From A'ishah RA who said that a man sought permission to enter upon the Prophet PBUH, so he said: Give permission to him and what a bad son of his people (or, what a bad man of his people). Then when he entered he spoke politely to him. "A'ishah said: so I said: O Messenger of Allah, you said about him what you said and then you spoke politely to him? He said: O A'ishah the worst people in station before Allah on the Day of Resurrection are those whom the people desert, or abandon, in order to save themselves from their evil speech. [Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim]
So he treats a close friend in the manner befitting one for whom he has love...and he treats the clear enemy with caution and remains on his guard...and he treats the worst of people in a manner which does not make apparent to him what he thinks of him in his heart, and so on, each one is treated in the appropriate manner. This is from the knowledge necessary for giving dakwah, that he treats everyone in the manner befitting their varying inclinations and manners ! It will also not be hidden that one of the best ways of cementing ties and improving relations is Visiting Brothers.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
Word ‘Allah’ is not exclusive to Islam
Like the history of most religions, the history of Islam is complex and much debated. But there are a few elements that are not in dispute, chief among them that the God of the Quran is the same as the God of the Bible and of the Torah before it. The mission of Islam, as expressed in the Quran, is not to bring a new faith, but to update the messages of the monotheistic faiths before it.
It is therefore surprising to see, as The National reports today, that a Malaysian court has ruled that a Christian newspaper may not use the word “Allah” to refer to God. The court overturned a previous decision by a lower court, ruling that “Allah” as a term is not exclusive to Islam. This causes a problem for the country’s substantial Christian minority, who have used the word “Allah” to refer to God for decades.
In a fellow Muslim country with substantial Christian and Hindu populations, this feels like the wrong decision. The UAE is rightly proud of its society that allows people from all over the world to practise their faiths openly and without discrimination. Indeed, that inclusiveness is inherent in Islam. One of the reasons Islam was able to spread so far, so rapidly, was the inclusive nature of the faith: for at least two centuries after the coming of Islam, the Arabs ruled vast regions where the majority were not Muslims. The word “Allah” is never exclusive to Islam – indeed, both Christians and Jews used the word “Allah” to refer to God even before the coming of Islam.
That remains the case today. When Christians across the Middle East pray to God, they use the term “Allah”. Walk into a church in Cairo, Baghdad or Beirut this coming Sunday and you will hear the name of “Allah” invoked. That also applies to the Jews of the Arab world, who for centuries have prayed to “Allah”. The Quran itself is explicit on this subject, declaring, in Surah Al Ankabut, that Muslims should tell People of the Book (Christians and Jews) that “our God and your God is one”.
The Malaysian decision overlooks not merely the theology, but also the etymology of the word. The word “Allah” is derived from the Arabic “al-ilah”, the god. It’s found its way across the world and entered Malay from Arabic.
Arabic as a language is a vehicle for faith, be that Christianity, Judaism or Islam. The God of the three monotheistic religions is the same god. It is unsurprising, therefore, that all three faiths in the Arabic-speaking world (and beyond) refer to God as “Allah”. And if they have the same God, they should have the right to call their deity by the same name.
Chomsky: No one can alienate the Muslim Brotherhood
Noam Chomsky has insisted that nobody can alienate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He criticised the military coup which ousted Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi in July, accusing its supporters of making a major mistake.
The American professor of linguistics was speaking at a seminar organised by the Egyptian Students Association in New York when he made his comments. He said that a military regime cannot build a state and pointed out that it is inaccurate to refer to “Egyptians” as if everyone in Egypt is thinking the same way; they’re not, and it is misleading to suggest otherwise, he claimed. Professor Chomsky urged the army leaders to avoid using the term “the people” to give credibility to the action that they took in July.
He acknowledged that a large crowd took to the streets on June 30th to protest against the Muslim Brotherhood, but what happened thereafter was definitely a military coup. He told the audience that he feels that the people of Egypt have been divided by the belief that the military leadership is committed to defending them against the Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood’s political decisions could be criticised, said Chomsky, but one cannot ignore the movement because “it is part of the people”. That’s yet another reason, he added, for the coup leaders not to claim that they are acting on behalf of “the people” of Egypt.
“It would be wrong for the supporters of the coup to believe that the generals will build a secular, democratic state,” Chomsky insisted. “They will act as army officers usually act and seek to control the system and economy while crushing their opponents and human rights.” Those who welcome the coup will turn out to be its victims, he warned his secular, liberal and leftist friends.
The 85 year old is a renowned linguist, philosopher, political activist and sociologist. He is known for his opposition to US foreign policy as well as for his criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)