Islamic World

After recent Egyptian population uprising against tyranny, the president of Egypt (Hosni Mubarak) was sitting and was very sad and depressed. His aid was serving him Moroccan coffee . Hosni Mubarak had a lot on his mind so he turns to his aid and asks him: “Who do you think is better, Sadat or Me (referring to himself).” His aid replies by saying : “Mr President! You are better because Sadat was scared and afraid of Israel.” Mubarak’s mood changes and he feels a bit happy now. So He asks his aid again: “Who do you think is better, Gamal Abd Al-Naasir or Me (again referring to himself).” His aid replies and says: “You are the better than Abd Al-Naasir Mr President, because Abd Al-Naasir was afraid of America” President Mubarak feels proud and is getting more excited. So he asks his aid again: “Who do you think is better, Umar bin Al-Khatab or Me” His aid replies: “MR PRESIDENT! YOU ARE BETTER BECAUSE UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB WAS AFRAID OF ALLAH!” Courtesy: TheIslamicStandard.wordpress.com

A pastor from a small non-denominational Church in Florida has received unprecedented world wide coverage for his plan to burn a few copies of the Quran.

Whether he decides to carry out this stunt or not the fact that a person who claims to be a man of God, wants to burn a sacred scripture of another faith is despicable.

Mr. Terry Jones, the pastor of this church believes that the Quran is from Devil and hence the devil should be destroyed. Little does he know that he is desecrating and lighting fire and the spirit and essence of the great teachers of humanity, Jesus, Moses and all the other prophets in this process.

This Florida church has only fifty members yet the impact they have created all over the world is immense. Even though we wish our "free press" had not given so much attention to this insignificant group but let this be a teaching moment.

This small band of radical Christians claim that they are the true Christians the same way as those who destroyed the Twin Towers in 2001 claimed that they were true Muslims.

The Muslim community all over the world is outraged at this attempt of burning the Quran. The best way to respond to such an act would have been to ignore it, but it is too late for that and now the leaders from the USA to Indonesia have been forced to jump in to this circus.

What is significant in this situation is that a large number of faith leaders from all traditions and government officials in the USA have voiced an emphatic condemnation of burning a sacred text.

Muslims must appreciate those religious and government leaders who have come forward to condemn Terry Jones. Muslims should not fall in the trap most Islamophobes have fallen in to by equating a faith with the deviation of a few.

Muslims must remember that Islam demands Muslims to show respect to people of all faiths and promotes a pluralism that is not defined by the politics of the day.

Anyone who wants to burn the Quran can not burn the message of Quran. The Quran is preserved in the hearts and minds of people and there are millions of Muslims all over the world who have memorized the Quran.

Muslims must maintain their high moral grounds and when others talk about burning the Quran, we must spend time memorizing a few more verses of the Quran and filling our more important obligation to read and understand the Quran.

Dr Aslam Abdullah is director of the Islamic Society of Nevada, Vice president of the Muslim Council of America (MCA) and the President elect of the Nevada Interfaith Council. He has authored several books and published more than 400 papers on issues related with Islam and contemporary issues. He has taught at colleges in India as well as in the US.

A change is definitely taking place !!!!!
Very interesting! If every picture is worth a thousand words, these two are worth two MILLION words!!

This is Karachi in Pakistan ...

And this is Dewsbury in the United Kingdom ...

Daniel Streich, Anti-Minaret-Initiative, a member of SVP (Swiss People's Party) politician, formerly a devout Christian declare his conversion to Islam. "Islam offers me logical answers to important life questions, which, in the end, I never found in Christianity," says Streich.

He was a true SVPer and Christian who read the Bible and regularly went to Church now reads the Quran, prays five times a day and goes to a mosque.

RENOWNED Swiss politician Daniel Streich, who rose to fame for his campaign against minarets of mosques, has embraced Islam.

A member of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and a well-known politician, Daniel Streich was the first man who had launched a drive for imposition of ban on mosques minarets, and to lock the mosques in Switzerland. The proclamation of Streich’s conversion to Islam has created furore in Swiss politics, besides causing a tremor for those who supported ban on construction of mosques minarets.

Streich propagated his anti-Islamic movement far and wide in the country, sowed seeds of indignation and scorn for Islam among the people, and paved way for public opinion against pulpits and minarets of mosques.

But now Streich has become a soldier of Islam. His anti-Islam thoughts finally brought him so close to this religion that he embraced Islam. He is ashamed of his doings now and desires to construct the most beautiful mosque of Europe in Switzerland.

The most interesting thing in this regard is that at present there are four mosques in Switzerland and Streich wants to lay the foundation for the fifth one. He wishes to seek absolution of his sin of proliferating venom against Islam. He is thinking of a movement contrary to his previous one to promote religious tolerance and peaceful cooperative living, in spite of the fact that ban on mosques minarets has gained a legal status.

This is the greatest quality of Islam that it comes up with even greater vigour, when it is faced with confrontation.
Abdul Majeed Aldai, the president of OPI, an NGO, working for the welfare of Muslims, says that Europeans have a great desire to know about Islam. Some of them want to know about the relationship between Islam and terrorism; same was the case with Streich.

During his confrontation, Streich studied the Holy Quran and started understanding Islam.

He wished to be hard to Islam, but the outcome was otherwise. Aldai further says.

Recently the question of ban on minarets was put to voting in Switzerland, wherein the Swiss nationals gave the issue a legal status.

Daniel Streich

Pain is not always a negative force; it is not something that one should always hate. At times, a person may benefit from the feeling of pain.

One might remember that, at times of great pain, one sincerely supplicated and remembered Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala. When a student studies hard, he or she often feels the pangs of heavy burden — sometimes perhaps the burden of monotony. But this student will eventually finish this stage of life and perhaps become a scholar.

Aches, pangs of passion, poverty, scorn of others, frustration and anger at injustices, and other feelings cause poets to write flowing and captivating verses. This is because poets feel the pain in the heart, nerves, and blood. As a result, they become able to infuse the same emotions, through poems, into the hearts of others. Many are the painful experiences the best writers had undergone. Those experiences inspired brilliant works that many people today continue to enjoy and benefit from.

A person who grew up in a life of comfort and repose and who was not stung by hardships might be an unproductive, lazy, and lethargic individual. Likewise, the poets who knew no pain and who never tasted a bitter disappointment will invariably produce heaps upon heaps of cheap words. This is because their words pour forth from their tongues and not from their feelings or emotions. Although they may comprehend what they have written, their hearts and bodies do not feel the experience.

More worthy and relevant to the aforementioned examples are the lives of the Companions of the Prophet sall Allaah`alayhi wasallam. They lived during the period of revelation and took part in the most important religious revolution the humankind has ever seen. Indeed, they had greater faith, nobler hearts, sincerer tongues, and deeper knowledge than those who came after them.

They lived through pain and suffering, and both of these are necessary for great revolutions. They felt the pains of hunger, poverty, rejection, abuse, banishment from home and homeland, and abandonment of all pleasures. They boldly endured the pains of wounds and even torture and death. They were in truth chosen people — the elite of humankind. They were models of purity, nobleness, and sacrifice. A confirmation of this meaning is related in the Qur'aan concerning the people of Madeenah and those around them of the dwellers of the desert as follows:

[This is because there afflicts them neither thirst nor fatigue nor hunger in Allaah's way, nor do they tread a path that enrages the unbelievers, nor do they gain from the enemy a gain but a good work is written down to them on account of it; surely Allaah does not waste the reward of the doers of good.] (At-Tawbah 9:120)

There are many in the history who have produced their greatest works out of the pain and the suffering they experienced. An example is the Arab poet known as Al-Mutanabbi. When he was afflicted with a severe fever, he wrote some of his best poems. So, one should not become excessively anxious and fearful of any potential pain or suffering. It may well be that through pain and suffering one will become stronger and more creative. Furthermore, a person who lives with a burning, yet passionate, heart is purer and nobler than a person who lives with a cold heart and a shortsighted outlook. Almighty Allaah says,

[But Allaah did not like their going forth, so He withheld them, and it was said (to them), "Hold back with those who hold back."] (At-Tawbah 9:46)

As the verse tells, those who lagged behind and did not take part in the battle and go through the accompanying hardships were not loved by Almighty Allaah.

The words of a passionate sermon can reach the innermost depth of the heart and penetrate the deepest part of the soul, because the one who gives such sermons has experienced pain and suffering.

I have read many books of poetry and others filled with sermons. Many of these were passionless and did not seem to shake a hair on the body of the reader. Perhaps that is because the poets or the orators did not truly feel what they expressed. Hence, their works were cold like blocks of ice.

If one wishes to affect others, whether with speech, poetry, or even actions, one must first feel the passion inside. One must be moved by the meanings of what he or she is trying to convey. Then, and only then, one will come to realize that he or she can have an impact on others.

Editor's note: It goes without saying that the Islamic Sharee`ah urges Muslims not to expose themselves to any hardship or pain for no lofty purpose. However, when a Muslim inescapably faces such difficult moments for the sake of Allaah, it is a different story. In such a case, he or she should make best use of this feeling of his or hers. This believer should turn the pain into a force of creativity, thoughtfulness and giving. He or she is to be sure that those who feel the greatest pain are usually the most tenderhearted.

Muslims account for five per cent of Switzerland's population of 7.5 million people [EPA] Switzerland is facing international criticism and charges of intolerance following a shock referendum vote backing a constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets. The Vatican joined the expressions of dismay after Sunday's vote saying that it oppressed religious freedom, as the Swiss government moved to assure Muslims it was not a rejection of their religion. The imam of Switzerland's biggest mosque, in Geneva, meanwhile called on the Muslim world to "respect, without accepting" the outcome and to avoid cutting off ties with Switzerland. Youssef Ibram in an interview with AFP sharply criticised Swiss authorities for not intervening more forcefully in defence of religious freedom before the referendum got off the ground. Muslims account for about five per cent of Switzerland's population of 7.5 million people, and form the third-largest religious group after the dominant Roman Catholic and Protestant communities. Freedom of worship is one of the cornerstones of Switzerland's founding constitution. Condemnation Criticisms also came from across the Muslim world, with Pakistani religious groups condemning it as "extreme Islamophobia". IN DEPTH Swiss brace for minaret backlash Religious leaders in Indonesia, the world's biggest Muslim-majority country, condemned the vote as a manifestation of religious "hatred" but urged a restrained response. "This is the hatred of Swiss people against Muslim communities," said Maskuri Abdillah, head of Nahdlatul Ulama which has 40 million members. "They don't want to see a Muslim presence in their country and this intense dislike has made them intolerant," he told AFP. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, called the ban an "example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values". The Swiss People's Party (SVP) had forced a referendum on the issue after it collected 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters. Some 57 per cent voted to ban the further construction of minarets - towers attached to mosques used to put out the Muslim call to prayer. The result now paves the way for a constitutional amendment to be made. Anti-immigrant sentiments The result also flew in the face of opinion polls that had predicted a 'no' vote and surprised government ministers who had opposed the ban alongside the bulk of Switzerland's political and religious establishment. FROM THE BLOGS A shocking result By Alan Fisher in The Europe Blog Other European anti-immigrant parties have sought to capitalise on the result, but it was largely condemned elsewhere in Europe. Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister whose country holds the European Union presidency, called the vote "an expression of quite a bit of prejudice and maybe even fear" and "a negative signal in every way". His French counterpart Bernard Kouchner castigated the referendum saysing he was "scandalised" by the vote which he said amounted to "oppressing a religion". "I hope that the Swiss will go back on this decision rather quickly," he told France's RTL radio. "It is an expression of intolerance, and I detest intolerance." The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) warned the vote had the potential "to create tensions and generate a climate of intolerance against Muslims". Treaty violations On Monday Europe's top human-rights watchdog said possible violation of fundamental liberties arising from the Swiss ban on minarets could see the heavily-criticised vote overturned. Thorbjorn Jagland, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, said the issue raised concerns of whether "fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes". "[The ban] raises concerns as to whether fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes" Thorbjorn Jagland, secretary-general, Council of Europe In a statement Jagland suggested that a case may be made to seek a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights condemning Switzerland for violating freedom of expression, freedom of religion and prohibition of discrimination. A UN human rights expert also warned that the vote restricted religious freedom and violated Switzerland's international treaty obligations. Asma Jahangir, the UN special investigator on religious freedom, said the ban marked "clear discrimination" against Switzerland's Muslim community and urged the government to take the necessary measures to fully protect their religious freedom. "As also stated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee a month ago, such a ban is contrary to Switzerland's obligations under international human rights law," she said in a statement released by the UN. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss justice minister, said the ban would come into force immediately, but noted the possibility that the court could strike down the vote. "The ban contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights," Zurich daily Blick quoted Widmer-Schlumpf as saying, referring to the 1950 treaty outlining the basic rights of member states. Commenting on the vote, Daniel Warner, a Swiss-American political scientist at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, said wealthy Arab tourists might think twice now about spending their money in Geneva and other Swiss cities. He added that Switzerland's efforts to mediate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a neutral country could also suffer. Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/200912142216681985.html

[1]:THE OBLIGATION TO UNIFY THE RANKS

Shaykh Ibn al-'Uthaymeen - hafidhahullaah - said:

"From the sincere advice which I hold to be necessary in the Religion to give to the youths, a word which I hope that Allaah - the Most Perfect, the Most High - will cause to be of benefit, and it is:That they should all be in conformity and harmony, so that they may become strong, and become an obstacle blocking the way of those who plot against Islaam and its people.

This is what Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - has enjoined upon us. He - the Most High - said:

"And hold fast altogether to the rope of Allaah and do not be divided. And remember the favour of Allaah upon you, in that you were once enemies to one another, but He joined your hearts together, so that by His Grace you became brothers." [Soorah Aal-'lmraan 3:103].

And Allaah the Blessed, the Most High - said:

"Let there arise from amongst you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. It is they who are the successful ones, And do not be like those who differed amongst themselves after the clear proofs had come to them; for them is a painful punishment." [Soorah Aal-'lmraan 3:104-105].

So Allaah ordered that they should all cling together to His rope and He forbade splitting, and in other Aayahs He forbade differing, and informed us that it is the cause of failure and the cause of decline of strength, and He ordered us to persevere patiently.

So Allaah - the Most High - said:

"And do not differ, lest you lose courage and your strength departs, and be patient. Indeed Allaah is with those who are patient." [Soorah al-Anfaal 8:46].

And as is known, the people of good who help the youths of the revival in their work - with what they are able from wealth, and so on - if they see them splitting in this way, then they will not be so eager to help and assist them. So I call all of our brothers to unite together, and to fear Allaah with regards to themselves and with regards to the Ummah (nation) of Islaam, and that they should not cover up this light which has appeared on the horizon; the call to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic ..."

Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) - rahimahullaah - said:
"Holding fast to the rope of Allaah altogether and not becoming divided is one of the greatest usool (fundamentals) of Islaam."

[2]:THE PROHIBITION OF SPLITTING
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan - hafidhahullaah - said: "Splitting up is not from the Religion, since the Religion commands us with unity and that we should be a single Jamaa'ah and a single Ummah upon the 'aqeedah (belief) of Tawheed (i.e. to single out Allaah alone for worship) and upon following the Messenger sallallaahu 'aloyhi wa sallam.

Allaah - the Most High - said:

"Indeed this Ummah of yours is a single Ummah and I am your Lord, so worship Me
alone." [Soorah al-Anbiyaa 21:92].

And Allaah - the Most High -said:

"And hold fast altogether to the rope of Allaah and do not become divided." [Soorah Aal-'lmaan 3:103]. And Allaah - the Most Perfect - said: "Indeed those who split-up their Religion and become sects, you have no part with them in the least. Their affair is with Allaah who will tell them what they used to do." [Soorah al-An'aam 6:159].

So this contains a severe warning against splitting and differing. Allaah - the Most High - said:

"And do not be like there who split-up and differed after the clear evidences came to them. For them is a tremendous punishment." [Soorah Aal-'lmraan 3:105].

So our Religion is the Religion of al-Jamaa'ah, and the Religion of agreement and unity. Splitting is not from the Religion, since the Religion orders that we are a single Jamaa'ah and the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam said: "The Believer to the Believer is like a building, one part supporting the other." And he sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam also said: "The example of the Believers with respect to their mutual love, mercy and affection is like the example of a single body."

And it is known that a building and a body are a single cohesive thing, not disunited and fragmented - since if a building splits then it will collapse; and likewise a body, if it splits, then life will be lost. Thus, there must be a unity and we must be a single Jamaa'ah whose foundation is Tawheed and whose methodology is the da'wah (call) of the Messenger sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam; and which proceeds upon the Religion of Islaam.

Allaah - the Most High - said:

"And this is My Straight Path, so follow it, and do not follow other paths that will separate you from His Path." [Soorah al-An'aam 6:153].

So these groups, and this splitting which is present today, is not approved of by Islaam. Rather, Islaam forbids it severely and commands uniting upon the 'aqeedah (belief) of Tawheed and upon the methodology of Islaam, a single Jamaa'ah and a single Ummah, just as our Lord - the Most Perfect, the Most High - ordered. And splitting and their being many (differing) groups and parties is from the plots of the devils - from the jinn and mankind against this Ummah. So the kuffaar (disbelievers) and the munaafiqs (hypocrites) have never ceased, since olden times, introducing their poison in order to split the Ummah. The jews said previously:

"And a party of the People of the Book say: Believe in the morning in that which is revealed to the Muslims, but reject it at the end of the day, so they turn back." [Soorah Aal-'Imraan 3:72]

Meaning: that the Muslims will leave their religion when they see you leaving it. And the Hypocrites said:

"Do not spend on those who are with Allaah's Messenger until they desert him." [Soorah al-Munaafiqoon 63:7]. "And as for those who erect a mosque by way of disbelief and seeking to harm and disunite the Believers ..." [Soorah at-Tawbah 9:107].

[3]: THE CONNECTION BETWEEN UNITY AND REFUTING FALSE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez bin Baaz - hafidhahullaah - said:

"There is no doubt that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to unify their ranks and to unite their word upon the truth and to co-operate in goodness and piety against the enemies of Islaam - as Allaah, the Most Perfect - ordered them with in His saying:

"And hold fast altogether to the rope of Allaah and do not become divided." [Soorah Aal-'lmraan 3:102].

And likewise, Allaah has warned the Muslims against splitting up, as occurs in His - the Most Perfect's - saying:

"And do not be like those who differed and split-up after the clear evidences came to them." [Soorah Aal-'lmraan 3:105].

However, the order to unify the Muslims and unite their word upon the truth and to hold fast to the rope of Allaah, does not mean that they should not censure wrong beliefs and practices - whether from the Soofees or other than them. Rather, what the order to hold fast to the Rope of Allaah necessitates is: To order the good; forbid the evil; to clarify the truth, with the clear Sharee'ah proofs, to whomsoever is misguided or has a mistaken opinion, until they unite upon the truth and turn away from that which opposes it. All of this is included in His -

the Most Perfect's - saying: "And help you one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and transgression." [Soorah al-Maa'idah 5:2].

And His - the Most Perfect's - saying:

"Let there arise from amongst you a group of people calling to all that is good, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, they are the ones who are successful." [Soorah Aal'Imraan 3:1 10].

And when the people of truth hold back from clarifying the mistakes of those who have erred or are mistaken, then they will not have achieved that which Allaah ordered them with, as regards calling to goodness, ordering the good and forbidding the evil. So the person in error will remain upon his error, and the one acting in opposition to the truth will remain upon his mistake. And this is contrary to what Allaah - the Most Perfect - prescribed, with regards to sincere advice, co-operation upon goodness, ordering the good and forbidding the evil - and Allaah alone is the One Who grants success."

Shaykhul-lslaam Ibn Taymiyyah - rahimahullaah - said: "Refuting ahlul-bida' (the innovators) is a Jihaad, to the extent that Yahyaa ibn Yahyaa (d.226H) said: "Defence of the Sunnah is more excellent than Jihaad in the path of Allaah."

Imaam al-Humaydee (d.218H) - rahimahullaoh - said: "By Allaah, that I fight against those who reject the hadeeth of Allaah's Messenger sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam is more beloved to me than fighting the unbelievers."9

Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim (d.751H)- rahimahullaah - said: "Jihaad with the clear proofs and the tongue; Comes before Jihaad with the sword and the spear."

Shaykhul-lslaam Ibn Taymiyyah - rahimahullaah - said: "When some people asked Ahmad bin Hanbal (d.241H) that they felt uneasy about [criticising people] by saying that such and such is this, and such and such is that, he replied: "lf I were to remain silent, how would the ignorant ones know the authentic [narrations] from the inauthentic?" Similarly, the innovators who introduce heretical writings which oppose the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, and those who innovate in matters of worship, then explaining their true condition and warning the Ummah against them is an obligation by the unanimous agreement of the Muslim Scholars. In fact, when Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked whether a person who fasted, prayed and secluded himself in the mosque for worship was dearer to him than a person who spoke out against ahlul-bid'ah (the innovators), he replied: "When he fasts and prays and secludes himself, then he does so for the benefit of his own self. However, when he speaks out against the innovators, he does so for the benefit of the Muslims in general, and this is more virtuous." So it is clear that opposing the Innovators is of general benefit to the Muslims and is considered one of the types of Jihaad in the path of Allaah. Since purifying the Religion of Allaah, and its minhaaj (methodology), its Shoree'ah, and defending it from their attacks and that of their enemies is a collective obligation - a fact which is agreed upon by the Scholars. For if Allaah did not raise up some people to repel the harms [caused by] others, then the Religion would become corrupted. Indeed, this type of corruption is even greater than the corruption resulting from the disbelievers conquering the Muslims. This is because when the disbelievers conquer the Muslims, they do not corrupt their hearts nor their Religion, except after some time. Whereas the innovators corrupt the hearts from the very outset."11

By Muntadhar Al-Zaidi
Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/75438.html

In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.
Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act. But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland's) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into neverending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night's sleep.

Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.

The opportunity came, and I took it.

I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after.

I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn't he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush.

And in regard to professionalism: The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism were to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.

I take this opportunity: If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I wish to apologize to you for any embarrassment I may have caused those establishments. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day.

History mentions many stories where professionalism was also compromised at the hands of American policymakers, whether in the assassination attempt against Fidel Castro by booby-trapping a TV camera that CIA agents posing as journalists from Cuban TV were carrying, or what they did in the Iraqi war by deceiving the general public about what was happening. And there are many other examples that I won't get into here.

But what I would like to call your attention to is that these suspicious agencies - the American intelligence and its other agencies and those that follow them - will not spare any effort to track me down (because I am) a rebel opposed to their occupation. They will try to kill me or neutralize me, and I call the attention of those who are close to me to the traps that these agencies will set up to capture or kill me in various ways, physically, socially or professionally.

And at the time that the Iraqi prime minister came out on satellite channels to say that he didn't sleep until he had checked in on my safety, and that I had found a bed and a blanket, even as he spoke I was being tortured with the most horrific methods: electric shocks, getting hit with cables, getting hit with metal rods, and all this in the backyard of the place where the press conference was held. And the conference was still going on and I could hear the voices of the people in it. And maybe they, too, could hear my screams and moans.

In the morning, I was left in the cold of winter, tied up after they soaked me in water at dawn. And I apologize for Mr. Maliki for keeping the truth from the people. I will speak later, giving names of the people who were involved in torturing me, and some of them were high-ranking officials in the government and in the army.

I didn't do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country, and that is a legitimate cause confirmed by international laws and divine rights. I wanted to defend a country, an ancient civilization that has been desecrated, and I am sure that history - especially in America - will state how the American occupation was able to subjugate Iraq and Iraqis, until its submission.

They will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never.

Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation.

And, lastly, I say that I am independent. I am not a member of any political party, something that was said during torture - one time that I'm far-right, another that I'm a leftist. I am independent of any political party, and my future efforts will be in civil service to my people and to any who need it, without waging any political wars, as some said that I would.

My efforts will be toward providing care for widows and orphans, and all those whose lives were damaged by the occupation. I pray for mercy upon the souls of the martyrs who fell in wounded Iraq, and for shame upon those who occupied Iraq and everyone who assisted them in their abominable acts. And I pray for peace upon those who are in their graves, and those who are oppressed with the chains of imprisonment. And peace be upon you who are patient and looking to God for release.

And to my beloved country I say: If the night of injustice is prolonged, it will not stop the rising of a sun and it will be the sun of freedom.

One last word. I say to the government: It is a trust that I carry from my fellow detainees. They said, 'Muntadhar, if you get out, tell of our plight to the omnipotent powers' - I know that only God is omnipotent and I pray to Him - 'remind them that there are dozens, hundreds, of victims rotting in prisons because of an informant's word.

'They have been there for years, they have not been charged or tried. They've only been snatched up from the streets and put into these prisons. And now, in front of you, and in the presence of God, I hope they can hear me or see me. I have now made good on my promise of reminding the government and the officials and the politicians to look into what's happening inside the prisons. The injustice that's caused by the delay in the judicial system.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction,
did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something,
probably right before the 2008 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then
why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose
to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those
big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our
government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had
another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel
dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions
of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good
country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the
government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
II
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and
tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it
illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business
with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power
through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force,
instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing
the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade
Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four
airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the
Taliban.


Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and
hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and
hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their
hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was
OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for
growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed
women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by
stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable
garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on
the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body
except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi
Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked
about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now
they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped
being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at
them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us
invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French
toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them
to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend,
temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to
show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if an American corporations can profit by selling
weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America Also, since
God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do
you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush
hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself
comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Lakshmi Mittal -4, He is worth $45 Billion

Bill Gates -3, He is about $58 Billion

Carlos Slim Helu-2, Worth $60 Billion

The World's Richest Person is............. See Below

YOU & YOU Only

You, the servant of Allah. You, the muslim are worth more in the sight of Allah than the Kaaba itself. Yes, the richest people have cars, house, boat, planes, all the fancy things in life. But you, you have something that will last forever. You have your prayers, your struggle to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. You have the light of the Qur'an. The beauty of the Sunnah. You have the strength and courage to humble yourself before Allah everyday. 




Do not be ashamed, nor walk around arrogantly because you have been blessed with this beautiful deen.


SOURCE: saveoursunnah.blogspot.com

HE defied the odds in an era of darkness. He set aside the criticism of those who called him crazy for wanting to do the seemingly impossible: uniting the Ummah, standing up to the Crusaders, and returning honor where it belonged. He was respected by both his friends and foes, and is perhaps one of the few men whose name evokes feelings of honor and pride in the minds of so many people in every era and place.

He had the Crusaders chasing their tails in the battles of Alexandria, Hittin, Acre, Tyre, Beirut, Nablus, Haifa, Tiberius, Gaza, ‘Asqalan, Jerusalem, and dozens of other cities and towns across Sham and North Africa. He is popularly known as Salah-ad-Din the warrior.

But, who was the man behind the armor? How was he as a person, and as a Muslim? What personality does it take to carry out such heroic feats and achieve such a status?

In Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (13/5-6), Ibn Kathir said that at the time of his death,
Salah-ad-Din hardly had any money in his possession, and this was because:

“…of the immense amount of gifts and charity and kindness that he used to show the leaders and ministers under his command, and even to his enemies.

“He was very simple in his clothing, food, drink, and transportation. He would only wear cotton, linen, and wool. It is not known that he ever approached anything forbidden or discouraged, especially after Allah blessed him with his kingdom. Rather, his greatest concern and goal was to aid Islam.”

Ibn Kathir continued:

“He was very strict in praying on time in the jama’ah (congregation). It is said that he never missed a single prayer in jama’ah for a great part of his life, even during the illness that killed him. The imam would enter and lead him in prayer, and he would struggle to get up and pray despite his weakness.”

“He loved to hear the recitation of the Qur’an and the reading of hadith and knowledge. He was constant and habitual in listening to ahadith being read to him, to the point that he would hear a section read to him while he was standing between the ranks of soldiers!”

Ibn Kathir also mentioned: “He had a soft heart, and was easily swayed to tears when he would hear ahadith.

“And Salah-ad-Din was from the bravest of people, and the strongest of them in body and heart despite the illnesses and sickness his body suffered from. This was most evident during the Siege of Acre, where despite the massive numbers of the enemy, he only increased in power and bravery.”

He also said:

“He was generous, well-rounded, always laughing and smiling. He would never slack off in any good that he did. He was extremely patient when doing good and worshipping Allah.”

In ‘Siyar A’lam An-Nubala” (15/436), it’s mentioned that Al-Muwaffaq Abdul Latif said:

“I went to Salah-ad-Din while he was in Jerusalem, and I saw a king who filled eyes with amazement and hearts with love, whether they were near or far. The first night I spent with him, I found his gatherings filled with scholars engaged in knowledge. He would listen intently and participate in their discussions. He would learn how to build walls and dig trenches, and he would then do this himself, carrying the rocks on his own shoulders.”

Al-’Imad said in ‘As-Siyar’ (15/440):

“He would only wear what was permissible to wear, such as linen and cotton. His gatherings were free of vain talk, and they were only attended by the most virtuous of people. He loved to hear ahadith being read with their chains of narration. He was forebearing, honest, pious, pure, and trustworthy. He would contain himself and not become angry. He would never turn back someone in need or embarrass someone who spoke in front of him. He was extremely kind and charitable and I never saw him praying except in jama’ah.”

Adh-Dhahabi said about his death: “And I never saw a king whose death people were sad for except him. This is because he was loved by everyone: he was loved by the righteous and the wicked, the Muslim and the Kafir.” This was Salah-ad-Din Al-Ayyubi. This was the man behind the armor. This was his lifestyle and character, and it was nothing other than this that served as the platform for the amazing feats across the lands that we remember him for today.

Such lifestyle and character is something you will find common between all legends of Islam, whether scholars, leaders or martyrs. You always find them paying great attention to the daily recitation of the Qur’an, studying of the Shariah, giving lots of charity, avoiding useless talk, and living simple lives free of luxury and excessive comfort. This is really the way to success. There is no way you can dream of defending the Shariah if you don’t even have the willpower to implement it in your daily life.

What is interesting is Salah-ad-Din wasn’t always like this. Adh-Dhahabi mentions in ‘As-Siyar’ (15/434 and 436): “Since his time as a ruler, he abandoned alcohol and worldly pleasures.” “He used to drink alcohol, and then repented from it.” That’s right. Salah-ad-Din Al-Ayyubi – this righteous man who singlehandedly changed the course of history – loved to drink and indulge in worldly pleasures. But he repented and transformed his life. This small fact teaches us a mighty lesson: not everyone is born in a life of righteousness. The great people we love and admire were not born with virtue. It also gives us hope that no matter how insignificant or lost we think we are, we can become someone truly great Insha Allah.