| |
Following are excerpts from an interview with Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on December 14, 2007. Jamal Al-Din: Our problem today – not only in Iraq, but in all Arab and Islamic countries – is the duality of the Shari'a and the law. This duality is lethal. Our countries do not fully abide by the Shari'a of Allah, nor do they follow a man-made law, like in France and other countries – including Turkey. There is nothing wrong with a country that bases itself exclusively on Shari'a law, with no regard for the civil law. We believe the Koran to be the book sent by Allah – a complete book, with no additions and no omissions. Indeed, we believe that the Koran and Islam are the solution. Why, then, do we mix elements of the French and other laws in our Shari'a law? Let the brothers who demand the establishment of a religious state adhere exclusively to Shari'a law. Let them, for example, collect the Jizya poll tax from their Christian citizens. Let them annihilate the Yazidis because they do not belong to the People of the Book. Let them raise doubts about the status of the Sabaeans in Iraq, because it is unclear whether they belong to the People of the Book or not. [...] A religious state based on Shari'a law can't coexist with the concept of citizenship. The concept of "homeland" in the Shari'a differs from the concept of "homeland" in modern political discourse. In the Shari'a, your homeland is your city, and if the city is large, it means the home... Interviewer: "Homeland" means a person's place of birth. Jamal Al-Din: Right. Therefore, the concept of "homeland" is a modern concept, which is based on modern political thought, and it cannot coexist with the religious way of thinking. Those who believe... Interviewer: Do you think religion runs counter to the concept of citizenship? Jamal Al-Din: These are two distinct concepts. We cannot strip off the modern concept of "homeland"... We can talk about the "citizens of Egypt," for example. This is the modern concept of "homeland" in political discourse, and it has nothing to do with the Shari'a. [...] Religion is one thing, and its implementation is another thing. Who will implement religion – a flawed human being, whose complexes, fears, and suspicions towards the others will be evident? All these complexes stem from the flawed nature of man. The perfect human being is not afraid. He loves everything – trees, stones, and human beings. Jesus, son of Mary, loved even a dancer. He said to her: "You are a human being, worthy of respect." The Prophet Muhammad and the righteous men acted the same way. Bad implementation of the religion makes people averse to religion as a whole. We have examples of this. There are many religious governments in the region, and people who were averse to those who implement the religion – the clerics or people who pretend to be Muslims – have developed an aversion to the religion itself. A week ago, I was at a conference in America. A woman sat next to me, wearing a nun's habit, with a large cross around her neck. She told me in Farsi that she worked in some church, providing services to the new refugees coming to the church. She began to explain what she was doing at the church. All of a sudden, I asked her: "When did you become a Christian?" She laughed, and I said: "I'm sure you were a Shiite Muslim and you became a Christian." She said: "Not recently – 12 years ago, both me and my husband." She was an Iranian Shiite Muslim, and she became a Christian nun. They do not allow women to be priests, but she provides services at the church. I did not rebuke her or tell her that Islam is the perfect religion... Interviewer: Why do you think she converted... Jamal Al-Din: I'm getting there. I did not rebuke her, but I cursed those who made people like her immigrate, and abandon their religion. The aversion has reached such a degree that people flee not only from the clerics, but from religion itself. [...] One of the benefits of the secular regime, which is based on the principle of respect for human rights... It makes no difference whether a person is a religious authority or a depraved singer – both are human beings. The secular regime protects the freedom of all – the dancer in a disco... Interviewer: As long as his liberties do not have a negative effect... Jamal Al-Din: As long as it is not at the expense of the other. A religious authority cannot be at the expense of a bar, and vice versa. This is how a neutral regime – the secular regime – is formed. The religious regime does come at the expense of the bars, and vice versa. Interviewer: Do you, a religious cleric, demand that the bars be allowed to exist? Jamal Al-Din: Definitely. I delivered a speech in 2003, and our brothers, the great "believers," made tapes out of it, because it was during the elections campaign. They handed out the tapes to people, and said I was openly calling for freedom for bars. I reiterate that I call for bars to be allowed [to operate] freely. Interviewer: How come? Doesn't Islam forbid alcohol consumption? Don't you, as a cleric, assume that those things are prohibited? Jamal Al-Din: These things are forbidden to me. Personally, I make sure I don't commit such a sin – and I consider it to be a sin, which undoubtedly leads one to Hell – but this is a personal conviction, which I do not impose on you or anyone else. The others are free to do as they please. Interviewer: When alcohol consumption was first prohibited, didn't they pour out the alcohol in the alleys of Al-Madina? Jamal Al-Din: That's true. If the Prophet Muhammad were here... Interviewer: Was this ruling restricted to the Prophet Muhammad? Do you believe that the religious rulings implemented by the Prophet pertained to him alone? Jamal Al-Din: The way I, as a Shiite, understand it, the social and administrative implementation of Islam must be carried out by the infallible. When done by others, it has advantages as well as problems, and the negative consequences outweigh the advantages. This is what we have been suffering from for 14 centuries. What was the flaw in Haroun Al-Rashid? Did he stop building the countries of Islam? On the contrary. In the days of Haroun Al-Rashid, there were 10,000 public baths in Baghdad. In the days of Haroun Al-Rashid, the water reached the houses in Baghdad, there was a sewage system, and street lighting. Interviewer: So what's the problem? Jamal Al-Din: The problem is that people were insignificant. There was no freedom or human dignity. Whoever opposed him... Haroun AL-Rashid understood Islam as the Islam of Haroun Al-Rashid, and whoever interpreted Islam differently was a sinful and godless infidel, who had to be killed, just like Musa ibn Ja'far Al-Kazem in prison. [...] I don't have a problem with religion or with ideology. My problem is not with the Marxist ideology, but with the politicization of the Marxist ideology, with the politicization of religion, with the use of ideas as a means to tame and subdue people, and with the use of all the media, the security and administrative powers in order to enslave people to a certain idea. [...] I am devout in all my personal affairs, but I do not wish to impose my religious devoutness on others, using my influence as a politician, or as a head of state, or anything. People are free to do as they wish, and I respect any free human being, and despise those who are not free. I despise a woman who wears the veil in order to get a job, or because of social pressure, or the pressure of the state... Interviewer: Or vice versa. Jamal Al-Din: Exactly. I respect a woman who wears the veil even if she is in New York, and a woman who does not wear the veil even in Najaf – as long as it is done out of conviction and free choice. No religious commitment has any value if it is the result of duress. [...] Interviewer: Do you believe that when the Prophet Muhammad forced certain things on people, this was a violation of the liberties you just called for? Jamal Al-Din: There is a difference between submission to the perfect human being, and coercion by someone just like me, whom I see committing sins and errors, and who has a different understanding of religion. Maybe my interpretation is better than his. He is a human being just like me. [...] The way I see it, the Islamists in general – Shiites and Sunnis – worship the religion, and not the lord. There is a difference between viewing religion as a means to worship Allah, and between worshipping the means itself – the religion. This produces fanaticism. Why do people become fanatics? The religion can be compared to a car, which takes you to Mecca. Your goal is Mecca, not the car. If you start circling the car, worshipping and kissing it, you will never get to the Ka'ba – and by the way, the Ka'ba is in itself a symbol, a means. The goal is the Lord, not the Ka'ba. If your goal, when making a pilgrimage, is merely the Ka'ba, then the Ka'ba is no different than a pagan idol. Same thing. [...] Take Iran, for example. Iran is a country with borders. It would have to give citizenship to one and a half billion Muslims. In Islam, there should be no borders. The Islamic state, or Dar Al-Islam, is the country of all Muslims. In such a case, citizenship must be abolished. [...] The only thing in which [the Shiites] are different is their objection to the Abu Bakr government. This is the only thing in which all Shiites are different from all Sunnis. Why did the Shiites object to the Abu Bakr government? If you forget about all the historical anecdotes, there is only one reason, and that is that Abu Bakr, who is not infallible, took upon himself all the authorities of the infallible Prophet Muhammad. This is the central issue in Shiite ideology. After 14 centuries, one of the Shiite jurisprudents, who everybody concurs is not infallible – and I am referring to Al-Khomeini – took upon himself all the authorities of the infallible. If what Al-Khomeini did was proper, then Abu Bakr... Interviewer: The Shiites should oppose Al-Khomeini like they opposed... Jamal Al-Din: No, it means Abu Bakr acted properly too, and so what is all the disagreement about? Interviewer: We should be glad that we have reached a solution... Jamal Al-Din: If my Shiite brothers insist that Abu Bakr equated himself to the infallible, they should declare that Al-Khomeini has nothing to do with their Shiite ideology. Interviewer: They should oppose Al-Khomeini just like they opposed Abu Bakr's caliphate... Jamal Al-Din: The rule of the jurisprudent cannot coexist with the rule of Ali bin Abu Taleb. [...] President Bush and America should be thanked for saving us from that idol that wanted to be worshipped like Allah. If you were to go to Iraq in the days of Saddam Hussein – it was Saddam who [decided] everything from A to Z. Saddam gave life and took life, and decided if people would be rich or poor. [...] Interviewer: Don't the new politicians have many, if not all, of Saddam's qualities? Jamal Al-Din: Undoubtedly. We've gotten rid of Saddam, but not of all the mini-Saddams. Even before the war, I said that I was worried that the democracy that we have longed for would turn into a Latin-America-style democracy, a banana republic, relying on an economic mafia and a political mafia. [...] Interviewer: You have survived four assassination attempts near the Badr forces. Who do you accuse of doing this? Who has an interest in assassinating Iyad Jamal Al-Din? Jamal Al-Din: Maybe some Shiites who do not want there to be people with other opinions around. Al-Qaeda does not miss... Interviewer: Are you prepared to state who it was? Jamal Al-Din: No, I don't have any definite information on this, but Al-Qaeda does not miss the target, so it was definitely not Al-Qaeda. http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1641.htm |
To: skmirza.mirza@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ISIS is the rebirth of Koranic original Islam.
From: msa40@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:26:54 -0400
Dear Mr. Mirza,
Apart from the Hafs and Warsh versions, there are many more versions of the Quran. Two of them are: Qalun in Libya, and Al-Duri in Sudan.
In Sura Fathiha, if Bismilllah --- has a number (number 1) ascribed after it, it is the Hafs version. If there is no verse number, then it is Warsh version.
Sura Fathiha is supposed to have seven verses. Since it was originally a Sura with six verses, Quran's compilers gave number one to Bismillah. Others divided the last verse of the Sura into two, thus making it a Sura with seven verses.
Usman's compilation does not consist of over 6,600 verses, or of over 799,000 words. The Quran he is alleged to have complied is in the Kufi (from Kufa in Iraq) script i.e. without punctuation marks. People, who are not accustomed to reading the Kufi Arabic, could never have correctly read the Quran.
Without punctuation marks, one could read the Arabic word "Allah" with different and varied pronunciations. Only those people, who knew the Kufi script, would have read it as "Allah."
The Quran, its versions notwithstanding, was given its present form in 933. It was at the same time when Hadiths were also written to justify many of the things written in the Quran. It was done at the behest of the caliph of the time. His successors disagreed with many of them and they punished the Hadiths writers by exiling them or by awarding other punishments.
I do not know which version of the Quran do the Saudis read and follow. But do they need to have a Quran when they are the inheritors of Islam and the beneficiaries of the gift that prophet Muhammad has made to them by making hajj compulsory for all the Muslims?
What prophet Muhammad has bequeathed to the Muslims of, say, Bangladesh? Zilch!!!
The Saudis can interpret Islam and the Quran according to what is in their best interest. After all, the Quran is in their ancient tongue and they are the unofficial arbiter of Islam, even though almost all the non-Saudi Muslims believe that the Saudis are not Muslims.
It is a mockery of truth. If the Saudis are not Muslims and they do not know Islam or do not understand the Quran, then we will have to have the heads of the non-Saudi Muslims checked in order to make sure that they are sane and are worthy of living in the midst of sane humans.
In my understanding, most of the Muslims of Bangladesh and Pakistan do not know which Quran they are reading nor do they understand what they read in it. Most of the Memorizers of the Quran are as ignorant as the ordinary Muslims.
Once I asked a professor of Dhaka University if he understood the meaning of Sura Abu Lahab. He said that he did not, and then added that he did not need to understand what he tells Allah in his prayers so long as Allah understood and accepted his prayer.
What can we say about other Muslims of Bangladesh? They have been doing what their ancestors had done i.e. memorize some Suras, without understanding them, and then regurgitate them in their prayers. And then they declare that they are the true Muslims and that they are the true followers of prophet Muhammad and all of his Sunnahs!
Is it not amazing?
Mohammad Asghar
-----Original Message-----
From: Syed Mirza <skmirza.mirza@gmail.com>
To: Msa40 msa40@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 22, 2014 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: ISIS is the rebirth of Koranic original Islam.
From: Syed Mirza <skmirza.mirza@gmail.com>
To: Msa40 msa40@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Oct 22, 2014 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: ISIS is the rebirth of Koranic original Islam.
Mr. Asghar,
Thanks for your response and bringing the most important and mostly unknown fact of having two Qurans for the muslims. I did not know this and I thought--all Muslims read and believe in just one Koran (compiled by Hazrat Osman (ra)). Now would you please tell us about the two versions of Koran? How they (Hafs and Warsh) differ one from the other? Another question is: which version of Koran is read/used by those Wahabi muslims? Also please highlight about which Koran is read by those Bangladeshi and Pakistani Mumin Musalman. Thanks.
Regards,
SKM
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Msa40 <msa40@aol.com> wrote:
Saudi Arabia has the sole agency for publication of the Quran. It publishes two versions of it.One is known as "Hafs," and the other as "Warsh." We have two versions of the Quran, despite the factthat Allah has promised to keep it free from corruption!Mohammad Asghar-----Original Message-----
From: skmirza.mirza <skmirza.mirza@gmail.com>
To: Jamal Hasan <poplu@hotmail.com>Sent: Wed, Oct 22, 2014 6:15 am
Subject: Re: ISIS is the rebirth of Koranic original Islam.
Soudis are like "Janus Face" of Islam. Wahabism is a deceptive terminology used by the pure Muslims/ignorant people/Non-muslims and those who play Islamic Taqqiyya (Deception technique prescribed in Koran and Sunnah only to make non-muslims stupid fool so that they will never understand the real face of pure Islam ever.) At present, Billion Muslims believe in just one Koran and same Hadiths and there are no second Koran for anybody else including those so called Wahabite Muslims. That means: Wahabism and entire Muslim world have only one Koran. To make it more clear--both pure Muslims (general muslims of the whole world) and the so called Wahabism muslims do believe and practice their religion by the same one Koran. Now please tell me what are the differences between the ISIS, Wahabism, and Islam?
Could anybody make it clear for the readers?
Thanks.
SKM
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Jamal Hasan <poplu@hotmail.com> wrote:
Saudi Wahhabism and ISIS Wahhabism: The Difference
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Recently, some media commentators have argued that, rather than the product of a simple confrontation between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Syria and Iraq, the rise of the so-called "Islamic State" should be perceived as an eruption into those countries of Wahhabism, the only interpretation of Islam recognized as official in Saudi Arabia.
David Gardner of the Financial Times, for instance, blamed Saudi Arabia indirectly for the growth of ISIS, writing, "Jihadi extremism does present a threat to the kingdom. But in doctrinal terms it is hard to see in what way it 'deviates' from Wahhabi orthodoxy." Others have implied or alleged that Saudi Arabia helps finance ISIS.
On September 30, Financial Times writers Heba Saleh in Cairo and Simeon Kerr in Dubai asserted, "in contrast to the tacit official encouragement of more liberal voices after 9/11, any debate within Saudi Arabia over the role of [Wahhabism] in fostering [ISIS] extremism has been timid and largely confined to social media."
Yet in analyzing radical Islam, we should make distinctions, not confuse them. Looking back at Saudi Arabia's reaction to the atrocities of September 11, 2001, we would find little public dialogue over the role of Wahhabism in the origins of al Qaeda. The Saudi monarchy and their representatives denied a linkage and discouraged investigation of it. After the U.S.-led Iraq intervention in 2003, Saudi media and websites were replete with praise for Saudi citizens who had died as terrorist combatants north of the kingdom's border. The Saudis created an ineffective anti-terrorist "rehabilitation" program before "deporting" al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to Yemen. Later, however, the Saudis declined to support the Wahhabi Nour party that emerged in Egypt after the fall of Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
Saudi Arabia had begun to change in 2005 with the death of King Fahd Abd Al-Aziz and ascent to the throne of his half brother, the currently-ruling King Abdullah. Abdullah commenced a series of reforms that while small, nonetheless marked a new direction for the desert realm. In 2007, the so-called "religious police" or "morals patrols," titled officially the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), and known among the populace as the mutawiyin (volunteers) or hai'a (commission), came under official scrutiny.
Previously, the "morals patrols" had roamed the streets of Saudi cities, carrying leather-covered sticks with which they beat women whose all-covering garment, the abaya, slipped an inch and revealed an ankle, pushing ordinary people toward mosques at prayer times, raiding houses where they suspected alcohol was present, monitoring the highways to prevent women from driving and unrelated couples from riding together, harassing members of the Shia minority, including a rape victim who was punished by lashing, detaining hajj pilgrims who engaged in metaphysical rituals prohibited by the Wahhabis, and killing people in especially-brutal incidents. Thanks to King Abdullah, the morals patrols were subjected to court authority for the first time.
In 2009, King Abdullah established a ministry for women's education and dismissed the then-head of the morals patrols, Ibrahim Al-Ghaith. Two years later, Saudi women were granted limited electoral rights, to become effective in 2015. Further, King Abdullah announced in 2011 the foundation of the world's largest university for women, named for his aunt, Princess Nora Bint Abdulrahman, and located near the capital, Riyadh.
The director of the "morals patrols" was again replaced in 2012, by Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, who is a descendant of the 18th-century founder of the Wahhabi sect, Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, but supports greater female participation in society. After his appointment, Abdul Latif Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh cautioned the "morals patrols" against harassment of the public, and forbade them from arresting, interrogating or searching people or residences without a warrant from a local governor.
Saudi Arabia in 2013 criminalized domestic violence and appointed 30 women to the unelected national legislature or "shura council," which was previously restricted to men. The same year, Saudi Arabia nominated its first motion picture directed by a woman, Wadjda, about a young girl who wants to buy a bicycle and the obstacles she faces, for an Academy Award.
Regarding the horrors in Syria, although Saudis like other Sunni Muslims are outraged at the massacres of the Bashar Al-Assad regime, Saudi authorities earlier this year banned involvement in jihad abroad, with prison sentences of three to thirty years for Saudis who fight outside the country, enlist in terrorist groups, provide them with material assistance, or incite others to join them.
Wahhabi fanatics have pushed back against these adaptations to modern reality. In the latest manifestation of Wahhabi intransigence, a court judge in Riyadh, according to BBC News, sentenced Shia cleric Nimr Al-Nimr to death by beheading and crucifixion for activism in 2011, in Shia protests in the Saudi Eastern Province, where many Shia Muslims live. Iran is widely accused of involvement in the Saudi Shia turmoil, and both Tehran and the Shia Houthi rebels in Yemen defended Al-Nimr and condemned the Saudis aggressively in the case.
A slow but undeniable transition is underway in Saudi Arabia. Notwithstanding its Wahhabi legacy and the emulation of Wahhabism by ISIS, raids by the Royal Saudi Air Force against ISIS, and a pledge by Riyadh to train the non-sectarian Syrian Free Army, may demonstrate that Saudi Arabia has taken a positive stand against the metastasized Wahhabism of ISIS.
Certainly, none of the measures instituted by King Abdullah would be imaginable under the domination of ISIS. Saudi journalist Bader Al-Rashed declared in the Middle East news portal Al-Monitor of September 29, 2014, "Today . . . because of [ISIS], there are discussions on the connection between Sunni jihadist extremism and Wahhabism inside and outside Saudi Arabia. This might eventually change the way Saudis see themselves. . . . The kingdom's participation in the first airstrikes against IS in Syria on Sept. 23 demonstrates its seriousness in combating the radicals."
Commitment to the battle against ISIS may therefore drive Saudi Arabia further away from its Wahhabi past.
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:37:00 -0400
Subject: ISIS is the rebirth of Koranic original Islam.
From: skmirza.mirza@gmail.com
To: poplu@hotmail.com
Dear All:
ISIS is historical replica of real Islam, and It is not so called radical Islam, but ISIS is the rebirth of Koranic original Islam about which (unfortunately) almost 90% Gullible Muslims as well as western living closet Mullahs do not know at all. Please listen video and also please read the news items collected by Daily Star below:
(1) Video by Dr. David Wood: Top Ten Quranic Verses for Understanding jihadi actions of ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBgqa-xQwY&feature=youtu.be
(2) Understanding ISIS by Daily Star Bangladesh: http://www.thedailystar.net/is-the-islamic-state
Please compare the Koranic verses in your own Koran you read. Don't blame me for bringing real things before your eyes!
Thanks.
SKM
*** Also please read this compilation of Islamic beauty (attached) for your own enlightening.
__._,_.___
