What was Osama bin-Laden for Muslims?

I just finished reading Dr. Marranci’s latest article, which he posted to his blog less than a couple hours ago. It’s a pretty interesting read, and should be especially for non-Muslims. In it, he asks the question ‘what was Usamah bin Ladin for Muslims?’ and discusses the typical Western perception of what he (may Allah have mercy on him) represents for Muslims vs. the reality. For those of you interested in reading it, I invite you to visit the Professor’s blog: What was Osama bin-Laden for Muslims? or read the article here in full after the break; up to you.

Read more of this post

Arabic Hard for the Brain?!

Not so says Riyad Nadwi, director of the Oxford Cross-Cultural Research Institute. Thanks to Abdulhaq from SalafiManhaj.com for sending me the article.

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.

Newsweek: Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong

Much thanks to Abdulhaq from SalafiManhaj.com for showing me this article. It’s a pretty good read on dispelling a notion that is being propagated by alarmists hostile towards Muslims and Islam (this video is just one such example of the propaganda that’s out there). Titled Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong, it puts things into perspective.

Read more of this post

Quote … Unquote … no. 10

Consider His wisdom, exalted is He, in that He made the servant’s kings, emirs and rulers of the genus of their deeds. Rather, it is as if their deeds appeared in the images of their rulers and kings. So if they were upright, their kings were upright, If they were just, they were just to them, and if they strayed, their kings and rulers would stray. If slyness and deceit appeared among them, their rulers would be like that. If they hindered Allah’s rights before them and were stingy with them, their kings and rulers would hinder what they had with them of the right and be stingy with them with regards to them. And in their business, if they took what they did not deserve from those they deemed weak, the kings would take what they did not deserve from them and taxes and duties would be imposed on them; whatever they extracted from the weak, the kings would extract it from them by force. Thus, their deeds appeared in the images if their deeds. And it is not from the divine wisdom that He entrusts the immoral evil [people] except to whoever is of their genus. So when the forefront was the best and most reverent of the generations, their rulers were like that. Then when they became white-haired, the rulers became white-haired for them. Thus, Allah’s wisdom refuses to entrust us, in the likes of these times, to the likes of Mu’awiyah and ‘Umar bin ‘Abdil-‘Aziz, let alone the likes of Abi Bakr and Umar. Rather, our rulers are according to our worth, the rulers of those before us are according to their worth. Each of the two matters is wisdom’s reason and requisite.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
Miftâh Dâr as-Sa’âdah, vol. 2, pgs. 177-178.

Read more of this post

Quote … Unquote … no. 4

Pity goes out to those who can’t see through the pretty pictures … .

Abū ‘Eesa Isma’il Gonzales
Someone’s guestbook on AsianAve, May 6, 2001.

Edit: Shortly after posting this quote by my brother, I came across a very nice quote and equally nice reminder related to the message my brother was hinting at by his words. Much thanks to Muhajirah for posting this very nice reminder on her blog.