other beliefs that the Muslims practise today which are not found in the Quran but which are taken from the Christian Bible. Unfortunately because of the ignorance of the general ummah as well as the ordinary Christian people, these beliefs are manipulated by some clever people as excuses to create a rift between the West and Islam. 5. THE TALIBAN'S DESTRUCTION OF STATUES IN BAMIYAN We all recall the huge hue and cry when the Taliban destroyed priceless ancient treasures in Bamiyan. Under the guise of religion, the Taliban insisted correctly that the statues of the Buddha were idols and had to be destroyed. The Taliban based their actions on Islamic beliefs that have actually been absorbed from the Christian Bible. The Prophet never taught Muslims in the Quran that statues must be destroyed. But it is Biblical teaching that graven images must be destroyed. Deuteronomy 27 15 "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol-a thing detestable to the LORD , the work of the craftsman's hands-and sets it up in secret." Deuteronomy 4 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. The Muslims have absorbed these Biblical teachings which forbid the making of graven images from stone carvings and other forms. Again this reflects the immense capacity of Islam to tolerate and learn from the Christian Bible. The Quran does not say anywhere that statues or graven images are forbidden or that they must be destroyed. The Christian West has to take account of these truths and give the due credit to Islam for giving fresh life to the Biblical teachings. Islam's proximity to the Bible is much deeper than what the Christian West would like to acknowledge. 6. THE WEARING OF BEARDS FOR MEN The Christian West has also been disturbed by the Islamic practise where men wear beards. After the event of the September 11th, many Muslim men with beards have been the subject of suspicion and summary searches by police and other law enforcement agencies throughout the West. These are again not the teachings of the Prophet or the Quran. Instead the wearing of beards for men is taken again from the Christian Bible. Islam has deemed it fit that Muslim men should uphold this religious practise from the Bible. The Christian Bible makes it clear. Leviticus 19 27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 21 5 " 'Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. 2 Samuel 10 5 When David was told about this, he sent messengers to meet the men, for they were greatly humiliated. The king said, "Stay at Jericho till your beards have grown, and then come back." Hence the Taliban is not creating anything new when they insisted that men should wear beards. Such teachings are found in the Christian Bible. No doubt the Prophet and the Quran make no mention about the wearing of beards for men but it is the evolution of Islam after the Prophet that attests to Islam's greatness as a religion that has absorbed much from its neighbours, particularly the Christian Bible and the Jewish scriptures. Muslim scholars over time have themselves debated if the Muslims should continue to uphold these Biblical teachings which are not found in the own Quran. Indeed they are bound by the restrictions in the Quran which are equally clear And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper. The Muslims are told in the Quran that they should not follow the path of the Christians and the Jews. Despite such warning, it is to their great risk and adventurous tolerance that the Muslim scholars have decided to still accept and practise the teachings of the Christian Bible. The Quran is explicit that the Muslims should not obey the Christians or the Jews O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book, they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed. But how can you disbelieve while it is you to whom the communications of Allah are The risk in following the Christian Bible is compounded in the following teaching of the Quran A party of the followers of the Book desire that they should lead you astray, and they lead not astray but themselves, and they do not perceive. O followers of the Book! Why do you disbelieve in the communications of Allah while you witness (them)? O followers of the Book! Why do you confound the truth with the falsehood and hide the truth while you know? Despite such warnings, the Muslim scholars, in the interests of preserving harmony and peace with their Christian brothers and sisters have decided that the Biblical teachings are acceptable and should be closely upheld by good Muslims. Therefore the fear by the Christian West is misplaced and unfounded. In conclusion and as the Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which represents all the Muslim nations in the world, I would like to state that both Muslims and the Christian West should study and take cognisance of the vast area of similarity between the Muslim beliefs and Christian Biblical teachings. In this age of high tensions, paranoia and fear of everything that is deemed Islamic, the Christian West should appreciate the fact that since a thousand years ago, the Muslim scholars have already shown a great tolerance towards Christianity by learning and absorbing many parts of the Christian Bible into their Islamic faith. All the things that I have listed above that are taken from the Christian Bible cannot be found in the Muslim's own Quran. Even though the Quran has explicitly forbidden the Muslims from following anything in the Christian Bible the reality of everyday living and practical contacts with the Christians and the Jews have necessitated that Islam be flexible towards Biblical teachings. This flexibility is evident in Islam until today. In this light I hope that all the Muslims all over the world will make the effort to show their Christian brothers the great amount of our Islamic faith that is drawn from the Christian Bible. At the same time I urge the Christian West too as well as the Jews to give Islam the due credit for basing much of its practical faith in their Christian Bible and Jewish scriptures. We have more that is common between us than actually divides us. Thank you and wa salaama (Author Unknown)

Salaam all So what do most of you hear do for Ramadan? I mean are some here gonna go to a Mosq, do special prayers just for Ramadan, sing songs just for RAMADAN? PEACE

http//debate.org.uk/topics/history/uncomfrt.htm B2i. Qibla Qibla was canonized (finalized) in the Qur'an in 624 towards Mecca (S.2144, 149-150) Yet, Mosques uncovered between 650-705 do not have Qiblas facing Mecca. Wasit in Iraq. Qibla points North instead of s.w. Baladhuri stated that the Qibla in the first Kufan mosque (Iraq) faced West. Fustat in Egypt. The Qibla points North-East towards Jerusalem instead of s.e. Jacob of Odessa (Christian bishop) in 705 said Egyptian Muslims (Haggarenes) prayed towards Jerusalem, like Christians. (Cook) Earliest evidence for direction of prayer (thus their sanctuary) points much further north than Mecca. In fact no mosques have been found from this period which face towards Mecca. Some Jordanian mosques also face north, while there are certain North African mosques (from much later) which face south. "They didn't know the direction." Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers! What is happening here? Why are the prayers not towards Mecca? Possible reasons There was still a good relationship with Jews, so no need to change the Qibla Mecca was not yet well-known. B2iii Mecca Was not yet significant at that time Muslims say "Mecca is the centre of Islam, and the center of history" "The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples" (S.396) Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka'bah there. Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Ka'bah there. Thus this is the 1st and most important city in the world! Muslims say "Mecca was the center of the trading routes." Yet, Mecca was not on the trading route. It's in a valley, no water, not like Taif, 100 miles away (cheaper to ship 1,250 miles than go by camel 50 miles). Yet, except for a city called "Makoraba" by geographer Ptolomy= 2nd century, no mention of Mecca, or Ka'bah in any document, until late 7th century (Cook-74). Why? So, what is going on here? If Mecca was not the center of the Muslim world, then what was? The answer is simple. It seems that Jerusalem and not Mecca was the center and sanctuary of the Haggarenes, or Maghrebites upto 700 A.D. Take for instance another fact B2vii Prayer Umar II (717-720), the pious caliph, didn't know about details of the prayer. Qur'an in Suras 11114; 1778-79; 20130; 3017-18 speaks only of 3 prayers. Where do we get 5 prayers? From the Hadith, compiled 200-250 years later (Zoroastrians). Archaeology shows us that much of what the Qur'an maintains does not coincide with the data which we posess 1.The Qibla was not fixed until the next century 2.the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640 3.Mecca was unknown until the end of the 7th century 4.the earliest Qur'anic writings do not coincide with the Qur'an which we 5.have today 6.the number of prayers as well as the Hajj was not formalized until after 717 7.Muhammad was not known as a prophet, nor was the word "Muslim" used until the end of the 7th century. These are what archaeology and external sources say! Of course I don't agree with all of it, but how blind "muslims" are.