Take terrorism, one example among the methods used in that struggle. We know that leftist tradition condemns terrorism and political assassination. When the colonized uses them, the leftist colonizer becomes unbearably embarrassed. He makes an effort to separate them from the colonized's voluntary action; to make an epiphenomenon out of his struggle. They are spontaneous outbursts of masses too long oppressed, or better yet, acts by unstable, untrustworthy elements which the leader of the movement has difficulty in controlling. Even in Europe, very few people admitted that the oppression of the colonized was so great, the disproportion of forces so overwhelming, that they had reached the point, whether morally correct or not, of using violent means voluntarily. The leftist colonizer tried in vain to explain actions which seemed incomprehensible, shocking and politically absurd. For example, the death of children and persons outside of the struggle, or even of colonized persons who, without being basically opposed, disapproved of some small aspect of the undertaking. At first he was so disconcerted that the best he could do was to deny such actions; for they would fit nowhere in his view of the problem. That it could be the cruelty of oppression which explained the blind fury of the reaction hardly seemed to be an argument to him; he can't approve acts of the colonized which he condemns in the colonizers because these are exactly why he condemns colonization.Then, after having suspected the information to be false, he says, as a last resort, that such deeds are errors, that is, they should not belong to the essence of the movement. He bravely asserts that the leaders certainly disapprove of them. A newspaper-man who always supported the cause of the colonized, weary of waiting for censure which was not forthcoming, finally called on certain leaders to take a public stand against the outrages, Of course, received no reply; he did not have the additional naïveté to insist.

والخوف من الله تعالى يكون محموداً ، ويكون غير محمود . فالمحمود ما كانت غايته أن يحول بينك وبين معصية الله بحيث يحملك على فعل الواجبات وترك المحرمات ، فإذا حصلت هذه الغاية سكن القلب واطمأن وغلب عليه الفرح بنعمة الله ، والرجاء لثوابه . وغير المحمود ما يحمل العبد على اليأس من روح الله والقنوط وحينئذ يتحسر العبد وينكمش وربما يتمادى في المعصية لقوة يأسه

So I close this long reflection on what I hope is a not-too-quaveringly semi-Semitic note. When I am at home, I will only enter a synagogue for the bar or bat mitzvah of a friend's child, or in order to have a debate with the faithful. (When I was to be wed, I chose a rabbi named Robert Goldburg, an Einsteinian and a Shakespearean and a Spinozist, who had married Arthur Miller to Marilyn Monroe and had a copy of Marilyn’s conversion certificate. He conducted the ceremony in Victor and Annie Navasky's front room, with David Rieff and Steve Wasserman as my best of men.) I wanted to do something to acknowledge, and to knit up, the broken continuity between me and my German-Polish forebears. When I am traveling, I will stop at the shul if it is in a country where Jews are under threat, or dying out, or were once persecuted. This has taken me down queer and sad little side streets in Morocco and Tunisia and Eritrea and India, and in Damascus and Budapest and Prague and Istanbul, more than once to temples that have recently been desecrated by the new breed of racist Islamic gangster. (I have also had quite serious discussions, with Iraqi Kurdish friends, about the possibility of Jews genuinely returning in friendship to the places in northern Iraq from which they were once expelled.) I hate the idea that the dispossession of one people should be held hostage to the victimhood of another, as it is in the Middle East and as it was in Eastern Europe. But I find myself somehow assuming that Jewishness and 'normality' are in some profound way noncompatible. The most gracious thing said to me when I discovered my family secret was by Martin, who after a long evening of ironic reflection said quite simply: 'Hitch, I find that I am a little envious of you.' I choose to think that this proved, once again, his appreciation for the nuances of risk, uncertainty, ambivalence, and ambiguity. These happen to be the very things that 'security' and 'normality,' rather like the fantasy of salvation, cannot purchase.

والعبادةُ أن تعرف اللهَ أولاً ، وأن تطيعه ثانياً ، وأن تسعدَ بقُربِه ثالثاً ، وبعبارة أخرى : في الإسلامِ كلّيّاتٌ ثلاثٌ؛ كلّيةٌ معرفيّةٌ ، وكلّيةٌ سلوكيّةٌ ، وكلّيةٌ جماليةٌ.الكلية السلوكية هي الأصل والكليةُ المعرفية سبب الكليةِ السلوكيةِ ، والكليةُ الجماليةُ نتيجةُ الكلية السلوكيةِ ، تتعرّفُ إلى الله ، فتُطيعه ، فتسعد بقُربه في الدنيا والآخرةِ .

قانون الشريعة: بعدما قيل لهم أن الشريعة تجسد المثل الاسلامية العلياافترض غالبية المسلمين أن الشريعة مقدسة...يكتب ضياء الدين ساردار "ان القسم الأعظم من الشريعة ما هو الا الرأي الفقهي لفقهاء كلاسيكيين هذا هو السبب في أنه كلما فرضت الشريعة خارج سياق الزمن الذي وضعت فيه تكتسب المجتمعات الاسلامية احساسا قروسطيا.هذا هو ما نشهده في السعودية، ايران، السودان، افغانستان

Terkadang kelompok yang anti madzhab menggugat kita dengan pendapat sang pendiri madzhab atau para ulama dalam madzhab yang kita ikuti, seakan-akan mereka lebih konsisten dari kita dalam bermadzhab. Kaum Wahhabi ketika menggugat kita agar meninggalkan tahlilan dan selamatan tujuh hari selalu beralasan dengan pendapat al-Imam as-Syafi'i yang mengatakan bahawa hadiah pahala bacaan al-Qur'an tidak akan sampai kepada mayit, atau pendapat kitab I'anah al-Thalibin yang melarang acara selamatan tahlilan selama tujuh hari. Padahal selain al-Imam as-Syafi'i menyatakan sampai.Kita kadang menjadi bingung menyikapi mereka. Terkadang mereka menggugat kita karena bermadzhab, yang mereka anggap telah meninggalkan al-Qur'an dan Sunnah. Dan terkadang mereka menggugat kita dengan pendapat imam madzhab dan apra ulama madzhab. Padahal mereka sering menyuarakan anti madzhab.Pada dasarnya kelompok anti madzhab itu bermadzhab. Hanay saja madzhab mereka berbeda dengan madzhab mayoritas kaum Muslimin. Ketika mereka menyuarakan anti tawassul, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikut pendapat Ibn Taimiyah dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab al-Najdi. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang bertawassul, mengikuti Rasulullah SAW, para sahabat, seluruh ulama salaf dan ahli hadits.Ketika mereka menyuarakan shalat tarawih 11 raka'at, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikut pendapat Nashiruddin al-Albani, seorang tukang jam yang beralih profesi menjadi muhaddits tanpa bimbingan seorang guru, dengan belajar secara otodidak di perpustakaan. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang tarawih 23 raka'at, mengikuti Sayidina Umar, para sahabat dan seluruh ulama salaf yang saleh yang tidak diragukan keilmuannya.Ketika mereka menyuarakan anti madzhab, maka sebenarnya mereka mengikut Rasyid Ridha, Muhammad Abduh dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang bermadzhab, mengikuti ulama salaf dan seluruh ahli hadits. Demikian pula ketika mereka menyuarakan anti bid'ah hasanah, makas ebenarnya mereka mengikuti madzhab Rasyid Ridha dan Ibn Abdil Wahhab al-Najid. Sedangkan kaum Muslimin yang berpendapat adanya bid'ah hasanah, mengikuti Rasulullah SAW, Khulafaur Rasyidin, para sahabat, ulama salaf dan hali hadits.

_ نحن اذا نعيش في عصر التآمر الكبير ,, و تلك أدواته .. و لا يملك المثقف الا أن يقف من تلك الاحداث وقفة المرابطين و حراس الثغور .. يرصد الظواهر كما يرصد الفلكي جنبات السماء ليعلم متى يظهر القمر الوليد , و متى تكسف الشمس و متى تنفجر النجوم .. انه عين كاشفة دورها كشف تلك الفتن الثعبانية و تعطيل ادواتها و فضح وسائلها و حل هذا التريكو المتداخل من التدين المفتعل و الايمان الكاذب و الشعارات السوقية .

إن الثورة على الأوضاع النسوية التقليدية آتية لا محالة، وليحذر الاسلاميون من أن يوقعهم الفزع من الغزو الحضاري الغربي، والتفسخ الجنسي المقتحم في خطأ المحاولة لحفظ القديم وترميمه بحسبانه أخف شررًا وضررًا، لأن المحافظة جهد يائس لا يجدي، والأوفق بالاسلاميين أن يقودوا هم النهضة بالمرأة من وحل الأوضاع التقليدية لئلا يتركوا المجتمع نهبا لكل داعية غربي النزعة يضل به عن سواء السبيل

Every Woman is UniqueAsalamu Alaikum.Every woman is unique for she bears the complete genes and background of her family. She is defined by her roots if she would live her life within the confines of her family values.However, she can be more than that if she dares her limitations and explores her potentials.Every woman loves differently. There are women who master the art of materialism, hence, they define love as a source of material and financial fulfillment using such belief as their motivation to marriage.There are women whose only life is to nod, follow and submit even if silently they do not like what they do.She was raised to believe that she can be nothing without her man. That she is a failure if she is incapable of marriage.Then there are women of great social status and ancestry, well-educated and proud. To them, they set standards, dividing men according to their qualities and would not accept a man who falls below it. This is the type that men avoid because they often bring pain to those they reject.Then there is one type of woman, whose level I belong. She looks beyond the superficial world and desires to connect with the soul.This type finds it hard to find true love for most value physical beauty and nothing more. While physical attraction is the first step to great connection, later on, she wants more depth and loyalty. Purity that is hard to attain for most men evolve in either surrendering to temptation or just playing with it. Rare is the man who shuns temptation and honor his commitment.That is why, I do not seek. I leave it all to Allah and ask His help to send me the man who meets me soulfully, and who would appreciate me beyond what he sees.If there is none, I would be happy to face my fate.I hope this will answer all questions to me.A princess by blood right like me can only go back to my ancestry as my source of inspiration and I cannot ask for the love that can master my heart if my fate is not for it.Love comes when it is ready and it must be the true love that DOES NOT only expect, command and criticize selfishly, but a love that is pure and UNCONDITIONAL.I would not settle for anything less.But certainly, as a Muslim, I should be led to the same faith because I was born and raised as a Muslim, and I would love to die in the arms of a pure Muslim.

Suppose that members of a religious movement, such as Christianity, maintain that the existence of some powerful god and its goals or laws can be known through their scriptures, their prophets, or some special revelation. Suppose further that the evidence that is available to support the reliability of those scriptures, prophets, or special revelations is weaker than that God is hypothetically capable of producing. That is, suppose that Christians maintain that Jesus was resurrected on the basis of the Gospels, or that God’s existence can be known through the Bible, or Muslims insist on the historical authenticity of the Koran. Could God, the almighty creator of the universe, have brought it about so that the evidence in favor of the resurrection, the Bible, or the Koran was better than we currently find it? I take it that the answer is obviously yes. Even if you think there is evidence that is sufficient to prove the resurrection, a reasonable person must also acknowledge that it could have been better. And there’s the problem. If the capacity of that god is greater than the effectiveness or quality of those scriptures, prophets, or special revelations, then the story they are telling contradicts itself. 'We know our god is real on the basis of evidence that is inadequate for our god.' Or, 'The grounds that lead us to believe in our god are inconsistent with the god we accept; nevertheless, we believe in this god that would have given us greater evidence if it had wished for us to believe in it.'Given the disparity between the gods that these religious movements portend and the grounds offered to justify them, the atheist is warranted in dismissing such claims. If the sort of divine being that they promote were real and if he had sought our believe on the basis of the evidence, the evidential situation would not resemble the one we are in. The story doesn’t make internal sense. A far better explanation is that their enthusiasm for believing in a god has led them to overstate what the evidence shows. And that same enthusiasm has made it difficult for them to see that an all powerful God would have the power to make his existence utterly obvious and undeniable. Since it’s not, the non-believer can’t possibly be faulted for failing to believe.

Man schreibt das Jahr 1000.Soeben hat in Bagdad der Buchhändler Ibn an-Nadim seinen „Katalog der Wissenschaften“ veröffentlicht. Das Werk enthält in zehn Bänden die Titel aller bisher in arabischer Sprache erschienenen Bücher aus Philosophie, Astronomie, Mathematik, Physik, Chemie, Medizin.Studierende aus allen Gegenden des Orients und selbst aus dem Okzident lockt der Ruf von Cordobas hohen Schulen und von seiner Bibliothek, deren halbe Million Bücher einer der gelehrtesten Männer seiner Zeit, der vor vierundzwanzig Jahren verstorbene Kalif al-Hakam II. durch Dutzende von Aufkäufern gesammelt und größtenteils mit seinen Randbemerkungen versehen hat.In Kairo betreuen mehrere hundert Bibliothekare in den beiden kalifischen Bibliotheken zusammen zwei Millionen zweihundert Bände; das entspricht dem Zwanzigfachen des Bestandes an Buchrollen der einstigen Bibliothek von Alexandrien.„Es ist notorisch, daß es in Rom niemand gibt, der so viel Bildung besitzt, daß er sich zum Türsteher eignet. Mit welcher Stirn kann der sich anmaßen zu lehren, der selbst nichts gelernt hat!“ stöhnt der Mann, der am besten wissen muß, Gerbert von Aurillac, der im letzten der tausend Jahre nach Christo – 999 – selber in Rom den Stuhl Petri besteigt.In diesem Jahr verfaßt Abulkasis das durch Jahrhunderte gültige Standardwerk der Chirugie, erörtert Albiruni, an universaler Geistigkeit der Aristoteles der Araber, die Drehung der Erde um die Sonne, entdeckt Alhazen die Gesetze des Sehens und experimentiert mit der camera obscura und mit sphärischen, zylindrischen und konischen Spiegeln und Linsen.In diesem Jahr, in dem die arabische Welt dem Scheitelpunkt ihres goldenen Zeitalters entgegeneilt, erwartet das Abendland erschreckt, geängstigt das Ende der Zeiten. Mit dem ekstatischen Ausruf: „Jetzt kommt Christus, mit Feuer das Weltall zu richten!“ pilgert der zwanzigjährige Kaiserjüngling Otto III. „wegen begangener Verbrechen der strengen Regel des heiligen Romualdus gehorchend mit nackten Füßen von der Stadt Rom zum Berge Garganus“.Und der junge Avicenna, eben zwanzigjährig wie er, beginnt die Welt mit seinem weithin strahlenden Ruhm zu erfüllen.

إن بلاغة القرآن هي بعض من إعجازه ، وهذه الحقيقة لا يمكن إدراكها ووعيها ، ومن ثم الإيمان بها إلا من قوم قد ارتقت بهم الحاسة الفنية إلى حيث يدركون ما في هذا الكتاب من أسرار الإعجاز وفنون البيان ، فالإيمان بالإعجاز القرآني مرهون بازدهار الحاسة الفنية لدى المسلم ، وبتحويل هذه الحاسة إلى قيمة ملحوظة في الحضارة الإسلامية ، ومن ثم فإن البداهه قاضية بأن يكون القرآن داعياً يزكي تنمية الحاسة الفنية لدى المسلمين !

The differences between religions are reflected very clearly in the different forms of sacred art: compared with Gothic art, above all in its “flamboyant” style, Islamic art is contemplative rather than volitive: it is “intellectual” and not “dramatic”, and it opposes the cold beauty of geometrical design to the mystical heroism of cathedrals. Islam is the perspective of “omnipresence” (“God is everywhere”), which coincides with that of “simultaneity” (“Truth has always been”); it aims at avoiding any “particularization” or “condensation”, any “unique fact” in time and space, although as a religion it necessarily includes an aspect of “unique fact”, without which it would be ineffective or even absurd. In other words Islam aims at what is “everywhere center”, and this is why, symbolically speaking, it replaces the cross with the cube or the woven fabric: it “decentralizes” and “universalizes” to the greatest possible extent, in the realm of art as in that of doctrine; it is opposed to any individualist mode and hence to any “personalist” mysticism. To express ourselves in geometrical terms, we could say that a point which seeks to be unique, and which thus becomes an absolute center, appears to Islam—in art as in theology—as a usurpation of the divine absoluteness and therefore as an “association” (shirk); there is only one single center, God, whence the prohibition against “centralizing” images, especially statues; even the Prophet, the human center of the tradition, has no right to a “Christic uniqueness” and is “decentralized” by the series of other Prophets; the same is true of Islam—or the Koran—which is similarly integrated in a universal “fabric” and a cosmic “rhythm”, having been preceded by other religions—or other “Books”—which it merely restores. The Kaaba, center of the Muslim world, becomes space as soon as one is inside the building: the ritual direction of prayer is then projected toward the four cardinal points.If Christianity is like a central fire, Islam on the contrary resembles a blanket of snow, at once unifying and leveling and having its center everywhere.

و لكنا بحاجة الى كتيبة تجدد الدين و تقاتل خصومه بأسلحة العصر و ليسسبفتاوى ألف سنة مضت .. فالاسلام السياسي هو اسلام ينازع الاخرين سلطاتهم .. و هو بطبيعته يرد أرضا يقف عليها غيره .. و هو لا يريد أن يحكم بل يريد ان يحرر أرضه المغتصبة .. و يريد أن يحرر عقولا قام الاخرون بغسلها و تغريبها .. و يريد أن يسترد اسرته و بيته .. بالكلمة الطيبة و بالحجة و البينة .. وليس بتفجير الطائرات و خطف الرهائن ..بالسياسة لا بالحروب .. بالحوار الحضاري لا بالاشتباك العسكري

In times of strife, taliban have usually mobilized in defense of tradition. British documents from as early as 1901 decry taliban opposition to colonialism in present-day Pakistan. However, as with so much else, it was the Soviet invasion and the US response that sent the transformative shock. In the 1980s, as guns and money coursed through the ranks of the Kandahar mujahedeen, squabbling over resources grew so frequent that many increasingly turned to religious law to settle their disputes. Small, informal bands of taliban, who were also battling against the Russians, established religious courts that heard cases from feuding fighters from across the south. Seemingly impervious to the lure of foreign riches, the taliban courts were in many eyes the last refuge of tradition in a world in upheaval....Thousands of talibs rallied to the cause, and an informal, centuries-old phenomenon of the Pashtun countryside morphed into a formal political and military movement, the Taliban. As a group of judges and legal-minded students, the Taliban applied themselves to the problem of anarchy with an unforgiving platform of law and order. The mujahedeen had lost their way, abandoned their religious principles, and dragged society into a lawless pit. So unlike most revolutionary movements, Islamic or otherwise, the Taliban did not seek to overthrow an existing state and substitute it with one to their liking. Rather, they sought to build a new state where none existed. This called for “eliminating the arbitrary rule of the gun and replacing it with the rule of law—and for countryside judges who had arisen as an alternative to a broken tribal system, this could only mean religious law.Jurisprudence is thus part of the Taliban’s DNA, but its single-minded pursuit was carried out to the exclusion of all other aspects of basic governance. It was an approach that flirted dangerously with the wrong kind of innovation: in the countryside, the choice was traditionally yours whether to seek justice in religious or in tribal courts, yet now the Taliban mandated religious law as the compulsory law of the land. It is true that, given the nature of the civil war, any law was better than none at all—but as soon as things settled down, fresh problems arose. The Taliban’s jurisprudence was syncretic, mixing elements from disparate schools of Islam along with heavy doses of traditional countryside Pashtun practice that had little to do with religion. As a result, once the Taliban marched beyond the rural Pashtun belt and into cities like Kabul or the ethnic minority regions of northern Afghanistan, they encountered a resentment that rapidly bred opposition.