Comments Islamic Quotes

Unlike white commentators, who were hamstrung by the fear that they would be labeled racist, I could voice my criticisms of the feudal, religious, and repressive mechanisms that were holding back women from Muslim communities.

Submission, when it is submission to the truth — and when the truth is known to be both beautiful and merciful — has nothing in common with fatalism or stoicism as these terms are understood in the Western tradition, because its motivation is different. According to Fakhr ad-Din ar-RazT, one of the great commentators upon the Quran: The worship of the eyes is weeping, the worship of the ears is listening, the worship of the tongue is praise, the worship of the hands is giving, the worship of the body is effort, the worship of the heart is fear and hope, and the worship of the spirit is surrender and satisfaction in Allah.

Some Western commentators claim that they know Islam better than the (......) who gave up their lives for it, the crowds that have been supporting them, and the imams endorsing the attacks.

Moslims die hun politieke overtuigingen baseren op hun geloof zijn 'fundamentalisten', een Amerikaanse presidentskandidaat die zo met zijn religie omgaat, heet in de meeste westerse media 'evangelistisch' of 'diep gelovig'. Wint deze Amerikaan de verkiezingen, dan zegt bijna niemand dat het christendom 'oprukt', maar als moslims die hun politieke inspiratie uit de Koran halen hun zin krijgen, schrijft menige westerse commentator dat 'de islam in opmars' is. Raakt een Arabische leider in conflict met een westerse regering, dan is hij 'anti-westers'. Westerse regeringen zijn nooit 'anti-arabisch'.

A common error of western commentators who seek to interpret Islamism sympathetically is to view it as a form of localised resistance to globalisation. In fact, Islamism is also a universalist political project. Along with Neoliberals and Marxists, Islamists are participants in a dispute about how the world as whole is to be governed. None is ready to entertain the possibility that it should always contain a diversity of regimes. On this point, they differ from non-western traditions of thinking in India, China and Japan, which are much more restrained in making universal claims. In their unshakeable faith that one way of living is best for all humankind, the chief protagonists in the dispute about political Islam belong to a way of thinking that is quintessentially western. As in Cold War times, we are led to believe we are locked in a clash of civilisations: the West against the rest. In truth, the ideologues of political Islam are western voices, no less than Marx or Hayek. The struggle with radical Islam is yet another western family quarrel.

It is known that the Quran leaves an analytical reader the impression of disarrangement, and that it seems to be a compound of diverse elements. Nevertheless, the Quran is life, not literature. Islam is a way of living rather than a way of thinking. The only authentic comment of the Quran can be life, and as we know, it was the life of the prophet Muhammad. Islam is in its written form (the Quran) may seem disorderly, but in the life of Muhammad it proves itself to be a natural union of love and force, the sublime and the real, the divine and the human. This explosive compound of religion and politics produced enormous force in the life of the peoples who accepted it. In one moment, Islam has coincided with the very essence of life.

كنت ستصنع العجب العجاب ، هيه ؟ مبشر لأوربا على غرار كولومبانوس المتحمس فياكر و سكوتوس كل على كرياس في الأعالي دلقا من كوزيهما ، يضحكان بلاتينيه صاخبة : Eugel Eugel ، خيرا عملت ! خيرا ما فعلت ! تتظاهر بالحديث بلكنة انجليزية مكسرة و أنت تجر شنطك ، شيال بثلاثة بنسات على طول رصيف نيوهافين الموحل . Comment ? . جلبت معك أسلايا نفسية : Le turtu ، و خمسة أعداد ممزقة من Pantalon Blanc et Culotte Rouge و برقية فرنسية زرقاء ، غرائب للفرجة . - الوالدة تحتضر إحضر والدك تعتقد العمة أنك قتلت أمك . لهذا لا تريدني أن . في صحة عمة ماليجـــان فهي تحرص على النظام و تعـرف قيمة الاحــــــترام فـي عـائــلة هانـيجــــــان

Shrouded as he was for a decade in an apparent cloak of anonymity and obscurity, Osama bin Laden was by no means an invisible man. He was ubiquitous and palpable, both in a physical and a cyber-spectral form, to the extent that his death took on something of the feel of an exorcism. It is satisfying to know that, before the end came, he had begun at least to guess at the magnitude of his 9/11 mistake. It is essential to remember that his most fanatical and militant deputy, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, did not just leave his corpse in Iraq but was isolated and repudiated even by the minority Sunnis on whose presumed behalf he spilled so much blood and wrought such hectic destruction. It is even more gratifying that bin Laden himself was exposed as an excrescence on the putrid body of a bankrupt and brutish state machine, and that he found himself quite unable to make any coherent comment on the tide—one hopes that it is a tide, rather than a mere wave—of demand for an accountable and secular form of civil society. There could not have been a finer affirmation of the force of life, so warmly and authentically counterposed to the hysterical celebration of death, and of that death-in-life that is experienced in the stultifications of theocracy, where womanhood and music and literature are stifled and young men mutated into robotic slaughterers.

President Barack Obama and many liberal-minded commentators have been hesitant to call this Islamist ideology by its proper name. They seem to fear that both Muslim communities and the religiously intolerant will hear the word “Islam” and simply assume that all Muslims are being held responsible for the excesses of the jihadist few. I call this the Voldemort effect, after the villain in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books. Many well-meaning people in Ms. Rowling’s fictional world are so petrified of Voldemort’s evil that they do two things: They refuse to call Voldemort by name, instead referring to “He Who Must Not Be Named,” and they deny that he exists in the first place. Such dread only increases public hysteria, thus magnifying the appeal of Voldemort’s power. The same hysteria about Islamism is unfolding before our eyes. But no strategy intended to defeat Islamism can succeed if Islamism itself and its violent expression in jihadism are not first named, isolated and understood. From: Maajid Nawaz's article titled, 'How to Beat Islamic State', December 11th, 2015.

The universe and the events in it are thus perfect examples to imitate. However, no matter how perfect the example is, everyone will draw and interpret objects according to their abilities. Charles Lako, commenting on aesthetics once said, that the magnificent scene at sunset would remind a farmer of the rather unaesthetic thought of dinner; the physicist, not of beauty or ugliness, but of the rightness or wrongness of the analysis of a matter. Thus, for Lalo, the sunset is beautiful only for those who are aware of beauty. Therefore, only those who see with God and hear with God can appreciate the beauty that spreads throughout existence as their senses are tuned to the spiritual realms.

When trying to explain the violent path of some Islamists, Western commentators sometimes blame harsh economic conditions, dysfunctional family circumstances, confused identity, the generic alienation of young males, a failure to integrate into the larger society, mental illness, and so on. Some on the Left insist that the real fault lies with the mistakes of American foreign policy. None of this is convincing. Jihad in the twenty-first century is not a problem of poverty, insufficient education, or any other social precondition. (Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was earning more than $90,000 a year working for a drilling company in British Columbia, where he also reportedly proclaimed his support of the Taliban and joked about suicide bombing vests, with no repercussions.) We must move beyond such facile explanations. The imperative for jihad is embedded in Islam itself. It is a religious obligation.

It is all too often the case with certain types of scholars of Malay-Indonesian Islam, when dealing with Islamic texts such as the one in question in which they are confronted with a word they do not quite understand, that instead of admitting their failure to explain the word in the text as due to their own lack of understanding, they would proceed to conjure up some excuse for branding the word as an enigma, and then, because it is an enigma to them, they would proceed further to reject it with such pronouncements as: “it seems obvious that this puzzling word is due to a scribal error”, so that they might suggest their own futile substitute.

The Muslim sees the Koran as the perfect and final revelation of Allah. Allah was the revealer, and Mohammed was the receptor. The very words were dictated to him. He, to them, is the last and the greatest prophet. The proof of his supremacy is the beauty of the Koran. It is the book that is considered to be the ultimate expression of perfection and the repository of truth. The difficulty here is manifold. How does one sustain that this written text is perfect? Let us consider just one troublesome aspect, the grammatical flaws that have been demonstrated. Ali Dashti, an Iranian author and a committed Muslim, commented that the errors in the Koran were so many that the grammatical rules had to be altered in order to fit the claim that the Koran was flawless. He gives numerous examples of these in his book, Twenty-Three Years: The Life of the Prophet Mohammed. (The only precaution he took before publishing this book was to direct that it be published posthumously.) A further problem facing the early compilers of the Koran was the number of variant readings of some of the important texts. Now, in recent times, scholars have begun to look at the Koran and have raised some very serious questions regarding its origin and compilation. This has sent many Islamic scholars scrambling for a response.5

Les historiens non-maghrébins semblent poser des questions légitimes : Que sont les berbères ? Se demandent les préhistoriens. Comment sont-ils passés de la barbarie à la civilisation ? Se demandent protohistoriens et classicisants. Pourquoi adoptèrent-ils l’islam ?, se demandent les médiévistes. Derrière ces questions s’en cachent cependant d’autres, bien moins innocentes : Ont-ils manqué l’âge des métaux ? Reçurent-ils l’agriculture des phéniciens ? Méconnurent-ils l’organisation politique de Rome ? Ce sont en fait des affirmations à peine voilées et au fond desquelles se cache toujours la vielle exclamation horrifiée : Quel scandale que l’Islamisation !

Islamic tradition does not recognize such presumptuous and conceited preoccupation as "reviewing", which is now widely practised among scholars who regard highly this legacy of the Western tradition modern scholarship. a Muslim scholar, with the work of another before him, would either - according to Islamic tradition - refute it (radd), or elaborate it further in commentary (sharh) as the occasion demands. there is no such thing as "reviewing" it, whether the "review" is termed as such or as any other term which describes it. If there are petty mistakes they turn a blind eye to them; if there are obscurities they explain them in commentary - they polish a positive work and make it shine.

Belloc led the charge in his critique of this misguided sense of superiority and myopic view of progress. But it was he alone among historians, social commentators, and counter-cultural voices who predicted that Islam—or as he called it, “Mohammedanism”—would rise again and, as it had in the past, harness the technology of the West as a weapon to turn back on the West and crush it by degrees. After September 11, 2001, no one is surprised to learn that Islam is turning the West’s superiority back on itself; what is surprising is that a lone historian and essayist saw this coming in the 1930s. That he captivates and places the reader in the middle of the action is an added bonus to the prophetic vision of what embroils our age.

(Note: The following was written in 2003, before the full implication of US military commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq could be fully appreciated. The passage also predates US drone attacks against targets in Pakistan and Yemen - to say nothing of Israeli affairs since 2003. It is unknown if and how the author's comments would change if he were writing the same today.) The value of Israel to the United States as a strategic asset has been much disputed. There have been some in the United States who view Israel as a major strategic ally in the region and the one sure bastion against both external and regional enemies. Others have argued that Israel, far from being a strategic asset, has been a strategic liability, by embittering U.S. relations with the Arab world and causing the failure of U.S. policies in the region. But if one compares the record of American policy in the Middle East with that of other regions, one is struck not by its failure but by its success. There is, after all, no Vietnam in the Middle East, no Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, not even an Angola. On the contrary, throughout the successive crises that have shaken the region, there has always been an imposing political, economic, and cultural American presence, usually in several countries - and this, until the Gulf War of 1991, without the need for any significant military intervention. And even then, their presence was needed to rescue the victims of an inter-Arab aggression, unrelated to either Israelis or Palestinians. (99)

Jusqu’à quel point faut-il consentir des « accommodements raisonnables » à des personnes qui veulent vivre intégralement, dans des sociétés sécularisées, les préceptes de leur religion ? Comment faire en sorte que la liberté de religion reconnue par les chartes des droits ne soit pas la voie de passage vers l’établissement d’un cadre de vie publique qui rende impossibles les autres libertés proclamées par ces chartes ? Plus fondamentalement, comment faire coexister, dans la formulation de choix politiques et dans la mise en place d’un cadre de vie commun, des visions de l’être humain, des rapports entre hommes et femmes, de la société, de l’histoire, aussi radicalement opposées que les visions fondamentalistes et les visions sécularisées ? Ce ne sont pas des questions gratuites. Partout maintenant, les fondamentalismes religieux veulent substituer aux codes civils et criminels et aux cadres politiques d’inspiration libérale, au sens large du terme, des codes civils et criminels et des cadres politiques traduisant très précisément des opinions religieuses. Faut-il insister en rappelant les pratiques que semble vouloir établir sur les terres qu’il a conquises le « Califat » autoproclamé de l’« État islamique » ? Les démocraties libérales occidentales, dont la québécoise et la canadienne, fières de leurs généreuses déclarations des droits de la personne, doivent apprendre à vivre, dans et hors leurs frontières, avec des groupes qui veulent mettre en place un ordre social radicalement différent nourri d’une foi intransigeante. Plus fondamentalement, il faut courir le risque de préserver des libertés pour tous, y incluant pour des personnes qui les réclament au nom des principes libéraux eux-mêmes tout en rêvant parfois d’un nouvel ordre social et politique où ces libertés ne seraient plus reconnues, du moins sous leur forme actuelle. Le sacrifice de plus de 150 militaires canadiens dans les paysages arides de l’Afghanistan ne nous a apporté aucun avancement dans la solution de cet enjeu désormais capital. Il sera présent probablement longtemps dans les sociétés se réclamant de la démocratie libérale.

All these complexities are lost on many commentators, often the same ones who would single out the Arabs for being Arabs; now there is a keen interest in explaining any social evolution or political process through the exclusive prism of Islam. According to such commentators, Muslims act in a certain way mainly because they are Muslims, not because they are Moroccans or Jordanians, blue-collared or self-employed, educated or illiterate, urbanites or peasant, straight or gay, young or old, Arabic speakers or native Berbers, and of course their class background and financial resources are meaningless compared with their religious affiliation. Those analysts share one thing in common with the Jihadis, they believe Islam provides all the answers. The Arab Revolution: Ten Lessons From the Democratic Uprisisng

There is only one speaker throughout: Allah himself (although there are a few exceptions that bedevil Koranic commentators to this day). Because it is without doubt, and because it is entirely Allah’s word, without any human element whatsoever, and because he guarantees its preservation, it cannot be questioned. Historically this has made the words of the Koran—on wife-beating, the treatment of non-Muslims, and much more—a virtually insurmountable obstacle to reform within Islam. Reformers are immediately branded as heretics or apostates, and are frequently subject to persecution from authorities anxious to safeguard Islamic orthodoxy. To

works of Maryam Jamilah, a convert to Islam from Judaism. She had chosen to live as a co-wife to an assistant to Maulana Maududi, the prominent Pakistani commentator on the Quran. Jamilah argued that the Islamic version of gender equity greatly benefits society. Others, like Fatima Mernissi, had previously argued that Islam clearly discriminated against women. Look at polygamy, wife-beating and the segregation of women, she implored.

The educational element in the adab discussion of knowledge is unmistakable in a monograph entitled “The Encouragement of Seeking and Being Eager to Gather Knowledge” by Abû Hilâl al-Askarî. The brief work is distinguished by the comparative originality of its contents and the author’s willingness to give his own views and comments on the sayings and stories he cites. His aim is to show that while the acquisition of knowledge calls for hard work, industriousness, and great sacrifi ce, the rewards both material and spiritual are worth the effort required. The two basic ideas are rather skilfully interwoven, with the principal stress on the necessity of relentless labor. Knowledge means perfection or, as the author puts it, “perfect among men is he who realizes the excellence of knowledge and then is able to study, in order to obtain knowledge,” and, as a result, to taste the sweetness of the incomparable pleasure it provides.

Today, most Khaches in Srinagar prefer to be called “Kashmiri,” and they bristle at any implication that they are Tibetan. As one Tibetan Muslim explained, “In Tibet we are called Kashmiris and in Kashmir we are being called Tibetan.”113 When asked to comment further by a Kashmiri newspaper reporter, one elder Khache explained, “We are basically Kashmiri, but people still call us Tibetans, which hurts us.”114 Another puts an even a sharper edge to his response, “Don’t call us Tibetans. We are not refugees. We are Kashmiris.”115 One could perhaps dismiss these responses as a reflection of lingering fears from a bygone era if such distinctions did not remain of consequence. When asked, many younger Kashmiris expressed disbelief and even exasperation about their parents’ or grandparents’ decision to settle in Kashmir, a place where they were unwelcome, even as other Khaches lead relatively more prosperous lives in Kathmandu, Kalimpong, and Darjeeling. Like many second-generation immigrants, this younger generation feels only a distant tie to their grandparents’ homeland. “Even if tomorrow Tibet might be liberated from China, we will stay here only,” said twenty-year-old Irfan Trumboo.

Sometimes it is said that Guru Nanak attempted to blend the best of Hinduism and Islam in a new religion that would appeal to both communities and bring them together. A moment’s reflection will enable us to realize the inadequacy of this suggestion. Who is to define the ‘best’ of any religion, first of all? (Usually a Westerner using liberal Christianity as the criterion.) Secondly, there was no possibility of bringing together those who followed the teachings of the Vedas and the ministry of the brahmins, with those for whom the Qur’an was authoritative. It is, in fact, unlikely that Guru Nanak wished to create a religion at all, bearing in mind his comments on the inadequacy of religion!

Islam from the beginning was primarily predisposed toward one particular people. There is very little doubt that in its inception, Islam was a geopolitical reaction to the other groups around them. Even those sympathetic to Islam, such as Ali Dashti, the noted Iranian journalist, comment that the greatest miracle in Islam is that it gave Mohammed’s followers an identity, something they had lacked as various warring tribal groups. The very language of the Koran is restrictive. To claim that Mohammed’s only miracle was the Koran and then to state that one cannot recognize the miracle unless one knows the language makes a miracle anything but universal. How can a “prophet to the world” be so narrowly restricted to a language group? The Koran, it is said, is only inspired in the original language—no other language can bear the miracle. The narrowness of its ethnic appeal cannot be ignored.

L’art de l’Islam allie la profusion joyeuse de la végétation avec la rigueur abstraite et pure des cristaux : une niche de prière ornée d’arabesques tient du jardin et des flocons de neige. Ce mélange de qualités se rencontre déjà dans le Koran, où la géométrie des idées est comme cachée sous le flamboiement des formes. L’Islam, par sa hantise de l’Unité, si l’on peut dire, a aussi un aspect de simplicité désertique, de blancheur et d’austérité, qui dans l’art alterne avec la joie cristalline de l’ornementation. Le berceau des Arabes est un paysage fait de déserts et d’oasis. L’art musulman montre d’une façon très transparente comment l’art doit répéter la nature – au sens le plus vaste – dans ses modes créateurs sans la copier dans ses résultats.

Some commentators have wrapped the Russian/Muslim invasion into the final battle at Armageddon. That’s easy to do because both are end times battles and both take place in and near Israel. However, a close analysis shows us that these are two distinctly different end times events.

L'Islam a perpétué jusqu'à nos jours le monde biblique, que le Christianisme, une fois européanisé, ne pouvait plus représenter ; sans islam, le Catholicisme eût vite fait d'envahir tout le Proche Orient, ce qui eût signifié la destruction de l'Orthodoxie et des autres Eglises d'Orient et la romanisation – donc l'européanisation – de notre monde jusqu'aux confins de l'Inde ; le monde biblique serait mort. On peut dire que l'Islam a eu le rôle providentiel d'arrêter le temps – donc d'exclure l'Europe – sur la partie biblique du globe et de stabiliser, tout en l'universalisant, le monde d'Abraham, qui fut aussi celui de Jésus ; le Judaïsme étant émigré et dispersé, et le Christianisme s'étant romanisé, hellénisé et germanisé, Dieu « se repentit » - pour employer le mot de la Genèse – de ce développement unilatéral et suscita l'Islam, qu'il fit surgir du désert, ambiance ou arrière-plan du Monothéisme originel. Il y a là un jeu d'équilibre et de compensation dont les exotérismes ne sauraient rendre compte, et il serait absurde de le leur demander (1). (1) Titus Burckhardt, ayant lu ces lignes, nous a communiqué au sujet du cycle Abraham-Mohammed les réflexions suivantes : « Il est significatif que la langue arabe soit la plus archaïque de toutes les langues sémitiques vivantes : son phonétisme conserve, à un son près, tous les sons indiqués par les plus anciens alphabètes sémitiques, et sa morphologie se retrouve dans le célèbre code de Hammourabi, qui est à peu près contemporain d'Abraham. » - « En fait, la Mecque avec la Kaaba construite par Abraham et Ismaël, est la ville sacrée oubliée, - oubliée à la fois par le Judaïsme, qui ignore le rôle prophétique d'Ismaël, et par le Chrisianisme, qui a hérité le même point de vue. Le sanctuaire de la Mecque, lequel est au Prophète ce que le Temple de Jérusalem est au Christ, - en un certain sens tout au moins, - est comme la « pierre rejetée par les bâtisseurs » et qui devient la pierre d'angle. Cette oublie du sanctuaire ismaélien, en même temps que la continuité Abraham-Ismaël-Mohammed, - le Prophète arabe étant de descendance ismaélienne, - ce double facteur nous montre comment l'économie divine aime à combiner le géométrique avec l'imprévu. Sans aucune importance est ici l'opinion de ceux qui voient dans l'origine abrahamique de la Kaaba un mythe musulman rétrospectif, et qui perdent totalement de vue que les anciens Arabes possédaient une mémoire généalogique à la fois extraordinaire et méticuleuse, comme d'ailleurs la plupart des nomades ou semi-nomades.

[...] l’esprit occidental est presque entièrement d’essence chrétienne dans tout ce qu’il a de positif. Il n’est pas au pouvoir des hommes de se défaire, par leurs propres moyens, c’est-à-dire par de simples idéologies, d’une si profonde hérédité ; leurs intelligences s’exercent selon des habitudes séculaires, même lorsqu’elles inventent des erreurs. On ne peut faire abstraction de cette formation intellectuelle et mentale, si diminuée soit-elle (1) ; s’il en est ainsi, et si le point de vue traditionnel subsiste inconsciemment même chez ceux qui estiment ne plus devoir se réclamer d’aucune tradition, ou chez ceux qui, par simple souci d’impartialité, veulent se placer en dehors du point de vue chrétien ou juif, comment pourrait-on supposer que les éléments constitutifs d’une autre tradition puissent être interprétés dans leur véritable sens ? N’est-il pas frappant que les opinions courantes sur l’Islam par exemple, soient à peu près identiques chez la majorité des Occidentaux, qu’ils se disent chrétiens ou qu’ils se flattent de ne plus l’être ? Les réserves qu’ils formulent à l’égard de l’Islam, — pour ne rien dire des cas d’ignorance pure et simple ou d’une hostilité franchement moderniste, — proviennent généralement beaucoup moins d’une juste appréciation des choses, qu’elles ne sont le fait d’une hérédité mentale et psychique, qui subsiste dans la pensée occidentale et qui souvent n’y est plus autre chose que le résidu de la vraie spiritualité chrétienne." 1. Les erreurs philosophiques elles-mêmes ne seraient pas concevables, si elles ne représentaient la négation de certaines vérités, et si ces négations n’étaient des réactions directes ou indirectes contre certaines limitations formelles de la tradition ; on voit par là qu’aucune erreur, philosophique ou religieuse, ne peut prétendre à une parfaite indépendance et autonomie vis-à-vis de la tradition ou de la conception traditionnelle qu’elle rejette ou qu’elle défigure. "Christianisme et Islam", in Etudes Traditionnelles numéro spécial Tradition islamique, 1934.

The usual result of excessiveness is its antithesis. A society that starts out with extreme Puritanical ethics may turn into one of overindulgence and licentiousness. On an individual level, the experience is similar. It is a principal feature of the Islamic faith that the “middle way” be the path that Muslims adhere to. The Qur’an itself calls the believers a “middle nation,” which commentators say includes moderation, which leads to a consistency of worship and conduct that one can carry on throughout his or her life. It is said that the Judaic legal tradition is based on stern justice, while at the foundation of the Christian phenomena is the idea of categorical mercy where everybody should be forgiven no matter what. With Islam, a balance is struck suitable for the complex societies that have spread across the face of the earth, a balance between avoiding God’s ghaḍab (wrath and stern justice) and hoping for God’s raḥmah (mercy). To take the straight way, one must have both, the law and the spirit of the law, the sharīʿah and the ḥaqīqah. The law consists of rules, and the spirit of the law is mercy. God sent down the shariah as a mercy, and the Prophet himself is “a mercy to the worlds” (QUR’AN , 21:107).

Comme le Christianisme, l'Islam enseigne que Jésus n'a pas eu de père humain, qu'il est « Parole de Dieu », qu'il est né d'une Vierge et que lui et cette Vierge-Mère ont le privilège unique de ne pas avoir été « touchés par le diable » au moment de leur naissance, ce qui indique l'Immaculée Conception ; comme il est impossible même au point de vue musulman que tous ces privilèges incomparables n'aient une signification secondaire, qu'ils ne se soient produits qu'« en passant » et sans laisser de traces décisives, les chrétiens se demanderont comment les musulmans peuvent sans contradiction concilier cette sublimité avec la foi en un Prophète subséquent. Pour le comprendre, - tout argument métaphysique mis à part, - il faut tenir compte de ceci: le Monothéisme intégral comporte deux lignées distinctes, israélite l'une et ismaélienne l'autre ; or, alors que dans la lignée israélite Abraham se trouve pour ainsi dire renouvelé ou remplacé par Moïse, - la Révélation sinaïtique étant comme un second commencement du Monothéisme, - Abraham reste toujours le Révélateur primordiale et unique pour les fils d'Ismaël. Le miracle sinaïtique appelait le miracle messianique ou christique : c'est le Christ qui, à un certain point de vue, clôt la lignée mosaïque et clôt la Bible, glorieusement et irrévocablement. Mais ce cycle allant de Moïse à Jésus, ou du Sinaï à l'Ascension, n'englobe précisément pas tout le Monothéisme : la lignée ismaélienne, et toujours abrahamique, se situait en dehors de ce cycle et restait en quelque sorte disponible ; elle appelait à son tour un achèvement glorieux, de caractère non sinaïtique et christique, mais abrahamique et mohammédien, et en un certain sens « désertique » et « nomade »

The International Herald Tribune reported on April 21, 2006, that the “crumbling mud-brick buildings” in the area Hussein was trying to re-build in Babylon, “look like smashed sandcastles at the beach. The newspaper observed that Babylon had been “ransacked, looted, torn up, paved over, neglected and roughly occupied…soldiers had even used soil thick with priceless artifacts to stuff sandbags”. The Mayor of a nearby village, Hilla, told the newspaper that he still had hopes that Babylon could someday have “restaurants, gift shops, long parking lots…and maybe even a Holiday Inn.” Iraqi officials are quoted as saying they would still like to turn Babylon into “a cultural center and possibly even an Iraqi theme park.” In spite of this, one Bible commentator wrote recently, that it was “enormously significant” that the U.S. had agreed to invest $700,000 (that’s thousands, not millions or billions – enough to buy a couple of nice houses) into re-building Babylon as a ‘tourist attraction.’ He wrote that ancient Babylon would become “the wealthiest and most powerful city on the face of the planet.” In arriving at this conclusion he has interpreted the Bible’s Daughter of Babylon verses as applying to the site of ancient Babylon.

The New Yorker (The New Yorker) - Clip This Article on Location 1510 | Added on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:42:23 PM FICTION THE DUNIAZáT BY SALMAN RUSHDIE   In the year 1195, the great philosopher Ibn Rushd, once the qadi , or judge, of Seville and most recently the personal physician to the Caliph Abu Yusuf Yaqub in his home town of Córdoba, was formally discredited and disgraced on account of his liberal ideas, which were unacceptable to the increasingly powerful Berber fanatics who were spreading like a pestilence across Arab Spain, and was sent to live in internal exile in the small village of Lucena, a village full of Jews who could no longer say they were Jews because they had been forced to convert to Islam. Ibn Rushd, a philosopher who was no longer permitted to expound his philosophy, all of whose writing had been banned and burned, felt instantly at home among the Jews who could not say they were Jews. He had been a favorite of the Caliph of the present ruling dynasty, the Almohads, but favorites go out of fashion, and Abu Yusuf Yaqub had allowed the fanatics to push the great commentator on Aristotle out of town. The philosopher who could not speak his philosophy lived on a narrow unpaved street in a humble house with small windows and was terribly oppressed by the absence of light. He set up a medical practice in Lucena, and his status as the ex-physician of the Caliph himself brought him patients; in addition, he used what assets he had to enter modestly into the horse trade, and also financed the making of tinajas , the large earthenware vessels, in which the Jews who were no longer Jews stored and sold olive oil and wine. One day soon after the beginning of his exile, a girl of perhaps sixteen summers appeared outside his door, smiling gently, not knocking or intruding on his thoughts in any way, and simply stood there waiting patiently until he became aware of her presence and invited her in. She told him that she was newly orphaned, that she had no source of income, but preferred not to work in the whorehouse, and that her name was Dunia, which did not sound like a Jewish name because she was not allowed to speak her Jewish name, and, because she was illiterate, she could not write it down. She told him that a traveller had suggested the name and said it was Greek and meant “the world,” and she had liked that idea. Ibn Rushd, the translator of Aristotle, did not quibble with her, knowing that it meant “the world” in enough tongues to make pedantry unnecessary. “Why have you named yourself after the world?” he asked her, and she replied, looking him in the eye as she spoke, “Because a world will flow from me and those who flow from me will spread across the world.” Being a man of reason, Ibn Rushd did not guess that the girl was a supernatural creature, a jinnia, of the tribe of female jinn: a grand princess of that tribe, on an earthly adventure, pursuing her fascination with human men in general and brilliant ones in particular.

And finally, when the celebrated Quranic commentator Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi (1149–1209) interpreted the verse “[God] created spouses for you of your own kind so that you may have peace of mind through them” (3:21) as “proof that women were created like animals and plants and other useful things [and not for] worship and carrying the Divine commands . . . because the woman is weak, silly, and in one sense like a child,” his commentary became (and still is) one of the most widely respected in the Muslim world. This last point bears repeating. The fact is that for fifteen centuries, the science of Quranic commentary has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men. And because each one of these exegetes inevitably brings to the Quran his own ideology and his own preconceived notions, it should not be surprising to learn that certain verses have most often been read in their most misogynist interpretation.

So rapid was the Ottoman assimilation of cannon technology that by the 1440s they had evidently acquired the unique ability, widely commented on by eyewitnesses, to cast medium-size barrels on the battlefield in makeshift foundries. Murat transported gunmetal to the Hexamilion and cast many of his long guns on the spot. This allowed extraordinary flexibility during siege warfare:

The politics of the 1970s were the second factor in this social shift. In his efforts to confront the Nasserite and socialist forces in Egypt, President Anwar Sadat unleashed Egypt's Islamic forces. He released thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders and members from jail (after years of imprisonment and prosecution under Nasser), and allowed the Brotherhood's old newspaper the Call (Al-Dawaa) to be reissued. He tried to assume the mantle of Islam by calling himself ‘the guardian of the faith’; emphasized that his first name was ‘Mohamed’ not ‘Anwar’; promoted religious schools; authorized a major increase in the budget of Al-Azhar and an expansion of its parallel educational system; opened the door for leading religious scholars and commentators to dominate the state-controlled media; introduced apostasy laws in Egypt after years of a highly liberal intellectual atmosphere; declared sharia law (Islamic jurisprudence) as the principal source for the Egyptian constitution (after decades during which religion was generally marginal to legislation with the exception of personal status laws); and declared himself the leader of ‘an Islamic pious country’.

Bernard Lewis, a lifelong student of Jews and Islam and himself a Jew, reflected on the fourteen centuries of Jewish life under Islamic rule, eight centuries after Maimonides’ damning verdict. Lewis wrote: ‘The Jews were never free from discrimination, but only rarely subject to persecution.’ He noted that the situation of Jews living under Islamic rulers was ‘never as bad as in Christendom at its worst, nor ever as good as in Christendom at its best.’ Lewis observed that ‘there is nothing in Islamic history to parallel the Spanish expulsion and Inquisition, the Russian pogroms, or the Nazi Holocaust.’ But he also commented that, on the other hand, there was nothing in the history of Jews under Islam ‘to compare with the progressive emancipation and acceptance accorded to Jews in the democratic West during the last three centuries.’11

1923 constitution. The committee, which comprised five Christians, one Jew and six Muslims, instituted Article 1 (that Islam is the religion of the state) unanimously. And interestingly the five Christian committee members were the ones who rejected a clause, suggested by a Muslim, to have a minimum number of parliamentary seats and ministerial posts reserved for Christians. ‘It would be a shame for Egyptian Christians to be appointed, not elected,’ commented one of the Christian committee members. That was the era when a Christian politician such as Makram Ebeid Pasha, the legendary general secretary of Al-Wafd, was elected for six consecutive terms to the parliament in a constituency with virtually no Christians. Sadly, those were different times.46 In another incident following its 2005 electoral success,

Un certain groupe de métiers — se caractérisant par l’usage qu’ils font du feu pour transformer ou ennoblir des matières comme le métal ou les minéraux dont on fait du verre et des émaux — sert de base à une tradition spirituelle qui se rattache à Hermès Trismégiste dont le nom égyptien est Thot et que beaucoup de musulmans comptent au nombre des anciens prophètes. L’art hermétiste par excellence, c’est l’alchimie ; le plus souvent mal comprise, parce que la transmutation qui est son but et qu’elle traduit en termes artisanaux, se situe en réalité au niveau de l’âme. Que l’alchimie ait été pratiquée par beaucoup d’artisans du feu, ne fait aucun doute ; son emblème, le couple de dragons entrelacés — forme médiévale du caducée — orne de nombreux récipients en céramique ou en métal. Nombre d’artisans ou d’artistes, qu’ils aient reçu ou non une initiation correspondant à leur entrée dans une corporation professionnelle, adhéraient ou adhèrent encore à un Ordre soufi (...) on peut également dire que le soufisme se situe là où l’amour et la connaissance convergent. Or, l’objet ultime et commun de l’amour comme de la connaissance n’est autre que la Beauté divine. On comprendra dès lors comment l’art, dans une civilisation théocentrique comme celle de l’Islam, se rattache à l’ésotérisme, dimension la plus intérieure de la tradition. Art et contemplation : l’art a pour objet la beauté formelle, alors que l’objet de la contemplation est la beauté au-delà de la forme qui révèle qualitativement l’ordre formel, tout en le dépassant infiniment. Dans la mesure où l’art s’apparente à la contemplation, il est connaissance, la beauté étant un aspect de la Réalité, au sens absolu du terme. Cela nous ramène au phénomène de scission entre art et artisanat, d’une part, et art et science, d’autre part, phénomène qui a profondément marqué la civilisation européenne moderne : si l’art n’est plus considéré comme une science, c’est-à-dire comme une connaissance, c’est que la beauté, objet de contemplation à divers degrés, n’est plus reconnue comme un aspect du réel. En fait, l’ordre normal des choses a été renversé à un point tel qu’on identifie volontiers la laideur à la réalité, la beauté n’étant plus que l'objet d’un esthétisme aux contours parfaitement subjectifs et changeants. Les conséquences de cette dichotomie de l’expérience du réel sont des plus graves : car c’est finalement la beauté — subtilement rattachée à l’origine même des choses — qui jugera de la valeur ou de la futilité d’un monde. Ainsi que le Prophète l’a dit : « Dieu est beau et II aime la beauté. » p. 296-298

Manuscripts - at least for Muslims who understand the subject - are to be read as books whose contents are to be known and understood, for that is why they were written, and not to be regarded as enigmatic specimens for critical textual and philological exercises. To them what is in the manuscripts is more important than what is on them, and so they say: Al-'ilmu fi'l-sudur la fi'l-sutur.

Comment lutter contre l'islam radical ?

When I lived in Holland, I would try to make myself physically shrink when Somali or other African men sat next to me on the train. They behaved in a proprietary manner, as though I were theirs to be subjected to lewd comments. Now I see that it is not just Somali girls editing themselves out of city streets. European women, too, are facing increased rates of sexual violence and harassment on public transit and are adopting coping mechanisms similar to those used by women in Africa and the Middle East.

The believers are described as people whose hearts are alive and full of light, while the scoffers are in darkness: Is one who was dead and then We revived [with faith] and made for him a light by which to walk among the people like one who is in darkness from which he cannot exit? (QURAN, 6:122). According to commentators of the Quran, the one who was dead refers to having a dead heart, which God revived with the light of guidance that one may walk straight and honorably among human beings. Also, the prophet Muhammad said, “The difference between the one who remembers God and one who does not is like the difference between the living and the dead.” In essence, the believer is someone whose heart is alive, while the disbeliever is someone whose heart is spiritually dead.

Maa! I'm not a kid! I've spent every last minute in these past four days thinking through every single potential obstacle. I've predicted all the smart-arse comments people can throw at me. Nappy-head, tea-towel head, camel jockey. and all the rest. Yeah, I'm scared. OK, there, happy? I'm petrified. walked into my classroom and wanted to throw up from how nervous I was. But this decision, it's coming from my heart. I can't explain or rationalize it. OK, I'm doing it because I believe it's my duty and defines me as a Muslim female but it's not as . . . I don't know how to put it.. it's more than just that

Not only is the person denied salvation in the next world, but he is also liable to capital punishment by the state.” Khadduri quotes the various Koranic verses—2:214, 5:59, 16:108—that condemn apostates and then focuses on 4:90-91, which calls for the killing of the apostate from Islam, and concludes, Although only [verse 4:90–91] specifically states that death sentence should be imposed on those who apostatize or turn back from religion, all the commentators agree that a believer who turns back from his religion (irtadda) openly or secretly, must be killed if he persists in disbelief. The traditions are more explicit in providing the death penalty for everyone who apostatizes from Islam. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: “He who changes his religion [Islam] must be killed.

Brady did find one trusted source for news and education that was recommended to her by many friends and fellow patriots. She began to watch the television show of a commentator named Glenn Beck. “I kind of got an education. My start of my education was Glenn Beck, I guess. Because that’s the only person that was talking about the issues that I agreed with.” Glenn Beck was the most prominent voice in the American Tea Party movement, and understanding Beck’s political philosophy was critical to understanding the Tea Party and the relationship of the Tea Party to Charles Koch’s political efforts. Glenn Beck’s television show on Fox News drew close to three million viewers in 2009, beating the combined ratings of all his competitors’ shows. Beck spent many years honing his skills as a political entertainer on talk radio, where provocation was the currency of the realm. Debate was better than discussion. Suspense was better than satisfaction. Outrage was better than understanding. Glenn Beck elevated this genre to the level of high art. The narratives he spun on his show were terrifying and purported to reveal the broad contours of chilling global conspiracies. He affected the persona of a high school teacher, wearing a cheap, ill-fitting coat and tie. He stood in front of a chalkboard. During one show, the chalkboard displayed three logos: The United Nations symbol, the Islamic crescent, and the iconic Communist hammer and sickle. Beck explained that these three logos represented the three global movements that were currently hard at work to enslave and control his viewers.

Social media adds a new form of currency - attention. This is measured in likes, comments, shares, and followers.

Grigory Yavlinski, the head of the political movement Yabloko, commented that “lack of faith is the prologue to corruption and bureaucracy, which produce terrorism…. Economic reforms in a nation that does not believe in God are totally impossible.” The writer Valery Ganichev, chairman of the Russian Union of Writers, proclaimed his fears that “Russia is cloning the cells of immorality that it grasped from Western culture” and called for popular demand that the government “help save the nation from depravity.” These tensions were further reinforced by the bitter so-called Uniate controversy, still ongoing, between Catholicism and Orthodoxy over who should control the Nestorian and Monophysite churches in Ukraine and Belorussia—an issue now inevitably entangled in the geopolitical struggles between Russia and the West.

In its report, the local news station KXAN stated the case succinctly: “The State Board of Education is sending a message to textbook publishers: Don’t promote one religion at the expense of others.”142 Texas activist Randy Reeves, who drafted the resolution, understated his case when he commented, “I think our documentation clearly shows that the bias is there. And we feel that it was not done on accident.”143 All this was happening according to the Islamic supremacists’ predetermined plan. And even where Islamic supremacists are not employing such subterfuge, they’re working to gain special accommodation for Muslims in public schools. They have a playbook for how to impose Islam in the public schools. In Islam, there is no separation of mosque and state—mosque is state in Islam. In May 2010, the Islamic Web site Sound Vision published a six-step plan by the founding director of the Council on Islamic Education, Shabbir Mansuri, on how to pressure public school authorities into allowing special accommodation for Muslims.

Un exemple de symbolisme, à première vue arbitraire et excessif mais en fin de compte plausible, est le hadîth qui voue les peintres et les sculpteurs au fond de l’enfer. On objectera évidemment que les arts plastiques sont naturels à l’homme, qu’ils existent partout et qu’ils peuvent avoir une fonction sacrale, – c’est là même leur raison d’être la plus profonde, – ce qui est vrai, mais passe à côté de l’intention essentielle du hadîth. C’est-à-dire que le sens littéral de la sentence, par sa violence même, représente une « guerre préventive » contre l’abus ultime de l’intelligence humaine, à savoir le naturalisme sous toutes ses formes : naturalisme artistique d’une part et naturalisme philosophique et scientiste d’autre part ; donc imitation exacte, extériorisante et « accidentalisante » des apparences, et recours à la seule logique, à la seule raison, coupée de ses racines. L’homme est homo sapiens et homo faber : il est un penseur et par là même aussi un producteur, un artisan, un artiste ; or, il est une phase finale de ces développements qui lui est interdite, – elle est préfigurée par le fruit défendu du Paradis, – une phase donc qu’il ne doit jamais atteindre, de même que l’homme peut se faire roi ou empereur mais non pas Dieu ; en anathématisant les créateurs d’images, le Prophète entend prévenir la subversion finale. Selon la conception musulmane, il n’y a qu’un seul péché qui mène au fond de l’enfer, – c’est-à-dire qui ne sera jamais pardonné , – et c’est le fait d’associer d’autres divinités au Dieu unique ; si l’Islam place les dits créateurs dans la géhenne, c’est qu’il semble assimiler fort paradoxalement les arts plastiques à ce même péché gravissime, et cette disproportion prouve précisément qu’il a en vu, non les arts dans leur état normal, – bien qu’il les interdise assurément, – mais la raison pour laquelle il les interdit ; à savoir la subversion naturaliste dont les arts plastiques sont, pour la sensibilité sémitique, les symboles et les préfigurations (1). Cet exemple, auquel nous nous sommes arrêté un peu longuement, peut montrer comment les formulations excessives peuvent véhiculer des intentions d’autant plus profondes, ce qui nous ramène une fois de plus au principe credo quia absurdum [je le crois parce que c'est absurde]. (1) En condamnant les images, l’Islam – bienheureusement « stérile » – refuse en même temps le « culturisme » qui est la plaie de l’Occident, à savoir les torrents de créations artistiques et littéraires, qui gonflent les âmes et distraient de la « seule chose nécessaire ».

La Loi sacrée de l’Islam, la « Shariyah » ( = la grande Voie, la Voie extérieure) entoure la vie matérielle de rites, de cérémonies, d’égards et d’obligations de différentes espèces, uniquement pour nous enseigner que les choses existent, comment elles existent, et la juste mesure de respect dû à leur existence* . Le droit canonique de l’Islam est, sans doute, un ordre social, mais il est avant tout un magnifique traité de symbolisme qui expose la place de toutes les choses dans la hiérarchie universelle. * Les initiateurs du Nord exhortent à croire en Dieu, car on ne Le voit pas directement. Ceux du Sud ont besoin d’exhorter à la foi aux choses. Tous les deux expliquent l’invisible selon les circonstances.

Si les racines de l'État n'avaient pas été profondément enfoncées dans le passé romain, l'État médiéval se serait dissout dans l'Église et l'Église dans l'État, et l'on ne voit pas comment le concept moderne de la séparation entre la conscience religieuse et l'État aurait pu se développer, ou même aurait pu naître. Là est le secret de la différence profonde, bien plus profonde encore qu'on ne croit entre États chrétiens et États musulmans. L'Islam apporte non seulement une religion, mais un droit, une politique dont on chercherait vainement l'équivalent dans l'Évangile. [...] Impossible de toucher à quoi que ce soit sans rencontrer, sans risquer d'offenser le dogme. Et comme droit, politique, usages sont rudimentaires, constitués pour une société peu évoluée, c'est une tâche surhumaine d'adapter la société musulmane à la vie moderne.

The concept of monkhood, for example, does not receive approbation in Islam as a form of practice. The Qur’an states that the institution of monasticism was not prescribed by God (Qur’an, 57:27) According to Qur’anic commentators, the people of monasticism became immoderate in their practices, which originated from the desire to gain God’s good pleasure. However, they were unable to maintain their practices, which is the nature of excess and its main defect. When one is unable to keep up with certain practices, one becomes either worn out or altogether jaded, and this is antithetical to the straight path of Islam. Balance, then, is not merely a merciful device for adherents, but the shortest distance between a person and his or her spiritual objectives.

Q : Mais comment réagissez-vous face à l'irruption de la vie moderne et à certaines de ses conséquences ? R : D'abord par le silence, tant qu'elle ne constitue pas une menace. Par contre, si un modernisme incompatible avec notre religion ou de nature à disloquer notre identité et notre société s'introduisait chez nous, je serais dans l'obligation d'abord de crier "attention", pis de mettre le feu orange ; enfin, si ça ne suffisait pas, de passer au feu rouge. Q : Je vous posais cette question parce qu'en 1960, le parti communiste a été interdit et le jugement de la cour d'appel faisait état d'un discour prononcé par votre père, dans lequel il condamnait toute idéologie matérialiste R : Ce fut un jugement merveilleusement rendu. Les magisrats n'ont pas jug au fond. L'affaire a été abordée sous l'angle religieux. Le parti communiste étant athée ne pouvait avoir droit de cité dans un pays dont la religion est l'islam. Du reste, les communistes ont changés leur nom et ils ont été de nouveau autorisés. Q : Mais ils ne pouvaient pas tout de même changer leur doctrine ? R : Si. Je dois vous dire que tout ça s'est réglé sur la route allant d'Ifrane à Fès. Je conduisais ma DS et j'avais à mes côtés le docteur Messouak, mon médecin ORL qui était aussi l'adjoint d'Ali Yata, le secrétaire général du parti communiste. Ensemble, en discutant, nous avons trouvé le nouveau nom de son parti, PPS, Parti du Progrès et du socialisme [...] p96-97