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


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

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’.

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

Schism — Saudi Blogger’s Answer to Wilders Film

Most of you probably already know about Fitna, the so called “film” by Geert Wilders, made with the intention of inciting and provoking the Muslim community worldwide. I had thought about writing something about the whole situation (given the fact that I kind of laughed at just how tame and relatively unoffensive it was—compared to the media hype Wilders was giving it, that is, not to mention the other inflamatory anti-Islamic material out there), but later decided not to …

… that is, until I received the link to this article, sent to me by brother Kamil Ahmad. I have yet to see the video mentioned in this article, but I plan on watching it after I post this entry.

Read more of this post

NY Times: Why Shariah?

One of the brothers forwarded a link to an article on the Sharî’ah written by a non-Muslim author and Harvard Law School professor of law named Noah Feldman. I’ve read a little more than half of it at the time of writing this post, and thus far, I’ve found it pretty good and well written. Needless to say, I don’t agree with everything it mentions, and of course, not all of it is Islamically sound, but I thought it interesting nonetheless. Anyhow, enough of my babbling … on to the article:

Read more of this post

Obligation or Mere Personal Choice?

With the recent death of Aqsa Parvez, may Allah have mercy on her, a number of issues have been raised with regards to the various details surrounding her death that have been reported in the media. In my earlier post regarding it (linked to above), I mentioned that not enough is known yet regarding what happened and the circumstances leading up to the killing to justly comment on it. For that reason, I’ve tried to refrain from commenting on the “right” and “wrong” of those involved and throughout the various comments I’ve posted to other blogs about it, I have maintained that we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions with regards to what happened. By this I do not mean that we shouldn’t say her death was wrong, because it was; her life was taken unjustly, whether it was done intentionally (i.e., murder) or unintentionally (i.e., manslaughter). In an authentic hadîth, Prophet Muhammad said that «the blood of a Muslim person [who] testifies that there is no god [worthy of worship] except Allah and that I am Allah’s messenger is not lawful except for one of three: the deflowered adulterer (i.e., one who is or has been married), the soul [of the murderer] for the soul [of the murdered], and the abandoner of what he has—the opposer of the Congregation (i.e., the apostate).»[1] There are other justifications for when a life may be taken (defending yourself from an attacker, for example), but none of them include the possible motives behind Aqsa Parvez’s death that have been mentioned in the media thus far—and even if there were a justifiable reason behind her death (i.e., some sin or some infraction of Islamic law she committed), the punishments legislated in Islam are only to be carried out by the authorities (e.g., government, Islamic courts, etc.) after trying the accused and getting a conviction for the offence. The law is not to be taken into our own hands; vigilanteism is not condoned in Islam.

Read more of this post