Anders Behring Breivik: A Christian Terrorist

Anders Behring Breivik: A Christian Terrorist

By: Jalal Abualrub (www.islamlife.com)
Edited by: Aboo Ishaaq Rasheed Gonzales

To those—among them some Muslims—who might ask, “Why insert ‘Christian’ before ‘Terrorist’?”, I say, “And why not?” Have not European and American nations glued various variations of the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslims’ to all variations of the word ‘terror’? Why is it alright for anyone to connect Islam to terrorism because of the actions of a Muslim that violate Islamic Law, such as Prophet Muhammad’s commandment not to kill women and children [in war][1], but when it comes to a Jew who, without mercy, murders Palestinian Muslims inside a mosque or a Christian fundamentalist who murders people from his own community, they are not called Jewish or Christian terrorists and Judaism and Christianity are not connected to ‘terror’ or any of its variations?

On hearing of the Norway attacks, various western media outlets immediately started ascribing this act to Islamists or at the very least hinting to it.  It was clear, at least to them, who the culprit was: a Muslim who is practicing ‘Islamic terrorism’. That is, until his identity was uncovered bringing with it the shocking news that he is not an Islamist—whatever that means—who was targeting Norway for a few silly cartoons depicting Islam’s Prophet Muhammad[2] and a handful of soldiers shooting at Afghani and Iraqi Muslims; Norway participated in these two wars.

Read more of this post

They Mention Some, But Not the Rest

Here’s another look at the intellectual and academic dishonesty committed by the exaggerators from among those who attribute themselves to Salafism, They Mention Some, But Not the Rest: Yet Another Example of Academic Dishonesty From the Self-Appointed Vanguards of Salafism. From the article:

In his Iqtidâ’ asSirât al-Mustaqîm, Shaikh of Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, relates that “’Abdur-Rahman bin Mahdî and others said [that] the people of knowledge write what is for them and what is against them, while the people of desires do not write except what is for them.”

Despite the fact that these people go on about the gravity of hiding knowledge and information from the public, looking at their behaviour, we find innumerable examples that give credence to what Shaikh of Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, mentions. I wrote about one such example recently in an article I titled, Making Moosaa’s Mountain Out Of Bilal’s Molehill, in which I pointed out the intellectual and academic dishonesty displayed by Moosaa Richardson in his criticism of a supposedly “dangerous mistake” he accused Dr. Bilal Philips of making in one of his published books.

The other week, I came across yet another example of academic dishonesty, which these people continually display time and time again. This time, the example comes from a salafitalk.net poster who posted a couple of links to the sahab.net Arabic discussion forum. The poster simply posts the links and provides a brief description before each, both in Arabic and in English; the first: “The support of ash-Shaykh Muhammad Bazmool for the critique of his brother ash-Shaykh Ahmad on Ali al-Halabee,” and the second: “Ash-Shaykh Muhammad Bazmool: The Refutations of ash-Shaykh Ahmad Bazmool denotes that al-Halabi has deviated from the Manhaj of the Salaf.” Now, given the fact that many of salafitalk.net’s readers are English speakers who don’t know much Arabic—if any at all—there’s a good chance that none of them will actually come to know what’s contained in the two links. Despite that, the poster doesn’t provide his audience with a translation, summarized or otherwise, of what’s mentioned in the two posts. The result, of course, is that the readers are left with the obvious impression he and the previous posters to the thread (e.g., Maaz Qureshi or whoever it is posting under the name “SunnahPublishing.Net”) wishes their audience to get: ‘Alî al-Halabî is a deviant who has strayed from the Salafî methodology and should be avoided like the plague.

Read on … They Mention Some, But Not the Rest: Yet Another Example of Academic Dishonesty From the Self-Appointed Vanguards of Salafism.

Dr. Marranci: Burqu’ing freedom: the danger of ‘moral civilizing’

It’s been a while since I posted any articles from Dr. Marranci (in part because, like mine, his blog’s been a bit in active due to him being busy with various other things). He’s recently put up a nice article regarding the recent global trend seen with “democratic” places banning the face veil. It’s a great read for anyone interested. Here’s a bit from the beginning of the article:

The year 2010 appears to be marked by the ‘war on burqas’ (the Switzerland minarets being an exception). While Belgium has formally moved to ban niqabs and burqas, Italy used regional laws to fine Muslim women using niqabs, and Quebec has imposed a ban for anyone wearing one to enter government places, including hospital and casualty departments (see this article for more information). The majority of European nations, such as France, are still debating the matter. Both politicians and experts recognize that the number of people who wear a face veil (click here to avoid any confusion about them as often happens) on European streets are very few, and in Belgium they are even less than fifty. It would not be so unimaginable to suggest–even starting from my own observations–that today in the west there are more Muslim women wearing miniskirts than face veils.Many have been the opinions over whether the niqab or burqa are an Islamic requirement, innovation, or just one of numerous other styles of veiling. Al-Qaradawi has suggested that niqab is neither a requirement nor an innovation. In other words,it is a style within the tradition of Muslim dress. In another post I have discussed how increasingly, Muslim women, both by non-Muslims as well as Muslims, have been reduced to the ‘material culture’ of their dress styles. In this case, I wish to observe another aspect of the ‘war on burqa’.

The reasons provided for the direct or indirect ban of the face veil are of two orders: the first, quite hypocritical, suggests that the ban is imposed because of security legislation, often ‘rediscovered’ after decades, which forbids citizens to cover their faces in public. An example of this legalistic approach is Italy, which has rediscovered fascist left-overs that impose fines and prison time for those who disguise their face in public. The second is more honest and direct. Like the case of France, the ban is justified in terms of the traditions and morals of a country. In essence, the first case is nothing other than a camouflage of the latter. I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the attempt to ban face veils should be read within the discourse of ‘values’ and ‘morals’ rather than ‘security’ and ‘legal tradition’. In other words, we are entering the realm of ‘civilizational discourse’ and ‘ideology’.

Read on … Burqu’ing freedom: the danger of ‘moral civilizing’.

Yahya Ibrahim: Shaykhs Need Advice, Too

Much thanks to brother Kamil for sending me this email; may Allah reward and bless him. It’s a nice short piece written by brother Yahya Ibrahim; may Allah reward and bless him; and I thought I’d share it with those of you who still visit my blog (despite the inactivity). I hope and pray that we all benefit from what Yahya’s mentioned; it’s quite a beautiful story and reminder.

Writes Yahya:

Read more of this post

Walk the Walk or Shut Up, Quit Fakin’ the Funk(?!?!)

(PDF Version)

I recently took part in a discussion in the comments section to Umar Lee’s blog under an entry titled Movies and pretending like you don’t go. Some of the comments made to this entry are what prompted me to write this one.

In the post written by Umar, he was criticizing brothers and sisters who criticized another brother for posting up a review about the movie 300 that was recently released in theatres earlier this month. The brother who wrote the review (who I won’t name here) was apparently chastised for writing the review and was pressured to take it down by some “Muslim phonies (who [Umar’s] sure were watching TV as they were typing)” —how he’s so certain of that, only Allah knows. The brother then posted an apology for the review, which has subsequently been taken down as well (I haven’t read the brother’s blog myself, this info is strictly from what was mentioned on Umar’s blog).

Read more of this post